Population?

[LightBearer]

If we were to look at the estimated rate of poulation growth that has brought us to over 6 billion at the present time. Reverse the process, how far back in time would we get before we have zero poulation for man. I suspect that it matches closer to the Bible's of around 6,000 years rather than the outragous speculations of the scientific or evolutionist communities.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Stormy 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.

A couple of the posters disagree about the similarity. But you are right. The entire human species has less genetic diversity than one small population of chimps in Africa.  The inference is that we went through a population bottleneck about 200,000 years ago. By population bottleneck, biologists mean about 10 breeding pairs.  We are still diversifying from that.

9.  A Gibbons, Studying humans -- and their cousins and parasites.  Science 292:627-629, April 27, 2001.  Low genetic diversity among humans, less than all other primates.  Bottleneck about 200,000 years ago.

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??

There were several migrations out of Africa.  And by the time H. sapiens began migrating, they weren't so "sparse" anymore.  Again, look how fast population can grow, and then think how fast the human population could recover from the bottleneck.  By 100,000 years ago, relatively lots of people compared to what the environment can support by hunting and gathering.  So clans and tribes begin leaving the ancestral home looking for more food.  As they hunt out an area, they have to move on again. How long does it take them to hunt out an area?  5 years, 10 years, 20 years?  Even if it is 20 years, you can see that you can have 500 moves in just 10,000 years.  If each move is just 10 miles and you have travel of 5,000 miles in just 10,000 years -- all the way from Africa to Siberia.  Make it 20 miles (an easy day's walk) and you go from Africa to the tip of South America.

 

[JohnR7]

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.

There is no such thing as race. The people who study DNA have thrown that anthropologist theory right out the window.

According to the Bible, everyone decended from Adam and Eve. Through their son Seth, who most likely went off and married a female from a different race in the area now known as Ethiopia. They then formed a new race and all the others died off. None of them have survived other than the decendants of Seth.

At least that is what science and those who study DNA are telling us now. Everyone can be traced back to Seth and his wife.

China does not agree, they believe they decended from Peking man (Homo erectus) not Cro-Magnons (Homo sapiens). But there is just no evidence in the DNA at all that there is any living surviver from Peking Man.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/2000/0117/cover.chineseroots.html

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by LightBearer
If we were to look at the estimated rate of poulation growth that has brought us to over 6 billion at the present time. Reverse the process, how far back in time would we get before we have zero poulation for man. I suspect that it matches closer to the Bible's of around 6,000 years rather than the outragous speculations of the scientific or evolutionist communities.

  I suspect you have already looked at creationists websites and know that Morris' calculations do just that.  However, if you look at the numbers back then, extrapolate forward, and split up the population among the various known civilizations, you find that you have about 100 people in Egypt to build the pyramids!!  That right there tells you that the calculations are way off.

The extrapolation is not valid because the population increase is not continuous.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

Stormy, I refuted John's claims in another thread.  His claims are based upon the faulty idea that H. sapiens evolved from H. neandertalis.  That is false.  Neandertals and humans are evolutionary siblings, not ancestor and descendent.

H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus, and the transitional individuals of that transformation have been found.  Some of those transitional individuals are:

Erectus to sapiens:  Omo valley.  Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics"  pg. 70. 
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Tautavel, 200Kya:  large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy."  pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya:  ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel  "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans" 

And yes, the Multiregional Hypothesis is being refuted.  Genetic analysis of modern human populations reveals that there are no really old genes. And if Multiregional is right, there should be genes that are over a million years old.

