|
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
 Posted - 01/31/2004 : 20:43:02
|
This question isn't necessarily geared just towards evolutionists, but any Old-Age-Earthers as well.
Anyways, according to evolution, modern humans began to appear around 2.2 million years ago (date obtained from http://www.ecology.com/origins-of-life/earths-beginnings). Well, if that is true, then shouldn't there be a lot more people on the earth today? For 2.2 million years of breeding and multiplying, doesn't a mere 6 billion at this point seem a little low?
For instance, with some simple calculations I was able to determine that if there were only 1000 people on the earth today, at a growth rate of 1% per year (which is extremely low--but I'll get back to that in a minute) there will be over 2 billion people on the earth in 650,000 years (let alone 2.2 million years). So, my question is: Where is everyone?
To expand,
I've heard this argument before but I haven't found a place where it was properly addressed. In fact, I've even heard some creationists say that in several million years, due to constant reproduction, there would be more people than atoms in the universe. Now, don't get me wrong...I think a conclusion like that is ridiculous. Obviously, populations stop expanding when they reach their maximum size, but that still doesn't explain why we haven't already reached our maximum size in a supposed 2.2 million years.
And, before you reply by saying "Well, you didn't take into consideration famine, disease, death and natural disaster--and you can't make calculations based on a constant rate", I challenge you to show me that a 1% growth rate is unreasonable. In fact, it's incredibly low as I have already stated. Just think, in 1900 the earth's population was around 1.6 billion, and now it's at around 6 billion. That's a 4.4 billion person increase in 100 years! That's an incredible amount--and far greater than a 1% growth rate. And just think how much higher the growth rate would have been in earlier years--the population would literally have exploded in its early stages.
Now, I'm sure there'll be someone who also tries to argue that medical science has helped us as well. But remember, it's simply aided in our quest for longevity and not so much in our quest for prolifity (sp?). The fact that people nowadays usually live 20-30 years longer than they used to doesn't affect birth rates because people don't tend to have children in their later years.
Anywho, please explain to me how after 2.2 million years of procreation and human population explosion, we were only able to reach a total population of around 1.6 billion in 1900.
And/or, if the majority of people died off in the Ice Age, and assuming it only occured around 13,000 years ago, where are their remains? We are talking about at least 2 billion peoples' remains here (if we suppose that's what happened to everyone), not just a few.
Once again, where is everyone?
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2004 : 22:25:06 [Permalink]
|
You misunderstood the statement on the site.
The Homo genus began with Habilis, 2.2 million years ago. Then came Homo Erectus, about a million years ago (derived from Homo Habilis). Homo Sapiens arose between 500 000 years ago and 250 000 years ago. So, everyone who should be here is here, and more.
Google for Human Evolution for MUCH more information. |
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2004 : 23:11:04 [Permalink]
|
ivanisavich wrote:quote:
For 2.2 million years of breeding and multiplying, doesn't a mere 6 billion at this point seem a little low?
Not really. I'll reference the various figures you've offered several times in the remainder of this post, without necessarily quoting you directly:
A 1% population growth per year, over 100 years, gives you a population increase of 270%. Those 1.6 billion people, by that figure, should have become 4.32 billion. If the actual value now is 6 billion, that represents an increase of 375%, or a growth rate of 1.33%, so your guess is very close, and not "incredibly low."
A growth rate of just 1% applied over 2.2 million years results in a population increase which is written as follows: write down "10527416699696644784439534250043," and then follow it with 9,474 zeroes, and then stick a percent sign at the end. Compare this to the approximate number of atoms in the universe, which I will write out in full:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
The difference is 9,394 orders of magnitude, so yes, a constant 1% rate of growth over 2.2 million years is completely unreasonable.
