Why is evolution so controversial?

You are supposed to be showing us which logic is being defied. So far your logic is that constant growth is more appropriate than stagnant growth.On the other hand you claim that simple modifications to the constant growth model can model a stagnant population.Now where is the logic in your argument?

Perhaps, if you have just a minute, you could tell us when you believe modern humans originated??

This is really bad thinking and bad math. Yes you can bastardize the formula to give you correct beginning and end results, but it will NOT model the actual population growth pattern of a population with a limited necessary resource. There's another earth available? Actually, (a) the growth curve does not work "for bacteria in a jar with limited growth media" because that growth is not exponential after the bacteria has spread out (substrate becomes unavailable for new growth at the center, for instance, breaking the assumptions for continuous growth, and this become critical as the bacteria fill the "jar" and now new growth is possible and old bacteria die), ...... and (b) there are starving people in the US and around the world -- the ability to create food is offset by the need to distribute it and by the land requirements for other uses -- how much food is grown in a parking lot? How much food is grown in New York City?People are dying of starvation. How does your model account for deaths?Even IF food is not a limiting factor there is the issue of space per person.Finally, I have already shown this graph on Message 182 on another thread:

quote:

---

This is a graph that I drew for my Master's Thesis in 1972 (before home computers were readily available).

​

​

You can clearly see the population explosions and then capping as population saturated the available ecology, first for hunting, then for agricultural, followed by the industrial revolution and the (current) global revolution. Population grows to fill the ecological niche, and then the next innovation occurs that allows more population.

---

The middle line represents the growing proportion of humans living in an urban non-food producing habitat, a habitat that precludes the land from being used for agriculture so the amount of land available for food growth is shrinking. Just like the quantity of substrate available for the bacteria decreases over time.Curiously it is based on actual population and population density data. Humans differ from other animals in their ability to innovate new ways to produce and distribute food, but it is still an exhaustible resource.You just cannot model population size with a single simplistic formula.Enjoy

Why do you keep working so very hard at staying so very wrong? You are taking creationist willful ignorance to ever deeper depths. You're like a remark in a negative officer fitrep I once heard about: "He reached rock-bottom and started to dig." I have been very clear and forthright. Daphne! You're projecting again!A "local constant"? That you then apply globally? Just what the frak are you talking about? What the frak kind of creationist deception are you trying to deploy? Or have you simply succeeded in confusing yourself completely?Pure birth model uses the equation for exponential growth. The logistic model also uses the equation for exponential growth. The only difference between them is that the pure-birth model, your model, uses a constant rate, given in our discussions as r, whereas the logistic model uses a variable rate, a rate that can change from one generation to the next in response to environmental and other factors.You oppose the logistic model and espouse the pure birth model, while at the same time do a lot of obfuscating waffling about your constant rate somehow magically changing. Yet again, a variable constant? Where the hell did you study math? -- I am not going to make the mistake of assuming that you had actually learned anything. Yet again, I wrote that essay! I read the 13 resources in my bibliography. Dr. Henry Morris is apparently the ultimate source for your human population growth claim, so you really should learn what his model was. I present his treatment of his idea starting from his 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, up to three of his presentation of it in the mid-1970's and ending with another presentation in 1985; it's all right there in the bibliography. I chased down some of his own sources (though I learned when researching his moondust claim that he could not be trusted to have actually read or even looked at the sources that he "cited", but then that's common for creationists) and compared what they were claimed to have said v what they actually said. And I cited critics of the model.But of course you didn't understand any of it. Assuming that you had even attempted to actually read it. Back to the island yet again!That population of no more than 100 people could live on that island for over 50,000 with effective zero population growth. Please explain why that could not be the case.Your claim is pure bullshit. The basis for your claim is pure bullshit. In order to try to defend your claim you have to resort to pure bullshit.Cut the shit and realize that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Try to learn how to read so that I do not have to repeatedly explain the glaringly obvious to you over and over and over ....You even have trouble parsing English? But it's your native language! Are you that hopeless?Go back to school. Get remedial training in reading. And in math! At the very least, learn what a constant is.And learn to think! Yes, I do realize that for you thinking is a sin, perhaps even one of the Deadly Sins, but you really do need to learn how to think.And stay away from "creation science". That crap will rot your brain out faster than anything else can.Edited by dwise1, : think!