11.  A Gibbons, Modern men trace ancestry to African migrants. Science 292:1051-1052, May 11, 2001.  Y chromosome of EVERY person in the study could be traced to forefathers who lived in Africa 35,000 to 89,000 years ago.  "one self-described 'dedicated multiregionalist,' Vince Sarich of the University of California, Berkeley, admitted: 'I have undergone a conversion -- a sort of epiphany. There are no old Y chromosomes lineages.  There are no old mtDNA lineages.  Period.  It was a total replacement.' "  In another study, Peter Underhill and colleagues analyzed 218 markers in 1062 men from 21 populations.Primary paper is Y Ke, B Su, D Lu, L Chen, H Li, C Qi, S Marzuki, R Deka, P Underhill, C Xiao, M Shriver, J Lell, D Wallace, RS Wells, M Selestad, P Oefner, D Zhu, W Huang, R Chakraborty, Z Chen, L Jin, African Origin of modern humans in east Asia: a tale of 12,000 Y chromosomes.  Science 292: 1151-1153, May 11, 2001.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by LightBearer
If we were to look at the estimated rate of poulation growth that has brought us to over 6 billion at the present time. Reverse the process, how far back in time would we get before we have zero poulation for man. I suspect that it matches closer to the Bible's of around 6,000 years rather than the outragous speculations of the scientific or evolutionist communities.

But this extrapolation would fly in the face of everything we know about how population growth happends. It is not linear and has only boomed in the last 500 years, which is well within recorded history.

If you start only 6000 years ago with these averages and starting with 2 or 8 people, you would not have enough people on the planet to do the things we know were being done 5000, 4000, 3000, and 2000 years ago and multiple continents by multiple civilizations.

Both your argument and Stormy's questioning don't deal with evolution (biology). If you have a conflict with world population, it is with mainstream world history and archeology (neither of which depends on evolution) which shows us that man has been all over this planet for quite some time.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JohnR7
According to the Bible, everyone decended from Adam and Eve. Through their son Seth, who most likely went off and married a female from a different race in the area now known as Ethiopia. They then formed a new race and all the others died off. None of them have survived other than the decendants of Seth.

At least that is what science and those who study DNA are telling us now. Everyone can be traced back to Seth and his wife.

Interesting exegesis, John. Where in the Bible does it say that the descendents of Cain died out?  Now, if Adam and Eve were the only humans, how could Seth have married a woman "from a different race"?

Racism is an ugly and persistent meme (idea).  It thrives off of any idea of human origins, warping that idea of origins to racism's own ends.  Originally racists were all creationists, believing that races were different because God created them different.  Negroes were actually animals according to many of the early racists.  Evolution blew away that justification for racism and, for a while, racism was in full route.  Then racism made a comeback with the writings of Virchow and Haeckel, who misrepresented evolution so that different races were more "highly" evolved than others. Guess which race was the most "highly evolved"?

Places where you can read about al this are:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_science_of_racism.htm
Isaac de la Peyere, Preadamitae, 1655, English edition, Men Before Adam, 1656.   He had only the white race descended from Adam.  Doesn't agree with your exegesis, John.
Charles Carrol  The Negro a Beast; or, In the Image of God, 1900 American Book and Bible House.
The Evolution of Racism by Elaine Pagels.  She gives a detailed discussion of Virchow and Haeckel.
Darwin by Drummond and Moore.  They discuss in detail the effect evolution had on the racists of the day.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Stormy
But ask a simple questions and you play dodge.

Talk origins does just as the students.

Tell me ...

When will you have answers ?

When have I ever ducked a question of yours, Stormy? When have you ever acknowledged my answers? 

 

[LightBearer]

Originally posted by lucaspa
  I suspect you have already looked at creationists websites and know that Morris' calculations do just that.  However, if you look at the numbers back then, extrapolate forward, and split up the population among the various known civilizations, you find that you have about 100 people in Egypt to build the pyramids!!  That right there tells you that the calculations are way off.

The extrapolation is not valid because the population increase is not continuous.

I havn't actually looked at any other web sites, it was somthing that just came to mind.

When you say way off, are they as way off as the evolutionists claims for Hundreds of thousands of years or are they more closer to the 6000 year mark.

