A Fundamental Philosophical Error within Theories of Evolution.

[Astrophile]

What world history? Most is made up if humans have been around for 200 K years. You have perhaps 190 K years of undocumented historical silence.

There is nothing wrong with his math and you need to redo yours. The population was 6 bil around 1999-2000. Divide that number by 2 for approx 30-31 times and you are down to the approx number for Noah. 6 people. That works out to a overall doubling every 150 yrs which is growth at .46% assuming 4500 yrs ago. Batton is right in the ballpark for two different groups.


The article lists the population at around 300 mil at the time of Christ resurrection. ''If there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection,2'' His footnote is to the Encyclopedia Britannica. You ignored that.

He references an overall growth at around .46 and the numbers work out and now you produce empirical evidence based on anything from the present to justify a population of 7.5+ bil people given humans have been around 200 K years with a 10 K seed population. You can quibble about the numbers during the 1st century but you cannot about the math. From 1600 to 2020 you have an expontential doubling 4 times from 500 mil to 8 bil.

If you have a population of 6 billion in 1999-2000 and a doubling time of 150 years, and if Jesus was crucified in 33 AD (13.11×150 years before 2000), then the world population at the time of the crucifixion was 677,000. This doesn't fit the estimate of 300 million given by the Encyclopedia Britannica. The 300 million people in 33 AD implies an average annual rate of increase from 33 to 2000 of 0.15%, and a doubling time of 455 years. At that rate it would take 13600 years to go from six people to six billion.

 

[dmmesdale]

So he changes the rate as needed but claims an "average rate". You really can't do both.

Yes you can.

If the rates change that much then his "average rate" claim is worthless.

It better jibes with current population trends. Even if you allow for a .01% growth rate and it doubles every 7000 years it doubles 28.57 times in 200 K years. Now start with a seed population of 10 K 200 K years ago and double it 28 times and good luck with that.

By the way, we do have records that go back past 200,000 years. We just do not have written records.

You got nothing. Historical silence and blind faith is what you have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You call that logic?

I do believe that was an example of your "logic".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes you can. It better jibes with current population trends. Even if you allow for a .01% growth rate and it doubles every 7000 years it doubles 28.57 times in 200 K years. Now start with a seed population of 10 K 200 K years ago and double it 28 times and good luck with that.

Sorry, but it clearly doesn't. The assumption of constant growth is just wrong. And then you can't account for the lack of a near extinction population bottleneck.

You got nothing. Historical silence and blind faith is what you have.

Nope, you are projecting. We have mountains of scientific evidence. You have none. You have blind faith. We have evidence and reason.

 

[dmmesdale]

If you have a population of 6 billion in 1999-2000 and a doubling time of 150 years, and if Jesus was crucified in 33 AD (13.11×150 years before 2000), then the world population at the time of the crucifixion was 677,000. This doesn't fit the estimate of 300 million given by the Encyclopedia Britannica. The 300 million people in 33 AD implies an average annual rate of increase from 33 to 2000 of 0.15%, and a doubling time of 455 years. At that rate it would take 13600 years to go from six people to six billion.

Your errror is assuming a constant and not overall. Now where is your positive case for a 10 K human population 200 K years ago given the overall growth rates for the last 400 yrs as a baseline? Just like Darwin did. Assume the present was the key to the past? If we can't use the present growth rates then by the same standard we cannot assume bio change in the present retrodicts to bio change in the deep past since the presnt has zero to do with the past. Which is it? Do we falsify Darwin? Or are you going to come up with some excuse for double standards?

 

[dmmesdale]

Sorry, but it clearly doesn't. The assumption of constant growth is just wrong. And then you can't account for the lack of a near extinction population bottleneck.

What extinction? The only multiple recorded extinction was the flood of Noah. Others are speculation absent corroboration.

Nope, you are projecting. We have mountains of scientific evidence. You have none. You have blind faith. We have evidence and reason.

Mountains of scientific evidence. Produce some for all life from nonlife. Show us the math assuming a human population of 10 K 200 K years ago and show us how it jibes with current population trends.

 

[dmmesdale]

I do believe that was an example of your "logic".

I don't care what you believe, only what you can prove or make a reasonable case based on empirical evidence. Life from nonlife is blind faith. Prove it wrong. Show some precedent or compelling evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What extinction? The only multiple recorded extinction was the flood of Noah. Others are speculation absent corroboration.

Nope, the flood of Noah was refuted before the theory of evolution came out.

Mountains of scientific evidence. Produce some for all life from nonlife. Show us the math assuming a human population of 10 K 200 K years ago and show us how it jibes with current population trends.

Math does not work that way. You are assuming a constant growth rate when the population was known to be both increase and decrease.