Let's watch your non-silly world grow:After 300 years, 4000 years ago, or 2000BC the population is 35. These 35 people started creating neolithic Britain (Stonehenge), the Indus Valley Civilization, started the Bronze age in Chine, built Palaces in Greece and found Judaism. Abraham, then, being one of the 35.When Moses was demanding the Egyptian Pharaoh (ruler of a civilization) let his people go, in 1500BC, there were 436 people on Earth.

1. Abraham - 1 among 35
2. Moses - 1 among 436
3. King David - 1 among 5,300 (2sf)
4. Daniel's world had 65,000 people in it
5. Charlemagne - 43,000,000
6. Henry VIII - 1,400,000,000!!!!!!
7. Lincoln - 6.4 billion
8. 2,000AD - 1.9 x 10⁹⁴

Hrm, I think the rounding you did made a big difference. Let's try a more accurate one: 0.00478831033589

1. Abraham - 1 among 34
2. Moses - 1 among 369
3. King David - 1 among 4,000 (2sf)
4. Daniel's world had 44,000 people in it
5. Jesus' world had 490,000 people total
6. Charlemagne - 800 - 22 million
7. Henry VIII - 1500 - 640 million
8. Lincoln - 1800 - 2.7 billion
9. Himmler - 1900 - 4.3 billion
10. Bill Murray - 1950 - 5.5 billion
11. Angelina Jolie - 1975 - 6.2 billion
12. Emma Watson - 1990 - 6.7 billion
13. 2,000AD - Noah Cyrus - 7 billion

That doesn't really make much sense either. Here is another view:

1. Abraham - 1 among 27 million (if pop was 8 300 years ago, r would = 0.05)
2. Moses - 1 among 35 million (new r = 0.0005)
3. King David - 1 among 50 million (r = 0.0007)
4. Daniel's world had 100 million people in it (r = 0.001)
5. Jesus' world had 170 million people in it (r = 0.001)
6. Charlemagne - 800 - 220 million (r = 0.0003)
7. Henry VIII - 1500 - 425 million (r = 0.0009)
8. Lincoln - 1800 - 900 million (r= 0.003)
9. Himmler - 1900 - 1.7 billion (r = 0.006)
10. Bill Murray - 1950 - 2.5 billion (r = 0.008)
11. Angelina Jolie - 1975 - 3.9 billion (r = 0.02)
12. 2,000AD - Noah Cyrus - 6 billion (r = 0.02)
13. 2011AD - Haven (J Alba's baby) - 7 billion (r= 0.01)

What an odd model, population seemed to be doubling every 500 years but in the last 200 years we've increased in population size by seven-fold. What a silly idea.abe: the effective 'r' values Either your numbers are lies, or the Book of Numbers is

quote:

---

Num 1:23 - Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Simeon, were fifty and nine thousand and three hundred.

---

So is that a lie, or are your numbers, which insist the global population was less than 500 at this time a lie?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yet again, I wrote that essay! I read the 13 resources in my bibliography. Dr. Henry Morris is apparently the ultimate source for your human population growth claim, so you really should learn what his model was. I present his treatment of his idea starting from his 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, up to three of his presentation of it in the mid-1970's and ending with another presentation in 1985; it's all right there in the bibliography. I chased down some of his own sources (though I learned when researching his moondust claim that he could not be trusted to have actually read or even looked at the sources that he "cited", but then that's common for creationists) and compared what they were claimed to have said v what they actually said. And I cited critics of the model.
But of course you didn't understand any of it. Assuming that you had even attempted to actually read it.

---

My point still standsYou can write any essay you want, but still have not addressed my point I am not here to read an essay.My example:Effective zero population growth in humans from a initial population of 10,000 over 50,000 years is a fairytale. It is a whole cloth fabrication and defies logic. I wait for a answer Otherwise you can keep your straw man to yourself.About exponential growth in human populationStep back and look at the recorded of human population . The one posted from the wiki is good. Does the curve look exponential? Define a growth curve yourself and we can discuss it (and I can repudiate it).Now about that zero population growth Have populations ever been shown to be flat and not be on the verge of extinction? Show me and we can look at the particulars.You pass the class for excess verbiage now show me you can present a reasonable argument.

quote:

---

What an odd model, population seemed to be doubling every 500 years but in the last 200 years we've increased in population size by seven-fold. What a silly idea.

---

What is the challenge here? To fit a (r) to your numbers? I can do that. Now here is your questionEffective zero population growth in humans from a initial population of 10,000 over 50,000 years is a fairytale. It is a whole cloth fabrication and defies logic.How can it be true?