 

[John MacNeil]

It is amazing to me how evolutionists can be so narrow-minded and uneducated and still try to argue their position with authority. Every time an issue comes up that calls into question the validity of their evolution theory, and which they can't counter, they claim their theory doesn't deal with that particular issue, yet by definition evolution deals with all life on the planet. Their simpleton view of population growth is just one more example of their refusal to accept reality when the evidence is contrary to their conjectured beliefs. Anyone who can do even minimal math, or operate a simple calculator, can determine from current human population it's probable and expected expansion and an approximate timeframe for the beginning of human population on this planet. And it doesn't stretch back any more than thirty thousand year, no matter how bad your math skills are.

The evolutionists don't represent science. They are a cult. They try and use disparate observances of natural selection to quantify their theory of evolution without ever qualifying that theory. Their raison d'etre is, and always has been, to be a foil for religion.

The human population on this planet can be traced back to a certain time period in which there is a clear demarcation between species and the demarcation was evidently created by a catastrophe of some sort, which likely resulted in world-wide flooding. The land-based ecosystem that existed before the demarcation was made extinct by the catastrophe, and that included the plants and animals. There is plenty of scientific record of that, such as this site for Woolly Mammoth's and Giant Irish Elk;

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/pin/pinpleist.html

The animals of the ecosystem that existed before the demarcation were all much larger than their modern day type of counterparts and they included the whole spectrum of animal life including the Dire Wolf, the Giant Bison, Cave Bears, Cave Lions, Giant Deer, Sabre-Tooth Cat, Giant Sloth, Woolly Mammoth, Giant Peccaries, Giant Irish Elk, the Woolly Rhinoceros and all manner of other animals and the plants most of them fed on. These animals and plants are so well known because many of them are so well preserved, as this site attests to;

www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/headline_universe/woolly_rhino.html

The only explanation that could explain the Woolly Rhinoceros, and other species, having been preserved in rock is if they were suddenly buried under massive amounts of sediment which later compressed. The only way for the massive amounts of sediment to be deposited in a rapid period which would keep the Woolly Rhinoceros from rotting is through a gigantic flood and a relatively rapid run-off after the flood. This geologic property of the great flood is explained here;

www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-006.htm

In the time when all those animal species went extinct is the same time period when all the Neanderthal type of hominids went extinct, including the Skhul V, the Shanidar 1, the Le Moustier, and even all those Homos that were alive, including the Homo Erectus, which was alive when the demarcation occurred and so couldn't be an evolutionary step to Cro-Magnon, as this PBS story proves;

www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec96/man_12-13.html

All this shows that our current population of Cro-Magnon people, and the other current populations of land-dwelling animals and plants, began their existence as a completely different ecosystem after the demarcation was effected than was the ecosystem that existed before the demarcation. That's what the science and the evidence shows. That timeline seems to point to thirty thousand year ago. Evolutionists, who only use the parts of science that they think endorses their pet theory, discard all real science in order to continue to believe in their cult. This process is not always a conscious decision on their part, but is merely the result of the indoctrination they received all through their schooling.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

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

Wrong
What is a race? Are micronesians the same or a different race the polynesians? Are australian aborigines the same or a different race then melanesians? Are native americans the same or a different race then the asians? Are the Ainu the same or a different race then the Japanese?
Depends on who you talk to.
Race is an arbitrary term, the definition of which is not scientifically valid.
Racial differences are miniscule compared to our gene pool.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by LightBearer
If we were to look at the estimated rate of poulation growth that has brought us to over 6 billion at the present time. Reverse the process, how far back in time would we get before we have zero poulation for man. I suspect that it matches closer to the Bible's of around 6,000 years rather than the outragous speculations of the scientific or evolutionist communities.

If everyone had four kids, then it would take about 35 generations. If they had kids by the age of 40 then 40 times 34 equals: 1400 years. It takes about 30 generations to get up to half a billion people. Then it grows very fast from there.

 

[Stormy]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Originally posted by Stormy 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.

A couple of the posters disagree about the similarity. But you are right. The entire human species has less genetic diversity than one small population of chimps in Africa.  The inference is that we went through a population bottleneck about 200,000 years ago. By population bottleneck, biologists mean about 10 breeding pairs.  We are still diversifying from that.