And you attempted to move the goalposts, though there is evidence for abiogenesis too. But unlike evolution there are still many unanswered questions in abiogenesis. When you move the goal posts you are admitting defeat. Are you sure that you want to admit that you are wrong when it comes to evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't care what you believe, only what you can prove or make a reasonable case based on empirical evidence. Life from nonlife is blind faith. Prove it wrong. Show some precedent or compelling evidence.

I can support my claims which is much better than you can do. And I do not have to "prove your claim wrong". You made a positive claim, the burden of proof is actually upon you.

But as I said I will gladly support my claims with evidence, but I think that you need to learn what is and what is not evidence first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

dmmesdale, one thing that we can measure is how fast the genome of a population changes. That along with population estimates allows projection backwards. About 10,000 years ago the cheetah population had a near extinction event. The effective population of cheetahs was lowered to less than ten. As a result today one can take a skin graft from one cheetah and graft if onto practically any other cheetah. Organ transplants without matching. Any two cheetahs will be more closely related to each other than you are to a brother or a sister, unless you have an identical twin.

Why Cheetahs Never Prosper (or, The Genetic Bottleneck Problem)


That is what we would expect for all life if the Noah's Ark story was true. There would be no waiting lists for organs. If one person died his or her organs could be immediately harvested and given to whomever needed them without looking for a match.

 

[dmmesdale]

Nope, the flood of Noah was refuted before the theory of evolution came out.

It has never been refuted. Historical science is inexact. Esp when they get into deep time.

Math does not work that way. You are assuming a constant growth rate when the population was known to be both increase and decrease.

Then you go to overall, not constant and math does work that way. If they do it with money then they can do it with population. Nobody assumes a constant growth rate with money or stock. They have charts and look for trends and overall growth. Some months i lost money and others there were big gains. You go with the overall growth.

And you attempted to move the goalposts, though there is evidence for abiogenesis too.

Zero evidence or precedent.

But unlike evolution there are still many unanswered questions in abiogenesis. When you move the goal posts you are admitting defeat. Are you sure that you want to admit that you are wrong when it comes to evolution?

The context was blind faith and if you believe in all life here from nonlife then you are operating on blind faith. At least with the flood of Noah we have written evidence from history up to and including Jesus. So why is Jesus wrong and the moderns right? That being since Jesus and even Josephus were around 2000 yrs closer to the events in question? Were all the kings of Europe also wrong? That is all evidence from history. It is not blind. It has a historical basis into what they believed.

Life from nonlife? That is blind. There is no empirical basis for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has never been refuted. Historical science is inexact. Esp when they get into deep time.

Of course it has been refuted. Your denial does not change a thing. And "historical science" is just science. It is more than accurate enough.

Then you go to overall, not constant and math does work that way. If they do it with money then they can do it with population. Nobody assumes a constant growth rate with money or stock. They have charts and look for trends and overall growth. Some months i lost money and others there were big gains. You go with the overall growth.

Nope, you are employing a false analogy. Yes, one can do it for simple bank accounts. This is not the stock market even. Is there a limiting factor on how high the market can rise? And your average gains in the stock market can have a lot to do with what you pick as a starting point. It is better to look at any one stock rather than the market as a whole. A stock may go up or down. It may go down to zero. The same can hapen with any species. It may ride extremely high for a long time and then crash and burn.

Zero evidence or precedent.

Wrong again. When you make an unsupported claim I can refute it with another.

The context was blind faith and if you believe in all life here from nonlife then you are operating on blind faith. At least with the flood of Noah we have written evidence from history up to and including Jesus. So why is Jesus wrong and the moderns right? That being since Jesus and even Josephus were around 2000 yrs closer to the events in question? Were all the kings of Europe also wrong? That is all evidence from history. It is not blind. It has a historical basis into what they believed.

Wrong again, we have scientific evidence for abiogensis. Even creationists believe in an abiogenesis event. And where do you get your "Jesus" claim from? He made one poetic reference to the ark story that was similar to saying "She's as old as the hills". He never said "Noah's Ark really happened". Jesus quite often used allegory and other methods to teach his lessons.

Life from nonlife? That is blind. There is no empirical basis for it.

I am very sure that even you believe in "Life from nonlife". That is if you can keep yourself from making an equivocation error. Instead of making false statements that you cannot support you should be asking how we know that there was an abiogenesis event.

 

[Gene2memE]

What world history? Most is made up if humans have been around for 200 K years. You have perhaps 190 K years of undocumented historical silence.

Overall, not constant. Even if you are right it would assume constant, not overall. He references 300 mil at the time of Christ! Did you see that?

...


The article lists the population at around 300 mil at the time of Christ resurrection. ''If there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection,2'' His footnote is to the Encyclopedia Britannica. You ignored that.

Yeah, I saw it. I laughed at it and then ignored it, because it makes his math even worse (if such a thing is possible).