Besides which, as near as we can tell, Homo sapiens sapiens (our species), didn't arrive on the scene until about 120,000 years ago. At a constant 1% growth rate, starting with just two of us, there'd be "73431755831037001427474955826725" (followed by 487 zeroes) of us now, at the very least, still far larger, by hundreds of orders of magnitude, than the number of atoms in the universe: in other words, constant 1% growth is impossibly high.
(The problem here is that 0.01 of a human won't survive. Given two people, the population growth rate the first year they have an only child is 50%. Assuming the rate is always exactly 1% produces a figure which is far too low until there are more than 100 people in the population. Going into more detail on this would require a discussion of the necessity of incest among Adam and Eve's kids, so let's not go there for now.)
But wait! Let's do the Biblical numbers! After the Flood (4,394 years ago), there were, according to the Bible, three fertile couples (if Noah had more than three sons, we don't know about it). Starting with six people, a simple calculation that allows fractions of a baby at a steady 1% growth rate means there should be 58,380,478,643,809,026,216 people today. Please note that that figure is nearly ten billion times the population today, which means a steady 1% growth is completely and utterly unreasonable figure to use, even if the Bible is correct!
Overall, if the Bible is correct and we've gone from two people 6,008 years ago to 6.1 billion people now, the average rate of constant population growth would be just 0.364%, or just 26% of the current rate, and, obviously, 36.4% of your allegedly-reasonable 1% rate. So even if we include the wholesale slaughters that the Bible "records," a 1% rate is far too high a rate to use as a constant over Biblically-recorded "history."
What happened with your math, ivanisavich? I couldn't tell you. I can tell you this, however: 1.01 (a one-percent growth rate expressed as a multiplier) taken to the 650,000th power (the 1% rate over 650,000 years), times the original 1,000 people (from your example) results in a number with 2,802 more zeroes on the end than your teensy-weensy "2 billion." A 1% population growth means a doubling of the population every 69.665 or so years. 650,000 divided by 69.665 equals 9,330 or so doublings of 1,000 people. 2,097,152,000 represents 21 doublings of 1,000 people, or just 1,463 years.
But what's really happened? The #1 reason that the average lifespan was very low even two or three hundred years ago was due to a high infant mortality rate. Yes, modern medicine has done a boatload of good towards ending infant mortality. So much so that in "developed countries," couples often choose to stop at just one or two kids, despite millennia of genetic programming which says, "pass on your genes, dammit!" The odds are very good now, in the U.S., much of Europe, and a few other places that a child born today will live past puberty.
The chances of that happening just 500 years ago weren't nearly as favorable. If I remember correctly, there are still cultures today in which a kid isn't given a "real" name until he/she reaches a certain age, meaning that a human being less than, say, 12 years old isn't actually considered to be "alive." This is done for the same reason you don't name the livestock you plan on eating: the death of a random, un-named thing is much more easy to get over than the death of something you've named, and by doing so claim an emotional tie.
Anyway, so far as we can tell, the population growth rate has actually been flat (or near 0%) for most of the last few tens of thousands of years. Going from 10 million people 120,000 years ago to 6 billion today represents a constant average annual growth rate of just 0.00533%, vastly smaller than the rate you present as reasonable.
Further, according to the Population Reference Bureau,quote:
For the last 50 years, world population multiplied more rapidly than ever before, and more rapidly than it will ever grow in the future.
They offer a rate of 1.4 percent in the year 2000, meaning the 1.33% rate I calculated at the start of this post is too high even for most of this past century.
That last link is fascinating reading, and includes stats on several countries in which the growth rate is currently negative, meaning the population in those places is actually going down as time goes on.
Please see also the Straight Dope column titled If I hadn't killed 52 flies as a child, how many descendants would they have had by now? which includes the following tidbit of wisdom:quote:
The lesson in all this, of course, is the futility of trying to predict the future by projecting a single factor.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2004 : 14:37:41 [Permalink]
|
Dave....You're making us all lazy. But, that's okay. Great job, again.
Posted by Ivanisavich
quote:
I challenge you to show me that a 1% growth rate is unreasonable.
A little lesson in critical thinking is due. This is you're assertion. Before you can use this as evidence, you must first show that is valid. You presented it, now you support it.
I could easily throw out a much lower number and have you disprove it. The difference is that I would be careful to find a number that would fit into reasonable estimates. You, on the other hand, are forced by your preconceptions to throw out a number that must fit into your dogma. And, even there, Dave has shown that you've failed.
Please, if you must put your faith in something that cannot be proven, (or disproven) through rational material analysis, leave it at that. Making up numbers to quantify the unquantifiable is like trying to climb a hill of loose sand. Stick with the qualitative arguments. Those may not always be sound, but their not as easily dismantled.
Why do people feel they can invent a game, stack the deck and then think someone else is going to believe that their game is best thing since sex and chocolate? I'm sorry, but people need to realize that trying to tear down your neighbor's house with a toothpick isn't going to repair your own house. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2004 : 14:40:41 [Permalink]
|
Hehe...thanks Dave!
I wondered why my figures were so far off from those presented by the other creation scientist.
Well, I doubled checked my "simple calculations" and discovered where I had messed up. Once I fixed that, sure enough, the right numbers came out.
So, my apologies for presenting such a crappy case for my question!
quote:
But wait! Let's do the Biblical numbers! After the Flood (4,394 years ago), there were, according to the Bible, three fertile couples (if Noah had more than three sons, we don't know about it). Starting with six people, a simple calculation that allows fractions of a baby at a steady 1% growth rate means there should be 58,380,478,643,809,026,216 people today. Please note that that figure is nearly ten billion times the population today, which means a steady 1% growth is completely and utterly unreasonable figure to use, even if the Bible is correct!
Overall, if the Bible is correct and we've gone from two people 6,008 years ago to 6.1 billion people now, the average rate of constant population growth would be just 0.364%, or just 26% of the current rate, and, obviously, 36.4% of your allegedly-reasonable 1% rate. So even if we include the wholesale slaughters that the Bible "records," a 1% rate is far too high a rate to use as a constant over Biblically-recorded "history."
Good point. I probably would have realized that too, if my original math wasn't screwed up  .
quote:
What happened with your math, ivanisavich? I couldn't tell you.
It's fixed now! Do I win?
quote:
But what's really happened? The #1 reason that the average lifespan was very low even two or three hundred years ago was due to a high infant mortality rate. Yes, modern medicine has done a boatload of good towards ending infant mortality.
Good point! Failed to think of that.
quote:
Anyway, so far as we can tell, the population growth rate has actually been flat (or near 0%) for most of the last few tens of thousands of years. Going from 10 million people 120,000 years ago to 6 billion today represents a constant average annual growth rate of just 0.00533%, vastly smaller than the rate you present as reasonable.
Once again, I have now seen the light when it comes to my math and "logic" concerning this potential argument  .
I ask that you understand and allow me to revoke my argument, because I only formed it after retreaving the information gathered from my calculations which seemed reasonable, but after correcting them, they do not. So, once again, thanks Dave for the insight and for answering my question in a very satisfactory and complete manner. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2004 : 14:55:06 [Permalink]
|
Well Tim, you missed my last post by a couple of minutes, but that's Ok .
But, let me just clear something up...
quote:
Please, if you must put your faith in something that cannot be proven, (or disproven) through rational material analysis, leave it at that.
No where in my post did I write "I have now disproved evolution!". I simply stated a question that could have been from one evolutionist to another for all I care. It was simply a question, and that's all I presented it as. In challenging someone to prove the 1% rate unreasonable I simply invoked Dave's response, in which he did just that--and in which he did a fine job of it.
I think you should read things over twice before you go on another "here come the creationists trying to disprove evolution" rant.
quote:
Why do people feel they can invent a game, stack the deck and then think someone else is going to believe that their game is best thing since sex and chocolate?
