Population?

[Stormy]

I am having trouble finding information about human population. I was wondering how evolutionist explain the reason why ....

If we have been reproducing for 1 or 2 million years than why has our population only recently become a problem?

Now before you say it is because of our better living conditions... that is not true. For it is the poorest of countries that are putting the strain on this world.

Talk origin is unusually silent on this subject.

I don't know

But it seems like you are going to have to give us Bible totters something... either the first human is not that ancient... or Noah's flood wiped them out.

For otherwise it seems to me that we would have filled this old Earth eons ago.

Can you give me any answers? It just does not seem to add up.

 

[John MacNeil]

The accumulation of our type of human only began about thirty thousand year ago, as is borne out by the fossil evidence of Cro-Magnon type of people. All the different type of hominid that lived before then all appear to have become extinct just before our arrival. This is also true for many other species, most notably the domesticated canines who have no fossil evidence that directly links them to their supposed predecessors. Evolutionists like to pretend that we developed from apes and that dogs developed from wolves, but the genetic variations among the species, and the time frames required for such gene metastisizing, do not support such suppositions.

Geologists have shown that there was a substantial flood about thirty thousand year ago and this could account for the extinction of all the Neanderthal type of hominids. Whether this is the demarcation of the flood as spoken of in Genesis is certainly debateable, but it would fit the population accretion rate that has resulted in our current population numbers. According to the math, we are scheduled to double our current world population in another fifty year or so. Using the reverse mathematical calculations shows that our population began 25,000 or 30,000 year ago. This is just one more type of evidence that evolutionists don't address because it deals with specifics, and their whole theory deals with conjecture.

 

[seebs]

Population has not "only recently become a problem". At any given time, we have been living near the edge of our ability to produce (and possibly distribute) food. That's been true for all of human history, with the arguable exceptions of plagues and wars. Apart from that, we've been predicting the starvation of most living humans for several hundred years.

Population increases with efficient food production.

 

[chickenman]

oh dear,

population is not a simple geometric progression, and in fact population genetics accounts for this in its formulas

for instance, when the population fluctuates from generation to generation, the equation for effective population size "Ne" is;

1/Ne = 1/t x (1/N1 + 1/N2 +1/N3....)

so marked drops in population size (the black plague etc.) affect the population size today

BTW molecular clocks date the arrival of modern humans to about 200,000 years ago. Cro magnon is not the first example of a modern human

 

[notto]

Originally posted by Stormy


If we have been reproducing for 1 or 2 million years than why has our population only recently become a problem?

Now before you say it is because of our better living conditions... that is not true. For it is the poorest of countries that are putting the strain on this world.

http://www.popinfo.org/issues/history01.htm

Here is a good place to start. You will notice that the population didn't start to take off until the 1500's or and has grown mainly due to technologica, medical,l and agricultural revolutions (ability to travel, trade, and feed more than ourselves).

Population growth really has nothing to say related to an old or young earth. Extinctions, disease, changing environments, etc. The rate varies depending on a great number of things.

If you took the average population growth rates as of 6000 or 60,000 years ago, and used them for calculation, the numbers wouldn't be that different because the major, exponential increases have only happened in the last 500 years.

If population was only based on time, why aren't we overrun with rabbits and cockroaches?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

A century ago in England my Great Grandmother burried two of her 8 children in the space of one month. Back then, that was normal. Large families, high mortality rates. As mortality rates dropped the birthrates dropped, usually with a lag time of a generation or two. A drop in infant mortality is usually caused by improved sanitation and better medical care. The most explosive growth rate occurs in the lag time, but in general populations are generally stable. Population growth, even slow growth, as we see in many affluent societies today is caused in part due to increasing life spans - not really due to birthrates at all. In parts of Europe and North America, and in Japan the population is stable - even shrinking. In these cases, immigration (or migration) creates population growth. Our economy is currently in a mode where population growth is necessary. However, in most cases in nature populations are generally stable unless they are recovering from a catastrophe or have new habitat to exploit.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by Stormy
Now before you say it is because of our better living conditions... that is not true. For it is the poorest of countries that are putting the strain on this world.

It's already been addressed, but I'll continue. There are many factors that have resulted in the current population boom, but one of the biggest is a large decrease in infant mortality. For instance, there is a strain of E. coli known Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli, or EPEC (not to be confused with EHEC [Enterohemoragic Escherichia coli], the one that is allways talked about on TV). This causes a severe diarrhea in infants and can be fatal if untreated. This disease has caused the deaths of countless thousands if not millions of infants in human history, yet a few bottles of pedialite and it's not a big problem. Results? A cheap and easy treatment and thousands live that would have otherwise have died.

In more general terms, there is much more food, much better sanitation, and vastly more medical knowledge then in the past. Translation- fewer acute diseases, fewer chronic diseases, much better nutrition, and much better healthcare. Sound like the right ingredients for a population boom?

Talk origin is unusually silent on this subject.

This is a rather recent one brought out by creationists (I've only seen it in the past couple of months myself), so I imagine that they haven't caught up yet. Remember, talk origins is kept up by volunteers, not by professional ministers and missionaries like many of the creationist sites.

 

[Stormy]

Thanks for your responses.

IMO I think the evolutionist are wrong. I find your answers lacking.

But I still have questions.

How does the evolution explain the population dispersion?

I have read that most evolutionist now believe that man originated from one common ancestor. ..there was not separate evolutions here there and everywhere. If that were to have happened it would be quite likely that we would be very different from each other... genetically and of course structurally.... but we are not.

OK

So we have this extremely sparse population that manages to cross oceans and mountains and deserts to get to a place to call home?

How and Why??


Seebs: You may want to look into the population explosion. We are headed for trouble! I was reading about this when these questions came to mind. I was not searching for a way to debate evolution.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by Stormy

So we have this extremely sparse population that manages to cross oceans and mountains and deserts to get to a place to call home?

I think this would be more difficult to explain in a short reference frame from the time of the flood.

How did all of the races diversify, large populations come about, and multiple complex societies all over the earth come about if they only had a few thousand years to get there and create the societies.

We know that somewhat large populations existed in South America, Australia, Japan, China, North America, Europe, Egypt, etc. in prehistory. Where did these populations come from so shortly after the flood.

c.5000-3000 Yangshao culture in China
c.5000 Mangoes cultivated in SE Asia
5000 Domestication of corn in Mexico
c.3750 First evidence of cotton weaving. Mohenjo-Daro, India.
c.3500-2500 Longshan culture in China
c.3400 First evidence of wheel-made pottery. Sumeria.
c.3200-1600 Indus Valley civilization
c.3200-2340 Cities in Mesopotamia
c.3200 Wheeled transport develops in Mesopotamia.
c.3200 Lunar calendar in Mesopotamia
c.3200 Cuneiform in Sumeria.
3200 Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt
3100 Egyptian hieroglyphic writing
3000 Egyptians develop weaving from plant fibers (flax)
c.3000-2000 Anthropomorphic religion in Mesopotamia
3000 Silk manufacturing. China.
2770-2200 Old Kingdom in Egypt
2650 Construction of first pyramid in Egypt, first monumental columnar forms

One of the problems with most Creationist explanations of current populations is that if you use their extrapolations back to a time of the flood and start with 2 people, there would not be enough people on the planet to do the things listed above some 6 thousand years ago (and earlier).

There was a lot going on in the world at the same time the bible was being written. Apparently a lot of cultures completely missed the flood.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Stormy
I have read that most evolutionist now believe that man originated from one common ancestor. ..there was not separate evolutions here there and everywhere. 

Actually, they have all kinds of different skulls and bones. Some of them look more like monkeys, some of them look more like modern man. But there is no solid evidence at all that they mated with each other. All the others are extinct right now, unless you believe the stories about Big Foot. There is no explaination at all for why the others did not survive. War is no explaination, because there is evidence that at one time they lived side by side apparently peacefully with the ancestors of modern man today.

Some people believe a few of their genes found its way into our gene pool and pop up every now and then, but there is just no proof of that at all, according to science. They use to think that there were different races. But it turns out that everyone alive today is from the same race.

 

[BeanMak]

JohnR7 said:

But it turns out that everyone alive today is from the same race.

We may be of the same species, but we are not of the same race. There are difference between the races.

 

[Stormy]

Originally posted by notto
I think this would be more difficult to explain in a short reference frame from the time of the flood.

How did all of the races diversify, large populations come about, and multiple complex societies all over the earth come about if they only had a few thousand years to get there and create the societies.

We know that somewhat large populations existed in South America, Australia, Japan, China, North America, Europe, Egypt, etc. in prehistory. Where did these populations come from so shortly after the flood.

c.5000-3000 Yangshao culture in China
c.5000 Mangoes cultivated in SE Asia
5000 Domestication of corn in Mexico
c.3750 First evidence of cotton weaving. Mohenjo-Daro, India.
c.3500-2500 Longshan culture in China
c.3400 First evidence of wheel-made pottery. Sumeria.
c.3200-1600 Indus Valley civilization
c.3200-2340 Cities in Mesopotamia
c.3200 Wheeled transport develops in Mesopotamia.
c.3200 Lunar calendar in Mesopotamia
c.3200 Cuneiform in Sumeria.
3200 Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt
3100 Egyptian hieroglyphic writing
3000 Egyptians develop weaving from plant fibers (flax)
c.3000-2000 Anthropomorphic religion in Mesopotamia
3000 Silk manufacturing. China.
2770-2200 Old Kingdom in Egypt
2650 Construction of first pyramid in Egypt, first monumental columnar forms

One of the problems with most Creationist explanations of current populations is that if you use their extrapolations back to a time of the flood and start with 2 people, there would not be enough people on the planet to do the things listed above some 6 thousand years ago (and earlier).

There was a lot going on in the world at the same time the bible was being written. Apparently a lot of cultures completely missed the flood.

Noto: You have not answered my question nor have you even attempted to. You can not truly answer a question with a question.

Besides all I have to say is God "did it". I allow for his work to perform the unexplainable.

But what is your answer?

Please go back to my questions and find an answer. Remember that you have allowed yourself only the ability of primitive man to accomplish this miraculous feat of populating the world from one beginning source.

 

[Stormy]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Actually, they have all kinds of different skulls and bones. Some of them look more like monkeys, some of them look more like modern man. But there is no solid evidence at all that they mated with each other. All the others are extinct right now, unless you believe the stories about Big Foot. There is no explanation at all for why the others did not survive. War is no explanation, because there is evidence that at one time they lived side by side apparently peacefully with the ancestors of modern man today.

Some people believe a few of their genes found its way into our gene pool and pop up every now and then, but there is just no proof of that at all, according to science. They use to think that there were different races. But it turns out that everyone alive today is from the same race.

John: That is true that they have many different fossils that they claim to be human or ancestors of humans. But IMO... they turn around and nullify their discoveries by agreeing that man came from one source. This is the overwhelming opinion of evolutionist.

You see as wrong as their ideas may be they do correct them if the facts do not agree.

For that reason I do hold out hope.

But is it not a shame that they are taking the long way around to find out what we already know?

Still... all things are a part of God's plan for man.

Am I not correct in saying that ...

These studies have provided much fruit in the nature of genetic and medical answers.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by Stormy
Noto: You have not answered my question nor have you even attempted to. You can not truly answer a question with a question.

Well, I'm not really sure what you are looking for. Population density and dispersion really isn't much of an argument for creation or evolution since they both have the same issue. Take a small population and disperse it over the world. They both have a "common ancestor" approach.

What exactly are you looking for? First you asked how does "evolution" explain the current population boom. This has been answered and as has been shown, it is really not a question of biology but one of anthropology and history. Technology leads to larger population growth through better food, fewer deaths due to disease, and longer life spans. Population growth is not linear and has changed drastically in recent years (500 or so) .

Then you asked how "evolution" explains populations moving across the globe. Again this is not a question of biology but one of anthropology and history. Thousands of years ago there were populations across the world. These populations migrated there and the history of these migrations can be uncovered through archeology and anthropology. How is that a problem for evolution?

What exactly is your question?

 

[Stormy]

Originally posted by BeanMak
JohnR7 said:

We may be of the same species, but we are not of the same race. There are difference between the races.

