A question for those believing in Evolution

[lucaspa]

I'm tired of this place... I'm leaving there is no complete reasoning

Aw! Just when I got here to provide the reasoning for you! Of course, I had already provided the reasoning to refute your population calculations yesterday on another thread.

As my father says "Let me help you out. Which way did you come in?"

Goodbye.

 

[Valen]

I am sorry for my childish behavior on presenting my new formula... it is incorrect i would like to edit it again.

Your solution for the monkey breeding in 1,600,000 years...
Let's presume the following...
annual breeding rate is 1 for each pair:
m = 10
P = 1600000 of monkey breeding
no mortalities

Btw the monkeys are categorize more on primates...

P = (m + m/2^1 + m/2^2 + m/2^3 + m/2^4 + m/2^5 ... + m/2^1,600,00)

seems to me that the monkeys have P > 2,000,000 in those times
Sorry again for that wrong formula in my proposition.

so how many monkeys are today?

 

[Jet Black]

you didn't take into account the amount of available food, predators, diseases, weather and all the other things that are going to affect the monkey population. and you threw in a completely arbitrary growth rate.

also there are what... 500 species of monkey at a guess, lets just say 100 on the amazon. that makes for a total of a few billion monkeys. and we seem to be missing some monkeys. so I doubt your formula is anywhere near accurate.

 

[Valen]

you didn't take into account the amount of available food, predators, diseases, weather and all the other things that are going to affect the monkey population. and you threw in a completely arbitrary growth rate.

I ommitted a lot already check the formula for yourself and see that 2,000,000 mokeys survived is enough

Sorry again for those previous formulas I made... (shame) Next time I will use the formula of the doc. I just wanted things to be easy thats all Sorry again (shame)

 

[Jet Black]

well it could be a number... but the problem I see is that it is too simplified. As Darwin points out, you just cannot assume geometrical growth of any population in a realistic environment. You might achieve it if you pu a breeding monkey pair in an infinitely large banana plantation devoid of predators, but in any real environment, there are too many things that will keep a check on populations.

 

[Valen]

well it could be a number... but the problem I see is that it is too simplified. As Darwin points out, you just cannot assume geometrical growth of any population in a realistic environment. You might achieve it if you pu a breeding monkey pair in an infinitely large banana plantation devoid of predators, but in any real environment, there are too many things that will keep a check on populations.

NO THAT CALCULATION (The Latter) IS NOT AN ASSUMPTION MY FRIEND I DEFINITELY DISAGREE WITH YOU! The actual breeding rate is actually more than one per year and the monkeys should belong to the primates. That is 138,000,000 years (hehe too big nobodys escaping here) Even if there are death rates the bigger the years the larger the number unless there was real worst catastrophes. Your own inquisitiveness got you trapped there my friend! He he he its going to be fun and I'll tell the doc I'm gonna add another formula to his fantastic discoveries (Your words shall be used to)!!! (Whoa we're gonna be famous and my name is gonna be in the list!)

 

[Nathan David]

Okay, Valen, here's an equation for population growth:

G=b-d/t

where G is the rate of population growth b is number of births in a population, d is the number of deaths, and t is elapsed time.

 

[Jet Black]

I am telling you what I always told you, you can't just apply geometrical growth like that. you can't even apply growth of a population at all unless you know the exact environment.

 

[lucaspa]

Your solution for the monkey breeding in 1,600,000 years...
Let's presume the following...
annual breeding rate is 1 for each pair:
m = 10
P = 1600000 of monkey breeding
no mortalities

Now, why are there no mortalities? No disease? No predators? No limitations on food so that too many monkeys in an area starve?

It is that "no mortalities" that screws up your calculations.

 

[Valen]

Okay, Valen, here's an equation for population growth:

G=b-d/t

where G is the rate of population growth b is number of births in a population, d is the number of deahts, and t is elapsed time.

