My Dinosaur Challenge*

HitchSlap said:

I'll make is easy for you, name just one population geneticist that asserts the entire human raced evolved from 8 people.

Again, I'll make it easy for you, if the entire human race evolved from 8 people, we would all have Neanderthal DNA, or none us would have Neanderthal DNA. Those 8 people would have had NDNA, or they wouldn't.

Click to expand...

Heres some numbers for you.

Data from the Population Division,
Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis

World Population reached:

1 billion in 1804
2 billion in 1927, (123 years later)
3 billion in 1960, (33 years later)
4 billion in 1974, (14 years later)
5 billion in 1987, (13 years later)

World Population may reach:

6 billion in 1998, (11 years later)
7 billion in 2009, (11 years later)


So you see, going from 8 to 7 billion, not much of a leap.

smithed64 said:

Heres some numbers for you.

Data from the Population Division,
Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis

World Population reached:

1 billion in 1804
2 billion in 1927, (123 years later)
3 billion in 1960, (33 years later)
4 billion in 1974, (14 years later)
5 billion in 1987, (13 years later)

World Population may reach:

6 billion in 1998, (11 years later)
7 billion in 2009, (11 years later)


So you see, going from 8 to 7 billion, not much of a leap.

Click to expand...

You didn't answer his question.

smithed64 said:

I didn't run away from anything. If I don't know the answer. I don't know.

Click to expand...

Then if you want to know something ask politely and properly. If you do so I think that quite a few would gladly help you here.

smithed64 said:

But I did read what the author had to say about the article you read and I didn't.
He said the even the evolutionist don't understand what is going on with that pollen.
And they now are doing the waiting game to see what might come up.

He didn't mislead anything. He just agreed with the evolutionist.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read the article to learn why that's a misleading summary. I already posted what I think it says, in #233. It even quotes Arthur Chadwick, a creationist, as saying:

smithed64 said:

How bout I have, all except genetics. Admittedly need to read more on it.
Reproduction and biology, studied them also.

LOL...so you read the story..open minded. then you should believe.

You see, it doesn't take an open mind to not believe something. It takes a closed mind to disbelieve.
Not only that, blinded eyes, ears and brain.
You see, the term open minded, isn't faithless. It takes faith, to be open minded. It takes confidence in what you believe to be open minded.

So, I'm completely open minded about Noah. It happened.

Click to expand...

Genetics states it didn't. Or at least, there was no major human population bottleneck within the last 10,000 years.

From Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution - John Hawks, Keith Hunley, Sang-Hee Lee and Milford Wolpoff.

Subsequent research by geneticists, looking at major population bottlenecks from studies on Finnish, Native American, Chinese and Korean DNA estimate that somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000 years ago, humans went through a pretty serious population bottleneck, possibly as low as 1200-3000 individuals. Another, based on studies of African DNA, probably occurred around 150,000-200,000 years ago, and may have been as low as 1,500 individuals.

Subduction Zone said:

Then if you want to know something ask politely and properly. If you do so I think that quite a few would gladly help you here.

Click to expand...

I always ask politely.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Perhaps you should read the article to learn why that's a misleading summary. I already posted what I think it says, in #233. It even quotes Arthur Chadwick, a creationist, as saying:

"More difficulties are created than are solved by Burdick's report since it would require the explanation of the accumulation of all the Upper Precambrian sediments (10,000 ft.), their lithification and subsequent erosion before the first additional fossil forms were buried. Add to this the picture the many thousands of macerations of lower Paleozoic and Precambrian rocks which have been carried out in scores of laboratories around the world which have not supported Burdick's claims. There is a general absence of evidence for flowering plants below the middle Cretaceous. It is a responsibility and challenge to the creationists to develop a model of earth history which explains the absence. [....] In our hands, application of the cardinal principle of the scientific method - reproducibility - has failed to authenticate his record. thus the hypothesis that the grains are authentic examples of Precambrian pollen can only be treated with incredulity at present, even among creationists."​

Click to expand...

How is that misleading? He is saying the same thing.
They don't know what is going on with that particular pollen.
I disagree with it being the responsibility of the creationist to develop a model of earth history which explains the absence. Since both creationist and evolutionist have come to the same conclusion. They don't have a clue. So as I said, they do the waiting game to see what comes up next to substantiate their findings,in both camps.

There is a small problem with the evolutionary look at the population.

Here's a question for you.

