|
Author
|
Topic: PROOF against evolution
|
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member
|
Re: humans came into existence
I didn't give a growth rate. I did a mathematical calculation. Looking at the population charts, I notice a considerable change in the growth patterns of the earth in the past 50 years. The fertility rate is 1.5 in developed countries, and 3.1 in underdeveloped nations. The growth rate 2/3 lower in 1950, and slightly lower during the 1700s. This means that the population is increasing more rapidly than commonly thought, and the population was not here as long as most people think. Based on statistics from the Population Reference Bureau
|
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 257 of 562 (112799)
06-04-2004 2:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 255 by jar
06-04-2004 1:53 PM
|
|
Re: humans came into existence
LOL!!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 255 by jar, posted 06-04-2004 1:53 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
fnord
Inactive Member
|
Re: humans came into existence
I did a mathematical calculation. Can you tell me more about that? What were the birth rates you used to begin with? Can you show the calculation that you did with them, and the result you got? f.
Het is even onvoorstelbaar dat God wel bestaat, als dat hij niet zou bestaan - C. Buddingh'
|
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 259 of 562 (112810)
06-04-2004 2:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 258 by fnord
06-04-2004 2:35 PM
|
|
Re: humans came into existence
It's obvious that William Williams' estimate was wrong, so I didn't use exponential units. Since the developed countries account for approximately 1/2 of the population of the earth, and the underdeveloped for the other half, I merged the two factors and did simple averages. This arrived me at a worldwide birthrate of 1. Based on census records, it went down a mere 0.2 percent overall from 1800-1950. Before this, major fluctuations in population growth occurred in the 1700s, and in the early years after the death of Christ (the anno Domini years). The OVERALL population pattern showed an OVERALL growth rate of 0.8, as opposed to the 0.312 received from JonF. Well, since 0.8 is 2.5641 times larger than 0.312, that means the world's population was growing at more than double that rate.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 258 by fnord, posted 06-04-2004 2:35 PM | | fnord has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: humans came into existence
quote:
I didn't give a growth rate. I did a mathematical calculation. Looking at the population charts, I notice a considerable change in the growth patterns of the earth in the past 50 years. The fertility rate is 1.5 in developed countries, and 3.1 in underdeveloped nations. The growth rate 2/3 lower in 1950, and slightly lower during the 1700s.
Your calculations are meaningless unless the numbers you put into it are valid. Can I interpret this statement as meaning you have no figures for population growth before 1700? So how can you assume your calculations have any validity before 1700?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 261 by fnord, posted 06-04-2004 4:00 PM | | Chiroptera has replied |
|
fnord
Inactive Member
|
Re: humans came into existence
Your calculations are meaningless unless the numbers you put into it are valid. Can I interpret this statement as meaning you have no figures for population growth before 1700? So how can you assume your calculations have any validity before 1700? My point too. Even more: population growth follows from population figures, not the other way around. The main point is, you can not simply take birth rates from the last 300 or even 2000 years and extrapolate them backwards to calculate the world population in 4000 BC. And btw, who is William Williams?
Het is even onvoorstelbaar dat God wel bestaat, als dat hij niet zou bestaan - C. Buddingh'
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 262 of 562 (112825)
06-04-2004 4:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 261 by fnord
06-04-2004 4:00 PM
|
|
Re: humans came into existence
quote:
...Population growth follows from population figures....
A point I was going to make, too, fnord, but then I decided the limited scope of the data set was a more interesting quibble. Another intesting point that I have brought up before. Newguy is attempting to use a mathematical model to come to conclusions about the real world. The results he is getting contradict what is already known about the real world. What he doesn't understand is that mathematical models never, ever refute actual data, nor do they ever invalidate well-established hypotheses. When a model produces results contradicting established fact, the first thing one does is to examine the model and either see if it can be fixed or whether it is too simplistic to be accurate. One can, of course, look at the data again to determine whether another interpretation of the data is warranted, or whether the collection of the data was problematical; but if there is no reason to dispute the data then one must always keep in mind the very real possibility that the model is in error.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 261 by fnord, posted 06-04-2004 4:00 PM | | fnord has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 263 of 562 (112828)
06-04-2004 4:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 261 by fnord
06-04-2004 4:00 PM
|
|
Re: If anyone has a copy of Michael Kremer's
Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million B.C. to 1990 that was published in 1993 IIRC, they may be able to check. I have a note that says he set the pre-christian era growthrate at about .0007 and from the year 1 until about 1700 at .075. J. R. McNeil & William H. McNeil, in The Human Web, placed the growth rate from 1-1700 at about 12% per century.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 261 by fnord, posted 06-04-2004 4:00 PM | | fnord has not replied |
|
yxifix
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 264 of 562 (132302)
08-10-2004 8:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by Percy
07-16-2003 10:01 PM
|
|
Percy writes: Moving on to Shannon and information, let us use an example that illustrates just how random mutation creates information. Take a gene in a population of organisms that codes for eye color. The population has only three eye colors, each coded by a specific 4-bit sequence or message (we'll use 1's and 0's to keep things simple, but they could as easily be the CAGT nucleotides of DNA).
