Summations Only

Disconnection of time and place can be seen from the incompatibility between the consequences of having Humans on the Earth for a time no longer than 14 thousand years and the time proposed for their multiplication by the natural selection theory for the origin of the Human body.

This handsome fellow is dated at 30,000 years.

But the (unattributed) quote you included claims 14,000 years is the maximum.

How do you account for this discrepancy? And for this evidence that fully modern humans were around 30,000 years ago?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Mmm, but Coyote, what about the all knowing math that you folks keep touting? Which trumps; the dating or the math?

Shhhhh!

I'm waiting for a response to my question.

Don't tell, but we have fully human fossils going back well over 100,000 years. I want to lure the previous poster into an unfounded answer.

But seeing as he's a creationist, that will probably happen no matter what I post, eh?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That there were no Humans living on the Earth 70 thousand years ago is evident because ...

From Wiki:

The Toba supereruption (Youngest Toba Tuff or simply YTT[1]) occurred between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia), and it is recognized as one of the earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this supervolcanic event plunged the planet into a 6-to-10-year volcanic winter, which resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution. Some researchers argue that the Toba eruption produced not only a catastrophic volcanic winter but also an additional 1,000-year cooling episode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Your ideas about races and their origins are in error.

The classical races are adaptations to the environment (first), and based on descent groups (second).

Doesn't matter what any ancient myths say.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

How do you explain the several hundred different Native American languages in California?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Consider that most of our current technological advances have ocurred within the last 200 years

But some of the most important ones occurred much earlier:

(Click on the image to enlarge; those Acheulean handaxes were hot stuff for tens of thousands of years!)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Can you tell us something about these fossils? Were they skulls, a tooth, a hip or what? Where were they found, etc? Were there a lot of them and were they found consistently in strata dating progressively down from 100,000 or were there a few isolated specimens?

Here are some basics on the Herto skulls, about 160,000 years old:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1295624

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/herto_skulls.php

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...1_earliesthuman_2.html

There are a lot more examples out there, but learn a little about these first.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Buz, nothing will satisfy you, will it?

I'm not going to do all your homework for you when you simply dismiss everything I provide to you.

Yes, there were a lot of them. Look the details up yourself.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You have the tree of life totally wrong. But that's a common mistake.

This is the correct one:

Sorry, your post is incoherent.

You seem to be letting religious belief supersede common sense and empirical evidence. Not a very practical thing to do.

Human populations, for almost all of our history, have reacted to the forces of nature, the benefits of technology, the geographic spread of the populations, and a lot of other factors. It is only in the recent past that we have been able to significantly influence some of these factors.

But what you are trying to tell us (I think) relies on some form of young earth belief. It's hard to tell.

Could you try again, please? Maybe I have just misread what you posted.

Final Conclusion: That there were no families of Humans multiplying on the Earth 70 thousand years ago is evident, because of the fact that all things the Humans have done to the place called Earth during a single cluster of 7 thousand years, or when Earth’s population was 1 million persons, they would have done the same thing anyway during any of the three sequences of 14 thousand years that immediately precede the recent 7 thousand years. Disconnection of time and place can be seen from the incompatibility between the consequences of having Humans on the Earth for a time no longer than 14 thousand years and the time proposed for their multiplication by the natural selection theory for the origin of the Human body.

You are still posting gibberish.

The evidence shows that there were early humans some 200,000 years ago in some parts of the world. There were earlier groups also within genus Homo going back some 2 million years, and non-Homo groups before that.

The way that they multiplied started out identical to animals, but was gradually changed due to increasing culture and technology. The last 200 years has seen technology increase to be able to support much larger populations.

Can you address these topics? Can you show me where any of this is incorrect?

Because I still can't make out what you are trying to say.

Coyote writes: How do you explain the several hundred different Native American languages in California? The more different their languages are, the more demonstration it is that in the beginning they did not spread to America all by themselves. The understanding is given that their forefathers were brought and settled, by intelligent designer, in their respective lands.

Sorry, no. The more different their languages are, and the more languages, the more time has elapsed since the people first occupied that area.

The languages can readily be grouped into families and traced backwards, and the results of that linguistic research agree closely with evidence from DNA and archaeology.

No intelligent designer needed; people are perfectly capable of spreading into new territories, and languages are known to diverge through time. As an example, try reading Chaucer in the original old English and see how well you do. That literature is only a little over 600 years old, with writing to help standardize and stabilize the language.

But you knew all that. You just chose to believe ancient tribal myths instead of what the evidence shows.

A couple of other factors that apply.

The limit to population is the amount of food at the leanest part of the year, not the average.

This can be overcome to some degree by storage of food. As an example, you mentioned the Pacific Northwest; the fish from periodic runs were dried or smoked and stored for other parts of the year.

Trade with neighboring groups was also critical. Folks in lowlying areas would have access to different resources than folks in higher elevations and trade would help to even out the annual fluctuations and the periodic shortfalls.

Only the specificity of Math results can be called evidence to this matter. Evidences based on comparing lions with humans and other stories are not evidences but tales to help bulls fall asleep.

This is absolute nonsense.

Your ideas concerning population growth are just plain wrong, otherwise the earth would be covered with bacteria to the outer atmosphere.