If evolution were true and no Flood occurred, mathematical models predict that the Earth should have far, far more people than there are now. Where are they? Where have all the people gone?

smithed64 said:

I always ask politely.

Click to expand...

I have not seen that here yet. And you definitely have not asked properly.

smithed64 said:

There is a small problem with the evolutionary look at the population.

Here's a question for you.

If evolution were true and no Flood occurred, mathematical models predict that the Earth should have far, far more people than there are now. Where are they? Where have all the people gone?

Click to expand...

Those models are simply wrong. They make the false assumption that population growth is steady and positive. That was not the case. For long periods of times the growth rate was very close to zero. Going both up and down. The invention of agriculture is what started the growth curve that you are talking about. Before there was agriculture mankind's population was steady.

smithed64 said:

There is a small problem with the evolutionary look at the population.

Here's a question for you.

If evolution were true and no Flood occurred, mathematical models predict that the Earth should have far, far more people than there are now. Where are they? Where have all the people gone?

Click to expand...

Link pls.

smithed64 said:

There is a small problem with the evolutionary look at the population.

Here's a question for you.

If evolution were true and no Flood occurred, mathematical models predict that the Earth should have far, far more people than there are now. Where are they? Where have all the people gone?

Click to expand...

Which mathematical models? Can you provide one academic source that agrees with what you're asserting?

smithed64 said:

How is that misleading? He is saying the same thing.
They don't know what is going on with that particular pollen.
I disagree with it being the responsibility of the creationist to develop a model of earth history which explains the absence. Since both creationist and evolutionist have come to the same conclusion. They don't have a clue. So as I said, they do the waiting game to see what comes up next to substantiate their findings,in both camps.

Click to expand...

So, for the sake of argument, let's say that the matter of the pollen is a mystery (I don't know if that's actually the case but I'll take your word for it).

Your originally mentioned it when asked to provide an example of the fossil record being inconsistant with our current understanding of biology. There must have been billions of them found so it shouldn't be difficult.

smithed64 said:

How is that misleading? He is saying the same thing.
They don't know what is going on with that particular pollen.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that quote was misleading, it was an example of why I thought you should read the article.

I disagree with it being the responsibility of the creationist to develop a model of earth history which explains the absence.

Click to expand...

Meh - take it up with Chadwick.

Since both creationist and evolutionist have come to the same conclusion. They don't have a clue. So as I said, they do the waiting game to see what comes up next to substantiate their findings,in both camps.

Click to expand...

My reading of it is that the balance of the evidence suggests that the pollen is unlikely to be original, so is probably a result of contamination; however, without definitive evidence of contamination, it remains to be established. YMMV.

Subduction Zone said:

Those models are simply wrong. They make the false assumption that population growth is steady and positive. That was not the case. For long periods of times the growth rate was very close to zero. Going both up and down. The invention of agriculture is what started the growth curve that you are talking about. Before there was agriculture mankind's population was steady.

Click to expand...

Doesn't answer the question?

Let's just say, for giggles, that there was Adam and Eve.

And they had children. According to Josephus, a Historian at the time of Christ.

They had
33 sons
23 daughters

From that until now...wouldn't population be much more than 7.5 billion?

HitchSlap said:

Link pls.

Click to expand...

No link, its a question.

Jimmy D said:

Which mathematical models? Can you provide one academic source that agrees with what you're asserting?

Click to expand...

It's a question.

There are population formulas out there









World population during various epochs of earth history use the above formula, it’s just one of many.



Pn = the population after n generations with one man and one woman

n = the number of generations – found by dividing the total time period by the number of years per generation.

X = thought of as the number of generations that are alive when (Pn) is evaluated.
Therefore, if x is 2, the generations that are alive are generation’s n and n-1. This means that only a generation and its parents are alive. Seems reasonable to choose x=3 most of the time. Taking x=3 means that when (Pn) is evaluated generations n, n-1 and n-3 are all alive.



C= half the number of children in the family.

If each family has only two children, the population growth rate is zero, but a reasonable and conservative number of children per family is 2.1 to 2.5 as far as historical records are concerned. (The derivation of the above equation has been added as Note A)

Allowing for famine, disease, war, and disaster, a few sample calculations will show that the earth's population could have easily reached several billions of people between the time of Adam and the time of the flood. It is even quite possible that the preflood population was much higher than it is now.

