What is the lowest multiplication rate for Humans ?

The lowest possible rate is negative - i.e. the birth rate less than the death rate. It happens; that's how we get extinctions.It's just ludicrous to claim that any species "must" multiply at a certain rate. No it doesn't. Money is all about math.

Is anyone of the impression that CD7 is sane?

* Is there a lowest possible rate of multiplication for Humans to grow and multiply ?*Pro/For: Yes*Con/Against: No*Pro/For: The correct answer is Yes because there are samples of lowest possible rate: population x 15 - 80 % per every thousand years.*Con/Against: It really doesn't matter since Evolution is not about that.* The correct answer implies about whether the Evolutionary explanation ( with regards to the origin of the Human body ) is consistent or not.*Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : The correct answer implies about whether the Evolutionary explanation ( with regards to the origin of the Human body ) is consistent or not.Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : Pro/For: The correct answer is Yes because there are samples of lowest possible rate: population x 15 - 80 % per every thousand years.

So where is the fire? I ran in here expecting something important!

*Hello Phat,What say you,Is there a lowest possible rate of multiplication for Humans to grow and multiply ?*

That would be zero - no growth, no multiplying.Unless you want to include negatives too? In that case, I suppose the lowest rate would be limited by the population size - you can't loose more people than you have.

The correct answer is NO because there are extinctions. Even math doesn't trump reality.How do you explain extinctions?

*Hello Cat Sci, I hope all is well,The question is about possibility. It is like asking you, What is the lowest possible rate for Humans to keep on growing and multiplying.Therefore, the answer to the Million Dollar Question is not zero or negative since zero or negative is not growing nor multiplying either.*Have a good job.*

*Hello Ringo,Your reply drifts to far away from the subject since the existence of extinctions has nothing to do with growing and multiplying or a lowest possible rate of multiplication.*

You don't like extinctions?Ok, consider this. The rate for human (or any other) population growth or decline is continually variable. As conditions change, so does the rate of growth or decline.You are trying to apply a fixed rate of growth as if that were real and constant. It isn't.Have you been smitten by religious belief and assumed that such belief substituted for or superceded scientific knowledge?

quote:

---

Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically proven to be inconsistent?

​

Yes. It is proven to be an error. Because it is definitely not possible that 2,000 people in Europe would have taken more than 25 thousand years to reach 1 million.

​

TOO many years and TOO few people! Simple but true! ( O.N.O. WV )

​

*

​

Evolutionary theory does much more than stating 'there were people on the range',

​

It states 'there were people on the range 35,000 years ago', without presenting its chronological basis.

​

*

​

Originally quoted from topix for Spotlight: How to Entangle a Juridical Panthera

---

*That is, Evolutionary theory must and should not omit what is the Evolutionary proposal for consistency which equates to a lowest possible rate of multiplication for Humans to grow and multiply.That is why Evolutionary statements are surrealist; they are without chronological evidence with regards to population growth and real life experiences, but just round and round. And round.*Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : Originally quoted from topix for Spotlight: How to Entangle a Juridical Panthera

Ah, then the answer is derived from the minimum amount of growth being n+1/n where n is the population size.Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

*n + 1 is not a multiplication formula.*Samples of regular multiplication formula for minimum increase.population x 25 - 80 % per every thousand yearspopulation x 12 - 85 % per every thousand years*

That doesn't matter.The minimum amount that a population can increase over some timeframe is one individual.Constraining the model to your "multiplication formula" is uneccessary.

On the contrary, what you subtract from the total has as much to do with the running total as what you add. You can have a birth rate as high as you like but it's the combination of birth rate AND death rate that determines the growth (if any) of the population.What you're doing is the equivalent of calculating your net worth by adding up your income every year and ignoring your expenditures.