If you do assume a global population of 300 million at the time of Christ (assuming death at circa 34 AD), and a 0.44/0.45% growth rate (i.e. a doubling ever 155 or 156 years) then the global population at the moment should be somewhere north of 2 quadrillion.

Look, with a doubling every 156 years you get:
34 AD: 300 million.
190 AD: 600 million
346 AD: 1.2 billion
502 AD: 2.4 billion
658 AD: 4.8 billion
814 AD: 9.6 billion (more than the current global population)
970 AD: 19.2 billion
1126 AD: 38.4 billion
1282 AD: 76.8 billion
1438 AD: 1.536 trillion
1594 AD: 3.072 trillion
1750 AD: 6.144 trillion
1906 AD: 1.228 quadrillion

Or, if we assume a global population of 300 million at AD 34 and extrapolate backwards every 156 years, you end up at 6500 years ago for your boat people.

There is nothing wrong with his math and you need to redo yours. The population was 6 bil around 1999-2000. Divide that number by 2 for approx 30-31 times and you are down to the approx number for Noah. 6 people. That works out to a overall doubling every 150 yrs which is growth at .46% assuming 4500 yrs ago. Batton is right in the ballpark for two different groups.

Sure, but if you use that math (6 billion people in the year 2000, halving every 156 years of so) then you end up with a global population of:

11 people in 2526 BC. Which is the same time as the Mohenjo-daro city was constructing collective housing for 5,000 people and the city had a population of about 20,000. In fact, the whole Indus Valley civilisation apparently didn't notice a global flood was taking place.

1.4 million people in 128 AD. When the Roman Empire was at its peak of about 65 million people.

93.7 million in 1064, when the 1086 Domesday book gives the taxable population of England and Wales (excluding the two largest cities, London and Winchester, and anything north of Carlisle and Newcastle) as 1.71 million.

3 billion in 1844, when global population estimates never passed 3 billion until 1959/1960.

He references an overall growth at around .46 and the numbers work out and now you produce empirical evidence based on anything from the present to justify a population of 7.5+ bil people given humans have been around 200 K years with a 10 K seed population. You can quibble about the numbers during the 1st century but you cannot about the math. From 1600 to 2020 you have an expontential doubling 4 times from 500 mil to 8 bil. You cannot extrapolate them numbers back 200 K years. You get far better results 4500 years.

For the majority of human history, until the onset of the industrial revolution, global population has waxed and waned. Human populations have not gone inexorably upwards, not even in comparatively recent history:

The 12th/13th century Mongol conquests probably shrank the global population by 5% over a period of 50 years;
The Black Death in the 14th century may have killed over 200 million people (circa 30% of the global population at the time);
The Spanish Flu outbreak from 1918 to 1920 maybe 50 to 100 million, 3-6% of the global population possibly more.

Human growth rates were generally very low prior to the industrial revolution. There were periods of stronger growth, even exponential growth, but you simply cannot extrapolate these out. It just doesn't work for anything bar short timescales.

If you examine the math, or you examine history, neither bears out a conclusion that there were 8 people who stepped off a boat 4000 to 5000 years ago.

It boils my brain that you'd even countenance defending such nonsense.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You call that logic?

That's the logic you're using.

 

[dmmesdale]

Yeah, I saw it. I laughed at it and then ignored it, because it makes his math even worse (if such a thing is possible).

The math works, and i even demonstrated how it did.

If you do assume a global population of 300 million at the time of Christ (assuming death at circa 34 AD), and a 0.44/0.45% growth rate (i.e. a doubling ever 155 or 156 years) then the global population at the moment should be somewhere north of 2 quadrillion.

That is all assuming a constant and not overall. That is not the argument. You keep repeating the same errors. Creating and addressing a phantom and ignoring your responsibility to present a rational basis for assuming 10K people 200 K years ago given the current population trends. That being since the present is the key to the past. According to Darwin's source, Charles Lyell.

For the majority of human history, until the onset of the industrial revolution, global population has waxed and waned. Human populations have not gone inexorably upwards, not even in comparatively recent history:

Prove it. Prove human history flatlined for 190 K years. It is speculation absent one shred on empirical evidence. All the evidence indicates overall growth, not flatline for thousands of years. Flatline is ad hoc rescues relative to actual recorded data on human growth rates.

The 12th/13th century Mongol conquests probably shrank the global population by 5% over a period of 50 years;

So? There was still overall growth.

The Black Death in the 14th century may have killed over 200 million people (circa 30% of the global population at the time);
The Spanish Flu outbreak from 1918 to 1920 maybe 50 to 100 million, 3-6% of the global population possibly more.

The overall population grew from 1.6 to approx 2.6 bil from 1900 to 2.6 bil in 1951. That is an overall growth of 1 Bil in spite of the Spanish flu. The population stats do not lie and have no agenda. Let it percolate in your head for a while. It might sink in.