Genesis 4:21-22 gives suggestions of the development of music and advanced technology during this period. Family reunions must have been spectacular affairs with average life-spans well over 900 years! Human culture and even technological achievements before the flood may well have been superior and dazzling in comparison to what we see now, even though evil in that society eventually increased to the point of that civilization's self-destruction. When the Flood destroyed the Antediluvian world only eight persons were rescued on the Ark of Noah.



Henry Morris (Ref. 1) gives the following examples of possible population growth rates of the earth at various times in history:

"...Assume that C = 2 and x = 2, which is equivalent to saying that the average family has 4 children who later have families of their own, and that each set of parents lives to see all their grandchildren. For these conditions which are not at all unreasonable, the population at the end of 5 generation would be 96, after 10 generations, 3,070; after 15 generations, 98,300; after 20 generations, 3,150,000; and after 30 generations, 3,220,000,000. In one more generation (31) the total would increase to 6.5 billion.

"The next obvious question is: How long is a generation? Again, a reasonable assumption is that the average marriage occurs at age 25 and that the four children will have been born by age 35. Then the grandchildren will have been born the parents have lived their allotted span of 70 years. A generation is thus about 35 years. Many consider a generation to be only 30 years. This would mean that the entire present world population could have been produced in approximately 30 x 35, or 1,050 years.

"The fact that it has actually taken considerably longer than this to bring the world population to its present size indicates that the average family is less than 4 children, or that the average life-span is less than 2 generations, or both. For comparison, let us assume then that the average family has only 3 children, and that the life-span is 1 generation (i.e., that C = 1.5 and x = 1). Then...in 10 generations the population would be 106 after 20 generations, 6,680; after 30 generations, 386,000; and after 52 generations, 4,340,000,000...At 35 years per generation, this would be only 1,820 years. Evidently even 3 children per family is too many for human history as a whole."




Note A. Derivation of the Population Growth Equation

The formula is a standard one and easily derived.

If one starts with two people and you assume an average of 2c children per family, then the number of children in the first generation would be 2c. The total population after one generation would be 2 + 2c. In the second generation one gets 2c2 individuals, and in the third generation, 2c3 and so on. Assuming no deaths, at the end of n generations one has

S(n) = 2 + 2c + 2c2 + 2c3 +....+2cn individuals.

Multiply both sides of the equation by c and subtract from the previous equation. This gives,

S(n) = 2 [c(n+1) - 1] / (c-1).

However we have to allow for people dying all the time. Let the average life-span be represented by x generations.

In the nth generation then all those who were in the (n-x) generation will have died.

Thus,

S(n-x) = 2[c(n-x+1) - 1] / (c-1)

And, P(n), the total surviving population in the nth generation is,

P(n) = S(n) - S(n-x) = 2[c(n-x+1)][cx - 1] / (c-1).

The way to understand this formula in practice is to use a hand calculator and play around with some "typical" values of x and c. If c = 1 then of course the population growth is zero. We do not know much about ancient population growth rates, but there is reasonable data for the past 2000 years, and 2.1 children per family seems to be typical. Evolutionary time scales require that the average number of offspring over most of history would have been only of the order of 2.0026 children per family. If this is the case, why a jump from 2c = 2.0026 to 2c = 2.1 only in the last 2000 years or so? Helpful illustrative examples can also be quickly run on a spreadsheet program such as Microsoft Excel. It is then very easy to vary x and c over a whole range of limits.

It is impossible to prove conclusively that the world fully populates itself in only a few thousand years. The point is, this short time scale scenario is actually more reasonable than millions of years given what we do know about population growth rates in the last millennia or two.





References

1. Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, Appendix 6 (Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, 1984). This book gives many more examples of population growth rates, considerations of disease, war, famine. etc. Available from the Institute of Creation Research (ICR). PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021. Excerpt: Babel and the World Population: Biblical Demography and Linguistics.


Genesis 4:21-22 gives suggestions of the development of music and advanced technology during this period. Family reunions must have been spectacular affairs with average life-spans well over 900 years! Human culture and even technological achievements before the flood may well have been superior and dazzling in comparison to what we see now, even though evil in that society eventually increased to the point of that civilization's self-destruction. When the Flood destroyed the Antediluvian world only eight persons were rescued on the Ark of Noah.

Henry Morris (ref 1) gives the following examples of possible population growth rates of the earth at various times in history:

"...Assume that C = 2 and x = 2, which is equivalent to saying that the average family has 4 children who later have families of their own, and that each set of parents lives to see all their grandchildren. For these conditions which are not at all unreasonable, the population at the end of 5 generation would be 96, after 10 generations, 3,070; after 15 generations, 98,300; after 20 generations, 3,150,000; and after 30 generations, 3,220,000,000. In one more generation (31) the total would increase to 6.5 billion.

