Population doubling; a challenge to the Darwinist

[Stripe]

You do not have simple conversations. You consistently bait people you label as "evolutionists"
into ridiculous conversations with no basis in reality, then accuse them of not being able to have a decent conversation. You have an evil streak in you. Good thing that you have a religion that says you can be a complete jerk, and still get to heaven as long as you believe.

You are a bad person, Stripe. You could be better. You could find more positive forms of entertainment.

Mt apologies, once again, to myself, for wasting time with you.

Bye. :wave2:

Again. lain:

 

[Selaphiel]

The OP does raise one interesting question: Is the intention of humor in the speaker/writer required for something to be considered comedy?

The rest is just nonsense of course. Lacking any understanding of population dynamics. Find me a single biologist who claims that the rate of human population growth has been constant. Using the population growth rate of a post-industrial society as a growth constant for the entire history of homo sapiens is so ridiculous that it warrants no serious response.

 

[6days]

The rest is just nonsense of course. Lacking any understanding of population dynamics. Find me a single biologist who claims that the rate of human population growth has been constant. Using the population growth rate of a post-industrial society as a growth constant for the entire history of homo sapiens is so ridiculous that it warrants no serious response.

You didn't read the OP very carefully. Stripe did not claim human population growth has been a constant. He did suggest though that starting with millions of people 5000 years ago presents more of a problem to evolutionists, than the truth that we originated from 8 individuals 4500 years ago.
BTW... the current 'low' rate of doubling the population every 60 years is not a high enough rate to counter the high rate of deleterious mutations causing the human genome to crumble. Genetic burden in the human genome is consistent with God's Word, the recent creation, and the population bottleneck.

 

[Selaphiel]

You didn't read the OP very carefully. Stripe did not claim human population growth has been a constant. He did suggest though that starting with millions of people 5000 years ago presents more of a problem to evolutionists, than the truth that we originated from 8 individuals 4500 years ago.
BTW... the current 'low' rate of doubling the population every 60 years is not a high enough rate to counter the high rate of deleterious mutations causing the human genome to crumble. Genetic burden in the human genome is consistent with God's Word, the recent creation, and the population bottleneck.

It only presents a problem if you assume that populations always grow. Growth of a population is determined by more factors than mere reproduction. It is determined by mortality rates, standards of living, availability of resources. There was a greater growth in population size the last 100 years than the 5000 years preceeding the 20th century.

View attachment 24452

the truth that we originated from 8 individuals 4500 years ago.

Must have been extremely scarce with people on earth around the time of Jesus then. Guess those Egyptian empires, Chinese dynasties as well as the populations in Europe, Africa and America didn't really exist. Get a grip on yourself, it

BTW... the current 'low' rate of doubling the population every 60 years is not a high enough rate to counter the high rate of deleterious mutations causing the human genome to crumble. Genetic burden in the human genome is consistent with God's Word, the recent creation, and the population bottleneck.

Yeah, pardon me if I take your competence in genetics with a grain of salt. What deleterious mutations would that be? Population doubling every 60 years is insanely fast, we are not bacteria in a pPetri dish Please explain the genetic mechanisms that you are assuming here, with references to scientific literature

 

[Stripe]

The rest is just nonsense of course.

The scientific world calls that math. :up:

Lacking any understanding of population dynamics.

As luck would have it, I presented an average, which eliminates any "dynamics."

Find me a single biologist who claims that the rate of human population growth has been constant.

Find me a single OP that claims population growth is constant.

Using the population growth rate of a post-industrial society as a growth constant for the entire history of homo sapiens is so ridiculous that it warrants no serious response.

Well, no. You could posit your idea of what does represent feasible numbers.

It only presents a problem if you assume that populations always grow.

What on Earth in the past few thousand years could have possibly seen the world's population decline? :AMR:

Must have been extremely scarce with people on earth around the time of Jesus then.

:darwinsm:

Darwinist complains (wrongly) about a lack of appreciation of dynamics, then demands that no variation be allowed.

Is there just one willing to engage sensibly?

Population doubling every 60 years is insanely fast.

And apparently is what we see today. :idunno:

 

[6days]

It only presents a problem if you assume that populations always grow....

At the very least it seems you agree that the world population is consistent within the Biblical time frame.

the truth that we originated from 8 individuals 4500 years ago.

Must have been extremely scarce with people on earth around the time of Jesus then.

Perhaps 700 million people.

BTW... the current 'low' rate of doubling the population every 60 years is not a high enough rate to counter the high rate of deleterious mutations causing the human genome to crumble. Genetic burden in the human genome is consistent with God's Word, the recent creation, and the population bottleneck.

Yeah, pardon me if I take your competence in genetics with a grain of salt. ....Please explain the genetic mechanisms that you are assuming here, with references to scientific literature

Ha...... Selaphiel, I have no idea if you understand genetics at all but my guess is you don't. Virtually every geneticist, and population geneticist understands genetic burden is increasing in humans. Natural selection is unable to remove the vast amount of mutations that accumulate / 'pile on' from one generation to the next. Journals have many articles where geneticists recognize the problem, then propose models trying to explain how the high mutation rate might fit into their belief system. However..... the high mutation rate, and the worlds current population easily fits within the creation and flood model.
As to citations within the scientific literature, you can google but here are a few examples:

In the journal Nature there was an article titled " High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids" . The authors Walker and Keightley say things such as " it is difficult to explain how human populations could have survived"...."a high rate of deleterious mutation is paradoxical in a species with a low reproductive rate". And... deleterious mutations great appears to be so high in humans and I were close relatives that it is doubtful that such species could survive"

The journal PNAS has sn article by J. Crow titled 'The the high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk?'. Crow says " it seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating... the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1 to 2% per generation".