Your vision of Man is extremely narrow.

We are all one race. We are all the same people.

We are all members of the Human race.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by Stormy
John: That is true that they have many different fossils that they claim to be human or ancestors of humans. But IMO... they turn around and nullify their discoveries by agreeing that man came from one source. This is the overwhelming opinion of evolutionist.

They agree that not all of the lines of hominids that are found in the fossils survived. Home Sapian's did. This is not a problem for evolution.

 

[Stormy]

Talk... Talk... Talk

Everyday you talk and argue the truth of evolution.

But ask a simple questions and you play dodge.

Talk origins does just as the students.

Tell me ...

When will you have answers ?

When they are given to you?

When do you yourself ask questions?

Never??

 

[Freodin]

Originally posted by Stormy
Talk... Talk... Talk

Everyday you talk and argue the truth of evolution.

But ask a simple questions and you play dodge.

Talk origins does just as the students.

Tell me ...

When will you have answers ?

When they are given to you?

When do you yourself ask questions?

Never??

I really don´t understand your point? You asked about evolution´s explanation for the percieved developement of population.
Evolution has no explanation for that. Evolution does not deal with this question. You could as well as about physics explanation for Dadaism.

Population developement is a question for anthropology and sociology. And here you can find explanations.

So is, for expamle one reason of the immense growth of population in the Third World Nations conceptual difference.
From old experience, many children mean wealth: you have more work power and more social control. But modern technology one the one hand renders such "wealth in people" useless, on the other hand allows more people to survive than the economy can bear.
Thus in fact, many children now mean poverty.

But as long as there is a difference in the perception of the "common people" and social and economical reality, population will continue to grow.

 

[OneLargeToe]

But ask a simple questions and you play dodge.

It looks like your question for answered quite clearly, Stormy.  You might want to actually read people's replies.

 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Stormy
I find your answers lacking. 

Let's tackle your first questions.

In nearly all populations in the wild, population is constant. The birth rate is balanced by the death rate. Since the birth rate is far above replacement, this is what gives rise to what Darwin called the "Struggle for Existence". Two well known examples.  Salmon.  Hundreds of salmon babies are born from a single pair. However, by the time the salmon swim to the sea, live there for several years while growing, and then swim back up the stream, on the average all but two of them have been eaten or died.  So only a single breeding pair gets back to start the cycle all over again.  The maple tree in your neighborhood makes thousands of seeds each spring.  Yet your neighborhood is not covered by maple trees.  Most of those seeds die without ever taking root.  Others are killed by lawnmowers or eaten by the rabbits.  Thus, the population of maple trees stays constant.

The exceptions are when a population faces a change in enviroment.  In the case of humans, population increased with the discovery of agriculture to give more food.  But then it stabilized again because only so much food could be produced.  Through our recorded history, the major population check has been infant mortality.  Up until the mid-1800s in America and parts of Europe, most human infants died before the age of 5. If you read Barbara Tuchman's The Fourteenth Century you find that parents didn't even consider kids people until they were 5. It wasn't worth investing a lot of emotional energy into them because they would probably die.  In fact, people used to play catch with babies from second story windows to the ground!  If you missed, it wasn't a big loss.  My great-grandmothers each had 3 kids die before the age of 3, but for my grandparents every kid lived to maturity.

So people had lots of kids because most were going to die. In the developed world, when infant mortality went down, people adjusted their breeding to produce fewer kids.  This wasn't because people were far-sighted, but because wealth increased.  In poor families, kids are relatively cheap -- hand-me-down clothes, multiple kids to a room, no school, etc.  But as you accumulate a bit of wealth, kids become more expensive -- separate rooms, new clothes per kid, schooling, etc.  So people exercised birth control such as abstinence and withdrawl to avoid pregnancy.  Not for altruistic reasons, but for selfish economic ones.  There is a study on this and I'll find the reference for you.

Right now in the "poor" countries, introduction of basic sanitation and new agriculture to get more food has meant a drop in infant mortality. But the increase in wealth has not yet kicked in.  So we are seeing an aberration with human population over the last 2 centuries, not the norm.  If humans don't voluntarily restrict the population, the struggle for existence of scarce resources will.