Only a few seconds. Whenever a baby is born they are the most modern. So the most modern man has been on the earth right now.... no, right now...... no, wait, right now. :laugh:'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat' The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
I found this graphic that gives information on world population going back to about 100 000 years ago. I don't know how reliable the information on it is, but I hope it helps.Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes. -- M. Alan Kazlev
Well the Creationist would say that 4400 yrs ago after the flood occured the earths population was 8, that be Noah and the rest of his crew. They say that 4400 yrs is more then enough to bring the population to where it is today. Now if that be the case, what would the population be like if we had 200,000 yrs to populate the earth?
Well, if you totally ignore the facts that we require food to eat, fresh water to drink, oxygen to breathe and a place to stand, then taking that rate of exponential growth the human population would be approximately
This is quite a good illustration of why, when trying to think about biology, you should not ignore facts about biology which are known even to small children. In other words, don't be like Kent Hovind.
yes i have seen some of kent Hovinds presentations and i have to say he is very convincing for someone that the Evolutionists say doesant have a clue.
Has it occurred to you that the reason you find him convincing is that you are also short on clues when it comes to the relevant subject matter? Only I notice that the man doesn't manage to convice many biologists.
Modern Homo Sapiens did appear about 200 thousand years ago. However, if we can agree the science of the human genome correct, we can all trace our origin to some guy living in Africa only 60,000 years ago. The Kalahari Bushmen are thought similar. Ten thousand years later his descendants arrived all the way to Australia.
It comes to no surprise to me why this tribe survived whatever calamity felled every other human. Recently a trove of exquisite beads made of tiny shells was found in a cave near an estuary. The settlement dated around 70,000 years. These intelligent smooth skinned people were most likely very adept in the water. Food sources available to divers probably continued to be harvestable after the African landscape had been made inhospitable 60,000 years ago.
However, if we can agree the science of the human genome correct, we can all trace our origin to some guy living in Africa only 60,000 years ago.
"Y-Chromosone Adam" lived around 60,000; but that is not our most recent common ancestor, they lived much more recently. Just 7000 years ago, according to Rhode (other estimates put them between 5000 and 15000 year ago, and the most recent ancestor of all Europeans (and white americans) around 1000 AD.
Just 7000 years ago, according to Rhode (other estimates put them between 5000 and 15000 year ago, and the most recent ancestor of all Europeans (and white americans) around 1000 AD.
Which is just a measure of the mixing of genes.
Curiously none of the genetic information really says where or when these people lived, and the chronologies developed from DNA are only relative relationships. The time is estimated made based on assumed rates of evolution being relatively constant in these periods and assumed correlations with certain fossils.
We don't really know for sure whether mtDNA-eve correlates better with 195kyr old Homo sapien skull than yDNA-adam does, or how far apart in time they were.
Now if we had a 150kyr male or female fossil with soft tissue and extractable DNA we might be able to get a better estimate. My recollection from the discussion of Neanderthal DNA comparisons to sapiens DNA was that the fossil DNA records did not go back that far.
You could probably estimate a time baseline from the N/s DNA comparisons to compare to fossil records for when common ancestry was likely, but this is still an estimate pending further information.
Now we are hearing from the Neanderthal Code (not the cable program) That Neanderthal might have split as much as 500k years ago. Now, that is a mind bender. They are also finding no evidence of sapiens mixing in. I kind of figured that when the red hair gene for both were different.
Here is a graph from Wikpedia showing population growth since 10,000 BCE. Note that it is virtually flat up to c2000 BCE, and again from c200 BCE to c1000 CE and then takes off (there is some evidence that it's flattening off at the moment).
Crucially it is nowhere near logarithmic.
The pattern seems to be long periods of stability/slow growth, with bursts of growth occasioned by exploitation of new territory or technological changes, e.g. agriculture, medical advances.
EvC Forum is for debate on specific topics. In the science forums and in the religion forums, discussion is intended to take the form of debate on specific topics outlined in the opening post. Discussions in these forums are not conversations wandering from topic to topic. The way to change the subject is to propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.