"The next obvious question is: How long is a generation? Again, a reasonable assumption is that the average marriage occurs at age 25 and that the four children will have been born by age 35. Then the grandchildren will have been born the parents have lived their allotted span of 70 years. A generation is thus about 35 years. Many consider a generation to be only 30 years. This would mean that the entire present world population could have been produced in approximately 30 x 35, or 1,050 years.

"The fact that it has actually taken considerably longer than this to bring the world population to its present size indicates that the average family is less than 4 children, or that the average life-span is less than 2 generations, or both. For comparison, let us assume then that the average family has only 3 children, and that the life-span is 1 generation (i.e., that C = 1.5 and x = 1). Then...in 10 generations the population would be 106 after 20 generations, 6,680; after 30 generations, 386,000; and after 52 generations, 4,340,000,000...At 35 years per generation, this would be only 1,820 years. Evidently even 3 children per family is too many for human history as a whole."

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

I didn't say that quote was misleading, it was an example of why I thought you should read the article.

Meh - take it up with Chadwick.

My reading of it is that the balance of the evidence suggests that the pollen is unlikely to be original, so is probably a result of contamination; however, without definitive evidence of contamination, it remains to be established. YMMV.

Click to expand...

You know, you could have just said....I agree.

smithed64 said:

Doesn't answer the question?

Let's just say, for giggles, that there was Adam and Eve.

And they had children. According to Josephus, a Historian at the time of Christ.

They had
33 sons
23 daughters

From that until now...wouldn't population be much more than 7.5 billion?

Click to expand...

You keep forgetting the lesson that the cheetahs taught us:

Cheating cheetahs prosper

And in your long post where you quoted Morris: He is well outside of his area of expertise there. You might as well have written a post by a dentist about car repair.


You need to learn who and what valid sources are.

smithed64 said:

It's a question.

There are population formulas out there



View attachment 186642





World population during various epochs of earth history use the above formula, it’s just one of many.



Pn = the population after n generations with one man and one woman

n = the number of generations – found by dividing the total time period by the number of years per generation.

X = thought of as the number of generations that are alive when (Pn) is evaluated.
Therefore, if x is 2, the generations that are alive are generation’s n and n-1. This means that only a generation and its parents are alive. Seems reasonable to choose x=3 most of the time. Taking x=3 means that when (Pn) is evaluated generations n, n-1 and n-3 are all alive.



C= half the number of children in the family.

If each family has only two children, the population growth rate is zero, but a reasonable and conservative number of children per family is 2.1 to 2.5 as far as historical records are concerned. (The derivation of the above equation has been added as Note A)

Allowing for famine, disease, war, and disaster, a few sample calculations will show that the earth's population could have easily reached several billions of people between the time of Adam and the time of the flood. It is even quite possible that the preflood population was much higher than it is now.

Genesis 4:21-22 gives suggestions of the development of music and advanced technology during this period. Family reunions must have been spectacular affairs with average life-spans well over 900 years! Human culture and even technological achievements before the flood may well have been superior and dazzling in comparison to what we see now, even though evil in that society eventually increased to the point of that civilization's self-destruction. When the Flood destroyed the Antediluvian world only eight persons were rescued on the Ark of Noah.



Henry Morris (Ref. 1) gives the following examples of possible population growth rates of the earth at various times in history:

"...Assume that C = 2 and x = 2, which is equivalent to saying that the average family has 4 children who later have families of their own, and that each set of parents lives to see all their grandchildren. For these conditions which are not at all unreasonable, the population at the end of 5 generation would be 96, after 10 generations, 3,070; after 15 generations, 98,300; after 20 generations, 3,150,000; and after 30 generations, 3,220,000,000. In one more generation (31) the total would increase to 6.5 billion.

"The next obvious question is: How long is a generation? Again, a reasonable assumption is that the average marriage occurs at age 25 and that the four children will have been born by age 35. Then the grandchildren will have been born the parents have lived their allotted span of 70 years. A generation is thus about 35 years. Many consider a generation to be only 30 years. This would mean that the entire present world population could have been produced in approximately 30 x 35, or 1,050 years.

