|
Author
|
Topic: What is the lowest multiplication rate for Humans ?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
(2)
| |
| |
| |
CrazyDiamond7 writes: It is mathematically impossible that a population of 2,000 people would have taken a time longer than Ten thousand years to reach 1 million.
It's biologically possible though because people die. In fact, it's biologically possible for the population in ten thousand years to be zero. Mathematics is a wonderful thing but it doesn't trump reality.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Comprehending Equality
CrazyDiamond7 writes: It’s a simple equation, Exchange a certainty of death ( in case you keep eating incompatible foods ) for a possibility of life and happiness. Exchange a system in which you have nothing to win, for a system in which you have nothing to lose.
It's interesting that you call it an "equation". You do understand that the two sides of an equation are equal, don't you? All things being equal, I think nothing to lose is better than nothing to win.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Comprehending Equality
CrazyDiamond7 writes: They are equals because both options equate to a certainty...
That isn't true, though. You said:
quote:
Exchange a certainty of death ( in case you keep eating incompatible foods ) for a possibility of life and happiness.
There is no certainty of happiness. You also said:
quote:
Exchange a system in which you have nothing to win, for a system in which you have nothing to lose.
If I chose not to go into the casino, I have nothing to win and nothing to lose. If I chose to go into the casino, I have something to win but everything to lose. There's nothing equal in your "equations".
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Comprehending Equality
CrazyDiamond7 writes: For many people....
Yes, for some people. It is a certainty that somebody will get cancer but cancer isn't a certainty for everybody. Similarly, "happiness" is not a certainty for everybody. Your "equations" don't add up.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Average of years without multiplying: 4,750 per 5,000
Crazy writes: ... that equates to 4,750 years without multiplying per every 5,000 years, that it could be possible for people in Europe to have taken 25 thousand years to reach 1 million.
Have you ever heard of death?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: It is mathematically proven to be inconsistent but money speaks louder than Math
Crazy writes: I hoped you ever heard of lowest possible rate of multiplication for Humans to grow and multiply....
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.
Crazy writes: But you know money speaks louder than Math....
No it doesn't. Money is all about math.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
Crazy writes: The correct answer is Yes because there are samples of lowest possible rate: population x 15 - 80 % per every thousand years.
The correct answer is NO because there are extinctions. Even math doesn't trump reality. How do you explain extinctions?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
Crazy writes: 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.
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.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
Crazy writes: You know that the population levels of Europe have always grown and never remained stable during a timeline of five thousand years,
You know that the population levels of dinosaurs have stopped growing. Why is that?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
Crazy writes: If one day you could measure the difference between mammoths and Humans, and if you could measure that by the means of distance, that is how far your question stays out of topic
No, I'm comparing rate of growth of a human population with rate of growth of another animal population. How is that not a valid comparison? If human growth "must" be a non-zero minimum, according to you, then you need to explain why the dinosaurs' growth rate is not also a non-zero minimum. Why are you avoiding the question?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
Crazy writes: The above comparison can not be done unless you provide the rate of growth of Human population, that is, a person must have the lowest possible rate of growth ( per every 1,000 years ) that the Humans could keep on growing and multiplying.
Never mind the human population for now. Let's look at the dinosaurs: What was the dinosaur population at its peak? An approximation is fine - hundreds, thousands, millions, etc. What is the dinosaur population today?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: ULTIMATE LIST of Problems that Evolutionary theory has failed to solve
celestialGyoud writes: . bring up your list of problems that evolutionary theory has failed to solve . .
Problems that a theory can not solve YET are not a reason to call a theory obsolete.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: ULTIMATE LIST of Problems that Evolutionary theory has failed to solve
celestialGyoud writes: ... if there were Humans multiplying on this Earth 34,000 years ago then it would have taken several global exterminations of Humans occuring every five thousand years interval, because that is the only way the Human population would have reached 10 to 15 million people (10 thousand years ago) rather than 5,5 billion people.
You don't need global exterminations to limit population growth. All you need is a death rate near the birth rate. Unless you know what the birth and death rates were on a day-to-day basis in the past, your calculation is just garbage in, garbage out.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: The human origins theory did not explain this
goldenlightArchangel writes: ... 42 different languages and ethnic groups in Europe.
Which 42? Wikipedia lists more than a hundred.
"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 143 by jar, posted 01-11-2021 12:04 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