The problem about this is a constant at different productivity years this doesn't count valid all the time
Ok lets say the first fishes for example
(fish don't die easily unless of pollution or human interferences)
t = 500,000,000 years ago
d = base on events like catastrophes or being eaten by a fish (but nature balance creates few casualties without man)
good thing for fishes is they normally hatch eggs (Goody goody)
b = what do you mean per day, month or year?

 

[Valen]

Now, why are there no mortalities? No disease? No predators? No limitations on food so that too many monkeys in an area starve?

It is that "no mortalities" that screws up your calculations.

What's the cause of it any way, before you can state an effect state a cause. The cause must be valid base on real evidences not possibility.

 

[lucaspa]

NO THAT CALCULATION (The Latter) IS NOT AN ASSUMPTION MY FRIEND I DEFINITELY DISAGREE WITH YOU!

Yes, the calculation was an assumption. The assumption was "no mortality". And what we are saying is that assumption is wrong. There is mortality.

Another assumption you didn't state but that is implicit is an unlimited food supply. We know that is wrong.

Even if there are death rates the bigger the years the larger the number unless there was real worst catastrophes.

Again, you don't need catastrophes. Just look at all the seeds produced by ANY of the trees in your yard. Look at the number of mosquitoe eggs laid by a SINGLE female and apply your calculations to it. IF ALL those offspring survive, your calculations would have the world filled with mosquitoes in less than 10 years and oak trees in less than 10,000.

Apply your calculations to elephants today and their birth rates. As slow as they are -- one calf in two years -- if all of them survived and also reproduced at that rate the world would be full of elephants in 3,000 years. Yet we haven't had a major catastrophe within that time to stop them.

The conclusion is that the death rates equal the birth rates and the population is stable.

 

[lucaspa]

What's the cause of it any way, before you can state an effect state a cause. The cause must be valid base on real evidences not possibility.

I stated the cause of mortalities: disease, predators, lack of food and the resultant starvation.

The real evidences are all around you. We are not overrun with plants and animals. From Origin Chapter 3

Linnæus has calculated that if an annual plant produced only two seeds—and there is no plant so unproductive as this—and their seedlings next year produced two, and so on, then in twenty years there would be a million plants. The elephant is reckoned to be the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase: it will be under the mark to assume that it breeds when thirty years old, and goes on breeding till ninety years old, bringing forth three pair of young in this interval; if this be so, at the end of the fifth century there would be alive fifteen million elephants, descended from the first pair.

So, where are the million maple trees from the one maple tree in your front yard? If there is no mortality and your calculations are correct, then there should be. After all, the calculations can't apply ONLY to primates, can they?

From observation by Darwin

Seedlings, also, are destroyed in vast numbers by various enemies; for instance, on a piece of ground three feet long and two wide, dug and cleared, and where there could be no choking from other plants, I marked all the seedlings of our native weeds as they came up, and out of the 357 no less than 295 were destroyed, chiefly by slugs and insects.

 

[lucaspa]

More observations from Darwin:

Climate plays an important part in determining the average numbers of a species, and periodical seasons of extreme cold or drought, I believe to be the most effective of all checks. I estimated that the winter of 1854-55 destroyed four-fifths of the birds in my own grounds; and this is a tremendous destruction, when we remember that ten per cent. is an extraordinarily severe mortality from epidemics with man.

When I ascertained that these young trees had not been sown or planted, I was so much surprised at their numbers that I went to several points of view, whence I could examine hundreds of acres of the unenclosed heath, and literally I could not see a single Scotch fir, except the old planted clumps. But on looking closely between the stems of the heath, I found a multitude of seedlings and little trees, which had been perpetually browsed down by the cattle. In one square yard, at a point some hundred yards distant from one of the old clumps, I counted thirty-two little trees; and one of them, judging from the rings of growth, had during twenty-six years tried to raise its head above the stems of the heath, and had failed. No wonder that, as soon as the land was enclosed, it became thickly clothed with vigorously growing young firs. Yet the heath was so extremely barren and so extensive that no one would ever have imagined that cattle would have so closely and effectually searched it for food.