 

[Jonahdog]

At the very least it seems you agree that the world population is consistent within the Biblical time frame.
Perhaps 700 million people.
Ha...... Selaphiel, I have no idea if you understand genetics at all but my guess is you don't. Virtually every geneticist, and population geneticist understands genetic burden is increasing in humans. Natural selection is unable to remove the vast amount of mutations that accumulate / 'pile on' from one generation to the next. Journals have many articles where geneticists recognize the problem, then propose models trying to explain how the high mutation rate might fit into their belief system. However..... the high mutation rate, and the worlds current population easily fits within the creation and flood model.
As to citations within the scientific literature, you can google but here are a few examples:

In the journal Nature there was an article titled " High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids" . The authors Walker and Keightley say things such as " it is difficult to explain how human populations could have survived"...."a high rate of deleterious mutation is paradoxical in a species with a low reproductive rate". And... deleterious mutations great appears to be so high in humans and I were close relatives that it is doubtful that such species could survive"

The journal PNAS has sn article by J. Crow titled 'The the high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk?'. Crow says " it seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating... the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1 to 2% per generation".

Please provide appropriate citations to the papers you cite.

 

[Stripe]

Please provide appropriate citations to the papers you cite.

Please learn to use Google. :up:

 

[Stripe]

OP has a specific challenge. Darwinists will invite or invent any excuse to talk about something else.

 

[6days]

OP has a specific challenge....

Yes.....The evolutionists say its unfair to model a doubling population every 60 years. So...... how about if we double the population every 7000 years?
"Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! "
http://creation.mobi/where-are-all-the-people

 

[Tyrathca]

I for one am wondering why you aren't all saying the world was created yesterday. Sure human growth rates using your math may say the Earth is young but if you use E. Coli the truth is truly revealed....

Mass of e coli (approximate) = 1*10^-15 kg
Rate of division of e coli = 0.5 hours
Number of generations in 3 days = 72 hours / 0.5 hours = 144
Number of E Coli after 3 days of this growth rate = 2^144 = 2.23*10^43 (that's a lot of bacteria....)
Mass of E Coli after 3 days of this growth rate = 2.23*10^28 kg (That's a lot of bacteria!)
Mass of the Earth = 5.972*10^24 kg (Wait that's lower than the bacteria...)

Conclusion: the Earth is less than a day old and will in the next hours completely consume the worlds mass making it a big ball of pure bacteria.... The apocalypse is now! Even if the numbers I've used are off by several orders of magnitude the practical results are the same.

Alternative conclusion: Exponential growth curves are unstable and do not last long in the real world. Assuming that an exponential growth curve has existed indefinitely into the past for any organism (even humans) is flawed and illogical.

 

[Stripe]

Human growth rates using your math may say the Earth is young

They say nothing about the age of the Earth. :idunno:

Alternative conclusion: Exponential growth curves are unstable and do not last long in the real world. Assuming that an exponential growth curve has existed indefinitely into the past for any organism (even humans) is flawed and illogical.

Are the Darwinists just going to repeat the same thing over and over as if the challenge has been answered?

 

[Tyrathca]

They say nothing about the age of the Earth.

Just because you're an idiot don't act like everyone else is

Are the Darwinists just going to repeat the same thing over and over as if the challenge has been answered?

Is this creationist going to keep ignoring over and over answers to his "challenge"? Try reading them sometime, perhaps you'll learn something!

 

[Silent Hunter]

Here's the OP:

The Darwinist believes that the population about 4,000 years ago was something like 7 million.

Today's population doubling period is thought to be 60 years.

Assuming the accuracy of those numbers over all history, there would be 2.93x10³³ people on planet Earth.

The Earth is estimated to weigh about 6x10²⁵ kilograms, or about the equivalent of 6x10²³ sizable people.

Stripe says:

OP has a specific challenge.

Does anyone other than Stripe see a "specific challenge" anywhere in the OP?

The "challenge" seems to be "Can anyone find an error in my math (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division)?" If not, the conclusion must be that since no one can find an error in Stripe's actual "math (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division), creationism is therefore true. :kookoo:

The thing is, Stripe assumes the accuracy of his numbers (see the bold/underlined in the OP), when he has been shown (repeatedly) that they are not.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[patrick jane]

I say that Noah's flood was 7,000 years ago at least. That's right, I say

 

[Jonahdog]

I say that Noah's flood was 7,000 years ago at least. That's right, I say

Wrong.

 

[Nick M]

Evolutionists claim the reason the population does not match the model is bottle neck catastrophic events. Several in fact. Just not with a flood.

 

[Jonahdog]

Evolutionists claim the reason the population does not match the model is bottle neck catastrophic events. Several in fact. Just not with a flood.

Citations please,cause I'm not sure that is correct. Using the "flood model" when were those bottlenecks, where were they and what caused them?

And actually it is probably demographers and those specifically interested in population dynamics that are interested in general. I suspect that since those people are likely to be rational and of a scientific bent they accept evolution but you should make your claims more specific Nicky, it will make Stripey and 6 happier as well.

 

[Nick M]

Citations please,cause I'm not sure that is correct.

Do you need me to google that for you? Leave to an evolutionist to not know the argument. The reason for the bottle neck is because the model for population does not work.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Evolutionists claim the reason the population does not match the model is bottle neck catastrophic events. Several in fact. Just not with a flood.

6days has mentioned bottlenecks on several occasions. I'm sure that node in the "biblical model" comes from him not "evolutionists".

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk