Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Here is a graph (based on evidence) showing human growth, note that before the modern age growth rate was almost constant
I really like the observed evidence with maybe deviation on the earlier dates of 1000 years. Very Biblical.:
My theory is just as scientific as evolution…
I thought who gets to heaven and who gets to hell were decided by God...although a creationist passing this kind of unevidenced judgement certainly is par for the course. And at Xmas time too. Nicely done Z, nicely done.Darwin is going to hell for his theory, my reward is in heaven.
I thought who gets to heaven and who gets to hell were decided by God...although a creationist passing this kind of unevidenced judgement certainly is par for the course. And at Xmas time too. Nicely done Z, nicely done.
My theory is just as scientific as evolution
Humans differ from each other at 0.1% of their bases; we can tolerate a great deal more than 0.00058% mutations. (Oh, and your numbers are a factor of two off, if you mean 60 mutations per person: each person has 12 billion base pairs of genome, not 6 billion, since we're diploid.)This is what only 60 mutations per generation means.
For our species to be 6000 years old the number of mutations shows our species is very young. If there are 60 mutations passed on per generation and ~300 generations (for 6000 years) that would mean a total of 18,000 mutations (300g x 60m/g) or .00058% of our genome. The robustness of the human genome could tolerate this number.
On the other hand if our species is 5 million years old that would be 250 thousand generations times 60 mutations or 15 million mutations or about 5% of our genome.
So if all were fixed and none were deleterious that would make us about ~10% (~5%x2) different from chimps. But since about 1 in 1000 mutations can be beneficial (conservative estimate) that would change the calculation to:
This is a meaningless calculation. The probability of fixation is much larger for positively selected mutations that it is for neutral ones.15 million/1000 = 15000 mutations or (.0005% of the human genome)
If all were fixed in our genome then we would be about .001% different from chimps (.0005%x2 =.001%).
This means that we only differ from our nearest relative by about .001% or we are like chimps in the order of 99.999%.
Reading the Bible dispels disbelief.
Your replies fall short of the evidence.
In conclusion of this point you (or any other evolutionist) can not explain the U paradox.
By the most friendly calculation of B=2e^U/2 the birth rate of our ancestors had to have exceeded 16 offspring for five million years (ridiculous). The human fertility rate world wide today does not reach 8 births.
Fixation of beneficial mutations also depends on Haldane. Haldane showed that only about 1,700 beneficial mutations could have been fixed in our species since the supposed chimp human divergence. This would mean that the great majority of mutations were selected out and most likely not neutral (contrary to your continued statements of neutral mutations being in the majority). I have always found it hard to believe that we only differ from chimps by about 1,700 beneficial mutations but there it is in the calculations.
In conclusion not you (or any other evolutionist) can explain the U paradox. By the most friendly calculation of B=2e^U/2 the birth rate of our ancestors had to have exceeded 16 offspring for five million years (ridiculous). That is with the most recent findings of evolution science U=4.2). By the way this figure will only climb when we find out our DNA is not as closely related to chimps as the evolution dogma states.
As I have stated all along that new evidence continually contradicts the evolution dogma. True to this principal research has found that on average only 60 mutations per human couple have been passed along to the next generation (peer reviewed and still authoritative). By the same evolution calculations this pushes back the chimp human divergence an additional 7 million years (total 12 million years); because the mutation rate is not high enough to make an ape into a man in 5 million years.
Evolution is wrong and the Christian has no reason to accept any of its propositions.
You need a good long ride on the Bible bus
CabVet...
Human fertility today is relevant to this how? Fertility was much, much higher back in historical times. Have you ever read the Bible and see how much kids people had back then? Your own Adam is supposed to have had 55 children.
Good you accept the Bible as the only solution to U paradox. The bible is the only book that has always been upheld under very strong criticism. Not one thing the Bible tells us is untrustworthy.
As I have mentioned before, if you push back the human/chimp divergence by that much your U paradox is gone because even your high U drops by more than half, but of course, you want both to be true (a high U and a low mutation rate), or to put it in a batter way, you want whatever supports your argument to be true.
You have no idea of the consequences of pushing back the human/chimp divergence really has. All calculations about the age of our genome would be wrong. Calculated ages of ERVs would be wrong. Chimp human common ancestry would be nonsense. Opps it is nonsense.
As for your other criticism of what I posted you have not showed any substantial point. If you wish to continue the disagreement you must present a particular instance of my misunderstanding in that regard. It is possible I just made a particular mistake. I would be grateful if you could help me out in that respect but please one issue at a time.
You want to discuss a particular point? Sure, how about your claim that the human population grew at a constant 1% per generation since Adam and Eve?
Actually you are leaving out the flood. At that time human kind was reduced to 8 individuals about 4 thousand years ago.
I think we should look at the graph and blot out the light grey lines. You have 16 generations listed with a single individual at he top. Calculating the number of years assuming 20 years per generation gives 320 years total. If you take this out to 300 generations with exponential population growth you can come up with about 7 billion individuals with a single woman ancestor. Hey that is about the population of the earth now . The math works equally well without the evolution dogma.
Originally Posted by Zaius137
I think we should look at the graph and blot out the light grey lines. You have 16 generations listed with a single individual at he top. Calculating the number of years assuming 20 years per generation gives 320 years total. If you take this out to 300 generations with exponential population growth you can come up with about 7 billion individuals with a single woman ancestor. Hey that is about the population of the earth now…. The math works equally well without the evolution dogma.
Actually I quoted the wrong figure of 300 generations. That number of 300 generations came from the mitochondrial eve. My calculation was actually done from the time of the flood. Reposted below…
My numbers…
T=4304 years (Noah’s ark)
r= .004784 (delta pop)
This type of calculation is used in determining growth rates in populations. The human race is no different. The matter only gets complicated when evolutionists try and apply there circular reasoning to humans.
Is the statement of 1% constant growth for 300 (or however many) generations false or not? Simple question.
I think my calculation is about half that as a function of time. (r ~ .5%). Where did the 1% come from that you cited?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?