For plants, herbivores are predators. So here we have documentation of the action of predators at keeping populations constant, and thus screwing up calculations based on the wrong assumption of "no mortality"

 

[Valen]

Yes, the calculation was an assumption. The assumption was "no mortality". And what we are saying is that
assumption is wrong. There is mortality.

A calculation is more currect if all 'real effects' are concerned. Science is better if it eliminate all mistakes and remove assumptions. Possibilities are just like a doubt. What we need is hard-core evidences of 2 agreements.

Another assumption you didn't state but that is implicit is an unlimited food supply. We know that is wrong.

Again, you don't need catastrophes.

"If catastrophes are real and true in must be included as a data"

Just look at all the seeds produced by ANY of the trees in your yard. Look at the number of mosquitoe eggs laid by a SINGLE female and apply your calculations to it.

you sound vague and must show necessary data

IF ALL those offspring survive, your calculations would have the world filled with mosquitoes in less than 10 years and oak trees in less than 10,000.

you are assuming it is better get raw facts.

Apply your calculations to elephants today and their birth rates. As slow as they are -- one calf in two years -- if all of them survived and also reproduced at that rate the world would be full of elephants in 3,000 years. Yet we haven't had a major catastrophe within that time to stop them..

discarding other informations..

The conclusion is that the death rates equal the birth rates and the population is stable.

conclusions basing on assumptions are rather guessing or doubts

 

[lucaspa]

Causes of the recent population growth of humans and why extrapolating this backwards is invalid:
http://www.ecology.com/ecology-public-health-deborah-glik/population/population1.htm

“In a finite world with limited resources, no population can grow forever.”1. Population Growth (See 4 Handouts) -Population increases by birth (+ immigration) -Population decreases by death (+ emigration) -(r)Intrinsic or Instantaneous rate of increase or Malthusian parameter(r) = Instantaneous rate of change in population size per individual (r) = species specific (r) = average per capita birth rate (b) - average per capita death rate(d)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
(r) = b – d (assume immigration and emigration cancel each other out)a. Exponential Growth –Type of Explosive population growth -Mathematical Formula: ?N/?T = rN-Shows J-shaped curve. -Occurs when : 1. b > d, 2. Unlimited resources 3. No population regulation factors 4. Unrestricted growth under ideal conditions 5. We rarely see this type of growth for long in the real world. Popualtion growth rates eventually slow down. b. Logistic Growth -Mathematical Formula: ?N/?T = r(K-N/K)N -Type of population growth seen in most populations -Shows a S (Sigmoidal)shaped curve -Accounts for population. density via (K) Carrying Capacity which is the maximum # (N) of individuals the environment will hold. -Carrying capacity is determined by the amount of resources and other limiting factors in the environment. Populations usually fluctuate around K. -Each individual reduces the intrinsic rate of increase. -What happens to r when N=K ? Zero population growth -Some problems with the logistic model: 1. Populations usually fluctuate around K due to time delays or delayed responses to each added individual (e.g., effect of competition on birthrate may not be immediate) 2. K can change when available resources (food , shelter) and limiting factors (predators, disease, competition) change 2. Population Regulation -Population growth is influenced by a combination of density dependent and density independent factors. These factors keep population growth in check. a. Density –Dependent Factors:- External factors which limit population growth in a density dependent way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
-Recognize density dependence if birth rates, death rates or both are affected by population density -In other words, the proportion of individuals influenced by these factors changes with population density-Here are some density-dependent factors: 1. Competition and Food supply e.g., When food supply (e.g., plants) decrease, herbivores decrease, then plants recover, herbivores increase and compete for food, plant populations decreases, and the cycle continues (The more individuals, the less food to go around to each) (Remember my example of the reindeer introduced to St. Paul Island, Alaska. They overgrazed their food supply and this led a population crash).2. Predators e.g., When predator population is low, prey populations, then predator populations increase (as there is more food to go around grow and prey are at a greater risk of being captured) ,this is followed by prey populations decreasing, leading to predator populations decreasing (they starve), etc.(predator-prey oscillations)3. Disease As populations increase, disease causing microorganisms increase, and the cycle continues…Disease is spread more easily in larger populations. 4. Waste As populations increase, waste increases. Even wine producing yeast (yeast ferment sugar for energy and make ethanol as a byproduct) can only tolerate 14% ethanol. Waste is a limiting factor. b. Density –Independent Factors: -External Factors that limit population growth in a density independent way. -Birth and/or death rates are independent of changes in population density-Same proportion of individuals are affected at any population density -Some density-independent factors: Natural disaster (fire, hurricane), bad weather (i.e., cold spell)
www.esb.utexas.edu/engler/bio304/lectures/lect19.pdf+population+check+ecology+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