Human growth rates were generally very low prior to the industrial revolution. There were periods of stronger growth, even exponential growth, but you simply cannot extrapolate these out. It just doesn't work for anything bar short timescales.

So are you saying present growth rates cannot be used as a baseline for ancient growth rates? Then why assume change in Darwin's present meant change in deep time? That being since his whole argument meant the present is the key to the past? Can't have it both ways.

If you examine the math, or you examine history, neither bears out a conclusion that there were 8 people who stepped off a boat 4000 to 5000 years ago.

History supports the Noah account. Under this scenario, history is not your friend, history is your enemy. So is current population trends. Why were the Kings of Europe wrong and moderns right? Why was Jesus or Josephus wrong and moderns right? The argument is simple. It assumes a start point of 3 couples 4500 years ago and uses exponential growth rates under the two competing scenarios. Yours is 10K people 200 K years ago. The overall of Noah, which is recorded history, far better jibes with current population trends. If it is (A) three couples 4500 yrs ago or (B) 10 K people 200 K years ago then the current population trends support the Noah account. As an added bonus you have two groups. The Jews and everyone else. The growth rates for both are identical and jibe with current population trends. That is extrapolating the present to the past. Properly understood, its a no brainer. Actual evidence is not your friend.

It boils my brain that you'd even countenance defending such nonsense.

It sounds like you have an emotional commitment to modern fictional myths. I am simply asking for a rational argument which supports your inferior nonhistorical assumptions. Boils your brains is not a rational argument.

 

[Allandavid]

The math works, and i even demonstrated how it did.

That is all assuming a constant and not overall. That is not the argument. You keep repeating the same errors. Creating and addressing a phantom and ignoring your responsibility to present a rational basis for assuming 10K people 200 K years ago given the currnet population trends. That being since the present is the key to the past. According to Darwin's source, Charles Lyell.

Prove it. Prove human history flatlined for 190 K years. It is speculation absent one shred on empirical evidence. All the evidence indicates overall growth, not flatline for thousands of years. Flatline is ad hoc rescues relative to actual recorded data on human growth rates.
So? There was still overall growth.
The overall population grew from 1.6 to approx 2.6 bil from 1900 to 2.6 bil in 1951. That is an overall growth of 1 Bil in spite of the Spanish flu. The population stats do not lie and have no agenda. Let it percolate in your head for a while. It might sink in.
So are you saying present growth rates cannot be used as a baseline for ancient growth rates? Then why assume change in Darwin's present meant change in deep time? That being since his whole argument meant the present is the key to the past? Can't have it both ways.
That is not the argument. It is nonsense. The argument is simple. It assumes a start point of 3 couples 4500 years ago and uses exponential growth rates under the two competing scenarios. Yours is 10K people 200 K years ago. The overall of Noah, which is recorded history, far better jibes with current population trends If it is (A) three couples 4500 yrs ago or (B) 10 K people 200 K years ago then the current population trends support the Noah account. That is extrapolating the present to the past.
It sounds like you have an emotional commitment to modern fictional myths. I am simply asking for a rational argument which supports your inferior nonhistorical assumptions. Boils your brains is not a rational argument.

No matter how 'logical' an argument may present itself, if it is based upon a faulty premise then we need go no further.

There was no global flood. Ergo, no ridiculous reduction of human population down to 3 breeding pairs.

 

[dmmesdale]

That's the logic you're using.

Artists do real images and fictional images and most can make the distinctions. Yours got support around here in spite of its sophomoric nature.

The problem here is not with the actual evidence, it has to do with a rock solid emotional comittment to modern myths which ignores actual data in favor of la la land history scenarios no more valid than Alice in Wonderland fictions.

 

[dmmesdale]

No matter how 'logical' an argument may present itself, if it is based upon a faulty premise then we need go no further.

There was no global flood. Ergo, no ridiculous reduction of human population down to 3 breeding pairs.

Perhaps you are simply a history denier. How do you support your alternative scenario of 10 K people 200 K years ago given the current population trends? If it is one or the other then current population trends support the Noah account far more than your fictional assumptions. Try to look at it rationally.

 

[Allandavid]

Perhaps you are simply a history denier.

Yes probably.

As well as denying the 'history' of a global flood, I also deny the history of a flat earth, a geocentric solar system, the existence of a 'firmament', the flight of an Arab to heaven on a horse, the birth of a Buddha through a slit in his mother's side and the creation of all life via the agency of a Rainbow Serpent.

Just a lousy history hater, me........

 

[Gene2memE]

The math works, and i even demonstrated how it did.

No you haven't.

You've repeated a baseless claim. Repeatedly.

You've yet to provide ANY demonstration.

Show me your math. Give me your population estimates in 156 year increments and well see how they pan out.