Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Homo Erectus build the Tower of Babel?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 14 of 51 (479335)
08-26-2008 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by LucyTheApe
08-26-2008 2:07 PM


Re: Homo erectus
Try P(t)=Cekt and see how long it takes to repopulate the world. 2 million years is nonsensical.
Does P(t)=Cekt accurately model human populations? What was the world's population in 1AD with this model? How many people were there in 1980 according to this model? What are the variables needed so that the population in 1AD and 1980 are consistent with what we know about the world populations during these times?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 2:07 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 4:42 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 20 of 51 (479366)
08-26-2008 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by LucyTheApe
08-26-2008 4:42 PM


Re: Homo erectus
5 Billion in a thousand years!
Now think how ridiculous millions of years sounds!
Are you seriously suggesting that there were 5billion people on the planet over 2,000 years before Jesus was born? I'd like to see how many people your 'accurate' model suggests there are today.
P(t) = 8e0.02027*4000 = 8e81.08
I make that out to be 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Do you think that's accurate?
If not, then we can conclude your model is flawed since it gives clearly absurd numbers.
The reason is clear: it assumes that humanity can and has always been able to grow exponentially. When you start looking at actual constraints of human population expansion and migration you find it is much more gradual with a lot more stagnation. The population tends towards its maximum at exponential rate, but as it hits that maximum mortality rates (disease, fighting over limited resources, high infant mortality etc) ensure it gets no further. Then a new piece of technology (like irrigation for example) comes along allowing for more resources to be gained increasing the maximum population a town or village can hold. Meanwhile, occasionally nomads would find a new place rich in potential and settle there.
Why would middle eastern people walk 5,000 miles within a year to find something that is in abundance closer to home? They wouldn't - it's unrealistic to think they would.
It would be interesting to see the actual proposed rate of expansion, a rough timeline with the number of people and the distance proposed that they go. The problems I foresee are spreading humanity far more thinly that practical too quickly, or not reaching places like China, India, Japan or America, quickly enough to account for what we know about history (actually they automatically fail on that alone, but it would be interesting to see how catastrophically they do fail.
So let's see: What was the approximate world population during the tower of Babel, how long did it take for them to spread across the world? What was the population of the world at that point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 4:42 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 5:44 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 40 of 51 (479571)
08-28-2008 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by LucyTheApe
08-26-2008 5:44 PM


Re: Homo erectus
The problem is with my initial assumptions. Don't blame me if you don't like the maths, blame Newton and Leibniz.
Are you suggesting that Newton and Leibniz believed that this model could accurately predict human population growth? If so, they were wrong and it can easily be seen.
If you want to model human population growth you need a much more complex model that includes variable survival rates, resources and so on. Humans don't continuously and perfectly reproduce, for a lot of recorded history many people that were born did not reproduce, they died before having the opportunity.
Both you and Coyote are missing the point; although at least you're beginning to see the consequences of dealing with vast quantities of time, it blows out.
If we use your model, with your assumptions, we get incorrect answers. That should tell you something is wrong with your models or your variables. Given that, since you attempted to use the model to demonstrate a point, I think your point thus remains unestablished.
Using the models of human growth that are more realistic we tend to see long periods of stagnation as the current population tries to overcome the high infant mortality and general lack of resources, medicine and the like. In these models, humans would have no motivation to migrate all the way to China - they had enough to survive on within a few miles of where they were born and deciding to take a long dangerous trip to a place you don't know exists on the hope that it might be better there is just not common practice.
More likely than not, humans moved rarely and gradually as local resources became too thin for even a small village to realistically exist. That this would happen happen often enough within a 1,000 years to reach China is highly unbelievable. Then, and only then, de we get to working hard to explain how China has 20,000 years of historical artifacts and how, despite Homo erectus being found there it is done so with no associated pottery etc.
All in all, it seems far less plausible than the alternatives of Homo erectus building a giant tower where all humans could gather and discuss which annoyed God so he created different languages and forced them to rapidly disperse and build up their population at unprecedented rates before settling into more recent history and suddenly stopping their growth and taking on a more natural looking growth rate.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 5:44 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 08-28-2008 11:35 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 45 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-28-2008 12:54 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024