[Valen]

Causes of the recent population growth of humans and why extrapolating this backwards is invalid:
http://www.ecology.com/ecology-public-health-deborah-glik/population/population1.htm

“In a finite world with limited resources, no population can grow forever.”1. Population Growth (See 4 Handouts) -Population increases by birth (+ immigration) -Population decreases by death (+ emigration) -(r)Intrinsic or Instantaneous rate of increase or Malthusian parameter(r) = Instantaneous rate of change in population size per individual (r) = species specific (r) = average per capita birth rate (b) - average per capita death rate(d)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
(r) = b – d (assume immigration and emigration cancel each other out)a. Exponential Growth –Type of Explosive population growth -Mathematical Formula: ?N/?T = rN-Shows J-shaped curve. -Occurs when : 1. b > d, 2. Unlimited resources 3. No population regulation factors 4. Unrestricted growth under ideal conditions 5. We rarely see this type of growth for long in the real world. Popualtion growth rates eventually slow down. b. Logistic Growth -Mathematical Formula: ?N/?T = r(K-N/K)N -Type of population growth seen in most populations -Shows a S (Sigmoidal)shaped curve -Accounts for population. density via (K) Carrying Capacity which is the maximum # (N) of individuals the environment will hold. -Carrying capacity is determined by the amount of resources and other limiting factors in the environment. Populations usually fluctuate around K. -Each individual reduces the intrinsic rate of increase. -What happens to r when N=K ? Zero population growth -Some problems with the logistic model: 1. Populations usually fluctuate around K due to time delays or delayed responses to each added individual (e.g., effect of competition on birthrate may not be immediate) 2. K can change when available resources (food , shelter) and limiting factors (predators, disease, competition) change 2. Population Regulation -Population growth is influenced by a combination of density dependent and density independent factors. These factors keep population growth in check. a. Density –Dependent Factors:- External factors which limit population growth in a density dependent way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
-Recognize density dependence if birth rates, death rates or both are affected by population density -In other words, the proportion of individuals influenced by these factors changes with population density-Here are some density-dependent factors: 1. Competition and Food supply e.g., When food supply (e.g., plants) decrease, herbivores decrease, then plants recover, herbivores increase and compete for food, plant populations decreases, and the cycle continues (The more individuals, the less food to go around to each) (Remember my example of the reindeer introduced to St. Paul Island, Alaska. They overgrazed their food supply and this led a population crash).2. Predators e.g., When predator population is low, prey populations, then predator populations increase (as there is more food to go around grow and prey are at a greater risk of being captured) ,this is followed by prey populations decreasing, leading to predator populations decreasing (they starve), etc.(predator-prey oscillations)3. Disease As populations increase, disease causing microorganisms increase, and the cycle continues…Disease is spread more easily in larger populations. 4. Waste As populations increase, waste increases. Even wine producing yeast (yeast ferment sugar for energy and make ethanol as a byproduct) can only tolerate 14% ethanol. Waste is a limiting factor. b. Density –Independent Factors: -External Factors that limit population growth in a density independent way. -Birth and/or death rates are independent of changes in population density-Same proportion of individuals are affected at any population density -Some density-independent factors: Natural disaster (fire, hurricane), bad weather (i.e., cold spell)
www.esb.utexas.edu/engler/bio304/lectures/lect19.pdf+population+check+ecology+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

It is more concerned about the current time that's nice but...
I want to know what happens to this principle if you include the Darwinian Principles and the Geologic Time Scale with it. I am interested.
I will read more further about this to really find some flaws. As for now I'll take a rest.