Again, you've read between the lines, behind the lines, over the lines, under the lines, around the lines and through the lines, but not the actual words themselves. No where did I state that this was the argument for creationism and no where did I present my "case" in such an arrogant manner.
I come to this forum to ask questions and get answers, not to ask questions and get "why do you even bother?!" style replies, thank you. |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2004 : 17:46:00 [Permalink]
|
Jesus Christ Dave, where do you get the time to do all this?????
Always an interesting read though so keep it up.
Thanks |
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2004 : 20:32:05 [Permalink]
|
Gezzam wrote:quote:
Jesus Christ Dave, where do you get the time to do all this?????
As a married father who gets to sleep in on Sundays, I've got lots of time on Saturday nights. Especially since my wife, after we put the toddler to bed, tends to want to go do her own things, too.quote:
Always an interesting read though so keep it up.
Thanks
Thank you, although I must point out an error. The difference between a 1% growth rate for 2.2 million years and the number of atoms in the universe is not 9,394 orders of magnitude, it is more like 9,425 orders of magnitude.
Apologies all around if that mistake has caused any confusion or embarrassment.
ivanisavich wrote:quote:
Hehe...thanks Dave!
You're quite welcome.quote:
I wondered why my figures were so far off from those presented by the other creation scientist.
Well, I doubled checked my "simple calculations" and discovered where I had messed up. Once I fixed that, sure enough, the right numbers came out.
So, my apologies for presenting such a crappy case for my question!
Don't worry about it. I figure many of us are here to learn. I'd never actually run the constant-rate-of-growth numbers myself, I'd only read about 'em being a very wrong thing to do (in general, not just related to Creationism), so your post gave me an opportunity to play with the Windows calculator and have some fun.
Plus, now you know about the infant mortality issue, and also why we're not hip-deep in flies.quote:
I ask that you understand and allow me to revoke my argument, because I only formed it after retreaving the information gathered from my calculations which seemed reasonable, but after correcting them, they do not. So, once again, thanks Dave for the insight and for answering my question in a very satisfactory and complete manner.
Oh, I understand completely. There's no reason to think that once you've put forward an argument, you've got to stick with it no matter what (though that is a definite problem with many of the more-vocal Creationists).
By the way, I forgot to address one part of your question which isn't dependent upon your numbers being correct or not:quote:
And/or, if the majority of people died off in the Ice Age, and assuming it only occured around 13,000 years ago, where are their remains? We are talking about at least 2 billion peoples' remains here (if we suppose that's what happened to everyone), not just a few.
No matter how many people have died since the inception of H. sapiens, the simple fact of the matter is that even bones decay into dust, unless they are somehow preserved. For most of human history, that would mean natural fossilization, since burial and/or mummification are relatively new ideas. Fossilization is actually pretty rare, since it requires a particular set of circumstances. It's surprising we have as many fossils as we do.
In another post, you wrote:quote:
No where in my post did I write "I have now disproved evolution!". I simply stated a question that could have been from one evolutionist to another for all I care. It was simply a question, and that's all I presented it as. In challenging someone to prove the 1% rate unreasonable I simply invoked Dave's response, in which he did just that--and in which he did a fine job of it.
But, I wasn't obligated to. That, I believe, is Tim's point. I demonstrated it to be unreasonable (A) because it was simple to do so, and (B) because I felt like it. But Tim is absolutely correct that you were obligated to support the truth of your assertion.
And since you apparently knew your math wasn't matching what other Creationists were saying ("I wondered why my figures were so far off from those presented by the other creation scientist"), you really needed to prove to yourself that 1% was reasonable, prior to posting the question, especially since almost your entire argument revolved around that single-digit figure. It was, more or less, the root premise upon which the rest of the argument depended (and, if you re-read your post, you might find it comes across as being rather more self-assured than "simply a question" would suggest).