9.  A Gibbons, Studying humans -- and their cousins and parasites.  Science 292:627-629, April 27, 2001.  Low genetic diversity among humans, less than all other primates.  Bottleneck about 200,000 years ago.

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??

There were several migrations out of Africa.  And by the time H. sapiens began migrating, they weren't so "sparse" anymore.  Again, look how fast population can grow, and then think how fast the human population could recover from the bottleneck.  By 100,000 years ago, relatively lots of people compared to what the environment can support by hunting and gathering.  So clans and tribes begin leaving the ancestral home looking for more food.  As they hunt out an area, they have to move on again. How long does it take them to hunt out an area?  5 years, 10 years, 20 years?  Even if it is 20 years, you can see that you can have 500 moves in just 10,000 years.  If each move is just 10 miles and you have travel of 5,000 miles in just 10,000 years -- all the way from Africa to Siberia.  Make it 20 miles (an easy day's walk) and you go from Africa to the tip of South America.

Please continue. I was enjoying the lesson. So now we are at the tip of South America. What next??

 

[Stormy]

Anyone who believes that man without any help from God dispersed the population across this whole Earth... please help lucaspa.

He has us to the tip of South America... how did we get across the Ocean?

It is a fact that we came from common ancestors... but we are now everywhere.

How and Why?

How did we cross the Ocean?

Why would any of our ancestors even attempt such a feat?

Surely you do not believe this could have happen.

So how about it...

Do you give us Bible totters Babel?


Genesis 11:9 That is why it was called Babel--because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
It is amazing to me how evolutionists can be so narrow-minded and uneducated and still try to argue their position with authority. Every time an issue comes up that calls into question the validity of their evolution theory, and which they can't counter, they claim their theory doesn't deal with that particular issue, yet by definition evolution deals with all life on the planet. Their simpleton view of population growth is just one more example of their refusal to accept reality when the evidence is contrary to their conjectured beliefs. Anyone who can do even minimal math, or operate a simple calculator, can determine from current human population it's probable and expected expansion and an approximate timeframe for the beginning of human population on this planet. And it doesn't stretch back any more than thirty thousand year, no matter how bad your math skills are.

What is amazing to me is that you continue with your arrogant condescension while having come up with absolutely nothing of substance in any post you have made. All that we have seen from you is name calling and extremely poor scholarship. Every single time you have given a link to a paper the is supposed to support you unusual ideas it turns out you have completely missed the point of the paper or are intentionally misrepresenting what it says. You are rapidly becoming a caricature of scientific illiteracy.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"of primitive man to accomplish this miraculous feat of populating the world from one beginning source."

Four rabbits were released in australia. Look what happened.
One hundred cane toads were released in australia. Look what happened.
A single ship's bilge pump released a few zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. Look what happened.

There are hundreds and hundreds of examples of small numbers plants and animals being released into a new environment and what happens - the population explodes.

 

[chickenman]

macneill, give up, you're dealing with people who actually know what they're talking about

your poorly reasoned arguments and laughable references to "actual science" aren't going to convince anyone.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I took a fourth year course in evolutionary biology. Most of that course delt with populaiton dynamics such as growth dispersion and diversity. Population studies and evolutionary theory go together hand in hand.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by Stormy

He has us to the tip of South America... how did we get across the Ocean?

It is a fact that we came from common ancestors... but we are now everywhere.

How and Why?

How did we cross the Ocean? 

We didn't cross the Ocean. Human civilizations spread from Africa to Europe and Asia during the early appearance of H. erectus. Later, early modern humans moved to the American continents during the Plio/Pleistocene ice age across the exposed continental shelf between Asia and the North American continent while the sea level was lower due to glacioeustasy. There was no ocean between the continents to them. They passed through an ice-free corridor in Northern Canada and/or traveled in small boats down the western coastline of North America.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
I took a fourth year course in evolutionary biology.

And now what? What sort of a job does that qualify you for? Other then just to teach what you learned to someone else. Sorta like the fox chasing it's tail.