____________________________________________________________
--"We observe things in the now! not delusions or imaginations of the future and the past"

 

[Nathan David]

The problem about this is a constant at different productivity years this doesn't count valid all the time
Ok lets say the first fishes for example
(fish don't die easily unless of pollution or human interferences)
t = 500,000,000 years ago
d = base on events like catastrophes or being eaten by a fish (but nature balance creates few casualties without man)
good thing for fishes is they normally hatch eggs (Goody goody)
b = what do you mean per day, month or year?

d = equals the total number of deaths during the time period t.
b = equals the total number of births during the time period t.

You set t at at 500 million, so to solve for G we would need to plug in the total number of, in your example, fish that have been born in the last 500 million years and the total number that have died. G would be the population growth rate per year over that time frame. It could be positive, negative, or zero, depending on the values of b and d.

 

[lucaspa]

A calculation is more currect if all 'real effects' are concerned. Science is better if it eliminate all mistakes and remove assumptions. Possibilities are just like a doubt. What we need is hard-core evidences of 2 agreements.

Hard core evidence of mortality in nature? I've been giving you that.

"If catastrophes are real and true in must be included as a data"

Notice the "if" that started your sentence. Above you demanded hard core data, so please provide such data of catastrophes. What I am saying is that the DATA shows that, without catastrophes, populations are held in check.

you sound vague and must show necessary data

LOL! I said for you to go look. I have a maple tree right beside my deck. I have swept at least 2,000 seeds from my deck this year and that is less than 20% of the area of the tree to drop seeds on. What I am saying is that YOU can find the necessary data. In fact, you already have. C'mon, you are going to deny that each tree produces thousands of seeds? Now, plug that into your calculations with your 'no mortality' assumption and see just how many trees you get at even 2,000 per year per year. In 20 years, you have 40,000 trees and now they are mature to produce their own seeds. That's 2,000 seeds per tree per year so we have, in another 20 years 160,0000,000 trees. And that is being conservative. Where are all those maple trees?

Originally Posted By: lucaspa

IF ALL those offspring survive, your calculations would have the world filled with mosquitoes in less than 10 years and oak trees in less than 10,000.

you are assuming it is better get raw facts.

I'm using YOUR calculations and now you call that "assuming" and saying I should get raw facts. Thank you, you just described and condemned your own calculations. Nice of you to destroy your own arguments like that.

Originally Posted By: lucaspa

Apply your calculations to elephants today and their birth rates. As slow as they are -- one calf in two years -- if all of them survived and also reproduced at that rate the world would be full of elephants in 3,000 years. Yet we haven't had a major catastrophe within that time to stop them..

discarding other informations..

Again, thank you. Your original calculations discarded other informations, but now you say you shouldn't do that. Again, thank you for agreeing that your original calculations are wrong.

Originally Posted By: lucaspa

The conclusion is that the death rates equal the birth rates and the population is stable.

conclusions basing on assumptions are rather guessing or doubts

1. We have the OBSERVATION that the world is not overrun with maple trees or elephants. That is not an assumption.

2. You based a conclusion on assumptions about population increase rates and now you say those are "rather guessing or doubts". Again, thank you for agreeing that your original arguments are just guessing.

Valen, what I did was TEST your calculations by applying them to other situtations. Your conclusion was that humans hadn't been around long enough to have evolved otherwise there would be too many primates. However, if your calculations are valid, then they apply to ALL species, not just primates. So, I TESTED whether your calculations were valid by applying them to species we observe TODAY and seeing how many members of the species we should see IF the calculation method was true.

Since we don't see the numbers of maple trees or elephants we should IF your calculations are true, then the conclusion is that the calculations are false.

Notice that with elephants I made the SAME assumptions of birth rates you did.

Welcome to how science is really done, which is very different, as you see, from what Dr. Dino does.

 

[wblastyn]

I'm tired of this place... I'm leaving there is no complete reasoning

Oh and here i thought you just didn't have an answer.