The challenge is that since using your numbers and model produces absurd results -have to admit this or show how I'm wrong. The maximum sustainable population size was steady until such time as methods and technology existed (ie., agriculture) to increase the maximum sustainable population size, at which point the population would increase in size until it found a new plateau. By 5,000 years ago or so, the plateaus were short lived and they became shorter and shorter till they stopped existing. Right now we are growing at a huge rate - chasing a maximum sustainable population size that we are continuing to find ways of increasing. If Malthus was right, there is a real risk we'll hit a plateau and it will hurt.In other words, there is no reason to think that r≈0 for a period is a fairytale. It happens all the time, just not to humans for a long time.

And it would be stunning if you couldn't, seeing as the numbers are generated from specified r values.The challenge for you is to explain why these numbers do not represent actual population numbers for those dates but rather impossible ones:436 people to build the pyramids? really? Curiously I don't need to argue that "zero population growth in humans from a initial population of 10,000 over 50,000 years" occurred to know that your model is false. This is a straw man, as it is not what is being argued afaik. Certainly it is not critical to you being wrong.What the argument involves is whether we use real population numbers or fantasy numbers and whether we model real population growth patterns versus an imaginary growth patterns.And I have and I can use real numbers (see Message 633) while your numbers are imaginary. So you are not here to learn but to pretend to know. Looks like Coyote has you pegged.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : ...

First off any species in equilibrium with their ecology will oscillate around an average value due to perturbations in climate etc. Moose and wolves on Isle Royale for example as one of thousands of case studies.Second, agriculture was the second revolution in providing sustenance, the first was hunting and the technology for making weapons, when hominids went from scavengers to killers. See my graph.Enjoy

According to the genetic bottleneck theory, between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human populations sharply decreased to 3,000—10,000 surviving individuals.[32][33] It is supported by genetic evidence suggesting that today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago.[34] Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia

quote:

---

You just cannot model population size with a single simplistic formula.

---

I agree and I was carful not to be dogmatic about the formula I used (it provided only a foil for my point.).The illustration is that human growth is exponential. I like the graph supper.Now you can answer the question How could a breeding population of humans remain at effective zero growth for 50,000 years?

quote:

---

The challenge is that since using your numbers and model produces absurd results -have to admit this or show how I'm wrong.

---

What absurd results are you referring to? My simple point is that human population growth is exponential by all observable and recorded evidence.

quote:

---

The maximum sustainable population size was steady until such time as methods and technology existed (ie., agriculture) to increase the maximum sustainable population size, at which point the population would increase in size until it found a new plateau. By 5,000 years ago or so, the plateaus were short lived and they became shorter and shorter till they stopped existing. Right now we are growing at a huge rate - chasing a maximum sustainable population size that we are continuing to find ways of increasing. If Malthus was right, there is a real risk we'll hit a plateau and it will hurt.

---

The problem is that if you are talking 50,000 or 70,000 year time frames and we were fully human back then (no significant evolution in 50,000 years). With our enlarged brains why is the last 5000 years so magical? Technology only reared it’s head now?Your story can be reallocated to the other fables of evolution.

By observable and recorded do you mean, in the last few thousand years?Why would what is happening now, be reflective of what was happening 10s of thousands of years ago? Surely you realize that the world is different, and thus what populations are doing is different? No, technology has been popping up for a long time, since before homo sapiens entered the scene. This isn't really a thread to discuss why agriculture really started kicking off 5-10,000 years ago and not 45,000 years ago. That's what the facts show happened. I mean - why was over 4,000 years from Noah to mobile phones? Were the last 200 years magical? Really? I thought any high school math student knows about the population growth curve. All follow that curve. Even humans. Are you saying this isn't true, now? Because population growth curves have plateau phases and exponential phases. You are pointing at a recent exponential phase and saying 'see - no plateaus - therefore human populations do not and have not ever had one'.It would be like me looking back at my direct observations and noting 'England has never been at war with Germany, except - in a sense - East Germany for a few years, in my observations therefore WWI and WWII are able to be reallocated to the fables of anti-German sentiment'Even if humans have always grown exponentially - would you agree that this will not always be so?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Since you are reluctant to answer my question as to when you think modern humans had their origin, I can only assume you believe it was about 6,000 years ago and are trying to hide that fact.And that your questionable mathematics is just a back-door way to try to argue for such a young age.