As such, and as Tim demonstrated, anyone here could have reasonably and justifiably replied to your post with nothing more, "it's your assertion, you prove it." And I must say (not just to you, ivanisavich) that the fact that I did not choose to post such a response this time does not, and should not, impose a higher expectation on anyone here, including me, to accept such challenges in the future. When someone makes a claim, it is primarily up to that person to support the claim, and not anyone else's responsibility to falsify it. If a person chooses to do so, that doesn't change who has the real burden of proof.
For example, had you, ivanisavich, found a flaw in my analysis, or simply replied "you're full of beans, Dave," it still would have been up to you to demonstrate that your 1% figure was reasonable. Just because a counter-argument was wrong (or inconvenient) doesn't mean the original premise was correct.
Tim wrote:quote:
Dave....You're making us all lazy. But, that's okay. Great job, again.
Thanks. But no, I shouldn't be making you lazy. There have been plenty of times when, by the time I got around to reading something for which I had an answer, someone else had already replied with that answer (often with a more elegant explanation than I had in mind). I got to this one first simply because I have no social life anymore. Were I still single, I probably would have been at the local bar.
Plus, you had plenty of time to find my mistake. Why the heck didn't you?! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2004 : 03:55:40 [Permalink]
|
Posted by Dave
quote:
Plus, you had plenty of time to find my mistake. Why the heck didn't you?!
Because a) I prefer to stick to the qualitative arguments myself b) You're numbers may have been off, but in general they fit into what we already know. So...I got lazy, anyhow. And, C) I'm terrible with math. If you throw more than my age at me, I panic!
I think I'll copy your post and bring it to work. That'l give me something to do while i'm sitting around waiting for someone to break something.
Posted by Ivanisavich
quote:
No where in my post did I write "I have now disproved evolution!". I simply stated a question that could have been from one evolutionist to another for all I care.
You are correct, Ivan, and I apologize if I seemed a bit condescending. I usually attempt to avoid attitude problems, but sometimes I get a little heated. Similar questions crop up often and certain responses flow forth like gasoline on a fire. I don't care to be so curt. Thanks for the reminder.
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2004 : 07:18:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You are correct, Ivan, and I apologize if I seemed a bit condescending.
Don't worry bout it . |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2004 : 09:12:21 [Permalink]
|
I don't know if this was covered above, but just to make sure:
No population contineus to grow at any steady rate. We are seeing that now in many European countries that are actually having population declines (death rates higher than birth rates).
Throughout history there were times of massive population declines in the human populations. A few recent historical examples:
Bubonic Plague in Europe: population dropped from an estimated 70 million to 50 million in the 1300's
Native American populations dropped from a total esetimated over 15 million to below 500,000 after contact with Europeans began.
Also for most of our human history we lived as hunter gaterers. This type of society limited human population sizes dramatically. Then there were two population explosions, one with the discovery of agriculture and the other with the beginning of the industrial revolution. In other words the modern ~1.4% growth we are seeing now has not normally been seen throughout human history (including many of man's closest relatives). |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2004 : 09:15:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And, before you reply by saying "Well, you didn't take into consideration famine, disease, death and natural disaster--and you can't make calculations based on a constant rate", I challenge you to show me that a 1% growth rate is unreasonable. In fact, it's incredibly low as I have already stated. Just think, in 1900 the earth's population was around 1.6 billion, and now it's at around 6 billion. That's a 4.4 billion person increase in 100 years! That's an incredible amount--and far greater than a 1% growth rate. And just think how much higher the growth rate would have been in earlier years--the population would literally have exploded in its early stages.
Actually 1% is extremely high if you are to compare it to an average growth rate for all of human history. (And by history I mean only the historical period when written records are available and better assessments of populations can be made or the last ~5000 years or so).
Also the notion that the human population as hunters and gatherers would explode doesn't follow the evidence we see with modern hunters and gatherers. Their populations stay relatively low with basically a 0% growth rate (actually they are for the most part in decline now, but that is due to modern pressures). |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