0001 blue
0010 green
0100 brown Please keep in mind that the 4-bit sequences are the messages, while the colors are the expressions of those messages, in other words, the meaning. No other sequence ever appears for this gene until a random mutation occurs due to copying error during reproduction, and our message list increases by one:
0001 blue
0010 green
0100 brown
1000 yellow New information has been added to the gene pool for our population. Where before there were only three eye colors, now there are four. If the yellow message (the proper term is allele) is dominant then the organism has yellow eyes, otherwise its eyes will be the color of the dominant message. If it is recessive then it will have to await spreading a bit through the population until an organism receives two copies of the gene, and only then will the population gain a member with yellow eyes. Of course, as we've already discussed here, favorable mutations are rare. It is much more likely that a copying error in a coding DNA sequence would result in a negative outcome, eg:
0001 blue
0010 green
0100 brown
1100 blindness, organism dies
Well. a) You are using examples like 0001 is blue, 0010 is green, 0100 is brown, 1000 is yellow...something like it is and, simply, it was. But why? Why 0001 is not green, 0010 is not yellow, 0100 is not blue and 1000 is not brown? There is no explanation to this in your posts, Percy. b) Lets do a small exercise/example. Take a paper. Draw a circle. ...and now... tell me why it is a circle? Why it is not a square? I would like to read your answer, thank you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by Percy, posted 07-16-2003 10:01 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4148 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 265 of 562 (132303)
08-10-2004 8:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 264 by yxifix
08-10-2004 8:19 AM
|
|
How do you know it is a circle? maybe it's a square with a hole in it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 264 by yxifix, posted 08-10-2004 8:19 AM | | yxifix has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 266 by yxifix, posted 08-10-2004 8:53 AM | | CK has replied |
|
yxifix
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 266 of 562 (132305)
08-10-2004 8:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 265 by CK
08-10-2004 8:29 AM
|
|
Charles Knight writes: How do you know it is a circle? maybe it's a square with a hole in it? Good try. But I'm not interested in "philosophical" fantasies (as this is not that kind of forum, I guess) but in facts... The same but different way for you: Lets build a house. Now tell me why it is a house? Why it is not a bicycle? I hope you understand my point. 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 265 by CK, posted 08-10-2004 8:29 AM | | CK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 267 by CK, posted 08-10-2004 8:57 AM | | yxifix has replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4148 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 267 of 562 (132306)
08-10-2004 8:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 266 by yxifix
08-10-2004 8:53 AM
|
|
I do entirely - you are attempting to reach for the god of the gaps coupled with the "the water fits the hole in the ground". Your analogue is weak. At the moment, you may think that you have posed a problem that nobody has ever asked posed here before. It's not, it's the first one that most creationist try. I could just tell you why it's wrong, but where is the schooling in that? The next move is generally the "something couldn't come from nothing". This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-10-2004 08:04 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 266 by yxifix, posted 08-10-2004 8:53 AM | | yxifix has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 268 by yxifix, posted 08-10-2004 9:42 AM | | CK has replied |
|
yxifix
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 268 of 562 (132314)
08-10-2004 9:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 267 by CK
08-10-2004 8:57 AM
|
|
I do entirely - you are attempting to reach for the god of the gaps coupled with the "the water fits the hole in the ground". Well, what are you talking about? I'm asking clear question. If you do have answer on how was information "evoluted" , tell me the answer for this one as well, because you used it in your definition so, surely, it is very important part to know.
Your analogue is weak. So your one is strong?
At the moment, you may think that you have posed a problem that nobody has ever asked posed here before. It's not, it's the first one that most creationist try. That means you know the answer? So why those words? Give me an explanation. That's all I'm asking for. Thank you.
I could just tell you why it's wrong, but where is the schooling in that? Is it wrong? Really? What exactly is wrong?
The next move is generally the "something couldn't come from nothing" SURE ! ...I think the evolucionists believe in this as well... or am I not right? So what's the point of this sentence? One last thing... I'm not curious about "scientific-philosophical" thoughts... I'm interested in facts, Charles. I'm not interested what you think about me or somebody else, what you think about my thoughts etc etc. So if you don't know the answer, or you don't want to answer me clearly, spare your words for different threads. Thank you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 267 by CK, posted 08-10-2004 8:57 AM | | CK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 269 by CK, posted 08-10-2004 9:52 AM | | yxifix has replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4148 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 269 of 562 (132318)
08-10-2004 9:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 268 by yxifix
08-10-2004 9:42 AM
|
|
because you used it in your definition I'm confused - what definition?  I don't remember offering one.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 268 by yxifix, posted 08-10-2004 9:42 AM | | yxifix has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 270 by yxifix, posted 08-10-2004 10:33 AM | | CK has replied |
|
yxifix
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 270 of 562 (132329)
08-10-2004 10:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 269 by CK
08-10-2004 9:52 AM
|
|
"you" = "evolucionists" Read message 264. It was pointed exactly to Percy's definition (as stated). ...I thought you knew, what Percy was talking about in this discussion..... so why do you answer to questions you don't read and understand?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 269 by CK, posted 08-10-2004 9:52 AM | | CK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 271 by CK, posted 08-10-2004 10:38 AM | | yxifix has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2