"The fact that it has actually taken considerably longer than this to bring the world population to its present size indicates that the average family is less than 4 children, or that the average life-span is less than 2 generations, or both. For comparison, let us assume then that the average family has only 3 children, and that the life-span is 1 generation (i.e., that C = 1.5 and x = 1). Then...in 10 generations the population would be 106 after 20 generations, 6,680; after 30 generations, 386,000; and after 52 generations, 4,340,000,000...At 35 years per generation, this would be only 1,820 years. Evidently even 3 children per family is too many for human history as a whole."




Note A. Derivation of the Population Growth Equation

The formula is a standard one and easily derived.

If one starts with two people and you assume an average of 2c children per family, then the number of children in the first generation would be 2c. The total population after one generation would be 2 + 2c. In the second generation one gets 2c2 individuals, and in the third generation, 2c3 and so on. Assuming no deaths, at the end of n generations one has

S(n) = 2 + 2c + 2c2 + 2c3 +....+2cn individuals.

Multiply both sides of the equation by c and subtract from the previous equation. This gives,

S(n) = 2 [c(n+1) - 1] / (c-1).

However we have to allow for people dying all the time. Let the average life-span be represented by x generations.

In the nth generation then all those who were in the (n-x) generation will have died.

Thus,

S(n-x) = 2[c(n-x+1) - 1] / (c-1)

And, P(n), the total surviving population in the nth generation is,

P(n) = S(n) - S(n-x) = 2[c(n-x+1)][cx - 1] / (c-1).

The way to understand this formula in practice is to use a hand calculator and play around with some "typical" values of x and c. If c = 1 then of course the population growth is zero. We do not know much about ancient population growth rates, but there is reasonable data for the past 2000 years, and 2.1 children per family seems to be typical. Evolutionary time scales require that the average number of offspring over most of history would have been only of the order of 2.0026 children per family. If this is the case, why a jump from 2c = 2.0026 to 2c = 2.1 only in the last 2000 years or so? Helpful illustrative examples can also be quickly run on a spreadsheet program such as Microsoft Excel. It is then very easy to vary x and c over a whole range of limits.

It is impossible to prove conclusively that the world fully populates itself in only a few thousand years. The point is, this short time scale scenario is actually more reasonable than millions of years given what we do know about population growth rates in the last millennia or two.





References

1. Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, Appendix 6 (Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, 1984). This book gives many more examples of population growth rates, considerations of disease, war, famine. etc. Available from the Institute of Creation Research (ICR). PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021. Excerpt: Babel and the World Population: Biblical Demography and Linguistics.


Genesis 4:21-22 gives suggestions of the development of music and advanced technology during this period. Family reunions must have been spectacular affairs with average life-spans well over 900 years! Human culture and even technological achievements before the flood may well have been superior and dazzling in comparison to what we see now, even though evil in that society eventually increased to the point of that civilization's self-destruction. When the Flood destroyed the Antediluvian world only eight persons were rescued on the Ark of Noah.

Henry Morris (ref 1) gives the following examples of possible population growth rates of the earth at various times in history:

"...Assume that C = 2 and x = 2, which is equivalent to saying that the average family has 4 children who later have families of their own, and that each set of parents lives to see all their grandchildren. For these conditions which are not at all unreasonable, the population at the end of 5 generation would be 96, after 10 generations, 3,070; after 15 generations, 98,300; after 20 generations, 3,150,000; and after 30 generations, 3,220,000,000. In one more generation (31) the total would increase to 6.5 billion.

"The next obvious question is: How long is a generation? Again, a reasonable assumption is that the average marriage occurs at age 25 and that the four children will have been born by age 35. Then the grandchildren will have been born the parents have lived their allotted span of 70 years. A generation is thus about 35 years. Many consider a generation to be only 30 years. This would mean that the entire present world population could have been produced in approximately 30 x 35, or 1,050 years.

"The fact that it has actually taken considerably longer than this to bring the world population to its present size indicates that the average family is less than 4 children, or that the average life-span is less than 2 generations, or both. For comparison, let us assume then that the average family has only 3 children, and that the life-span is 1 generation (i.e., that C = 1.5 and x = 1). Then...in 10 generations the population would be 106 after 20 generations, 6,680; after 30 generations, 386,000; and after 52 generations, 4,340,000,000...At 35 years per generation, this would be only 1,820 years. Evidently even 3 children per family is too many for human history as a whole."

Click to expand...

If you are interested have a read through this, it'll only take a couple of minutes