Population Growth Rates.

[bob b]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Country Fertility rate (births/woman)
-------------in 2000--in 2007

Mali -----------6.89 7.38
Niger ----------7.16 7.37
Uganda --------6.96 6.84
Somalia --------7.18 6.68
Afghanistan ----5.87 6.64
Yemen ---------7.05 6.49
Burundi ---------6.25 6.48
Burkina Faso ---6.44 6.41
Congo ----------6.92 6.37
Angola ----------6.52 6.27
Sierra Leone ----6.08 6.01

Methinks Hank has fallen for urban myths about modern medicine having a major impact on population growth rates.

The countries with the least modern medicine have the highest population growth rates. This is understandable when you consider that such countries value children more as assets, have less means of contraception and hence have far more children per couple than developed countries.

 

[Hank]

I already explained. Someone posted CIA data and that proved my point.

What CIA data. Where is your data?

We have no reliable data on infant morality at the time of Moses.

We have no reliable date on birth rates at the time of Moses either.

It is obvious. People don't have partial children.

So what. Where is your evidence that the standard way of calculating population growth does not apply to small populations and at what population does it start applying? You said in your first post that you wanted to present evidence, let’s see the evidence.

The CIA numbers provided the validation.

What CIA numbers?

Your evidence for that please. The nations with the most diseases have the highest growth rates. This is because high birth rates trump high death rates every time as my enumeration example showed.

I don’t have to present evidence that there was some infant mortality at the time of Moses? Only a moron would think it was zero. Lol You want me to furnish evidence when you have avoided furnishing any evidence since the start.

Your enumeration example only showed that you can put numbers down that support your argument. You have no support for your numbers.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Country Fertility rate (births/woman)
-------------in 2000--in 2007

Mali -----------6.89 7.38
Niger ----------7.16 7.37
Uganda --------6.96 6.84
Somalia --------7.18 6.68
Afghanistan ----5.87 6.64
Yemen ---------7.05 6.49
Burundi ---------6.25 6.48
Burkina Faso ---6.44 6.41
Congo ----------6.92 6.37
Angola ----------6.52 6.27
Sierra Leone ----6.08 6.01

Methinks Hank has fallen for urban myths about modern medicine having a major impact on population growth rates.

The countries with the least modern medicine have the highest population growth rates. This is understandable when you consider that such countries value children more as assets, have less means of contraception and hence have far more children per couple than developed countries.

So your theory is that if we took away modern medicine, the growth rate would increase. Even though it’s known that for at least the last 200 years, the growth rate has increased exponentially with modern medicine.

If you average the growth rates of the countries you listed, you get 2.9% growth. Something that has never even been close to existing in modern history for a world growth and not even in local areas for any length of time. Yet as a science lover you want us to believe that that exist for the whole world for 400 years? That’s why you are in the upper 99% percentile Bob.

But just assume that is the case. If the time from the flood to Babel were 200 years, that would mean there were 2500 men, women and children to build the tower.

I’m not wasting my time with this kind of nonsense any more unless you are going to provide some evidence that your outrageous assumptions could ever be valid.

 

[bob b]

What CIA data. Where is your data?

The Wikipedia data I just posted was taken from the CIA data which someone linked to earlier in this thread.

We have no reliable date on birth rates at the time of Moses either.

Then why do you quote current global rates of growth?

So what. Where is your evidence that the standard way of calculating population growth does not apply to small populations and at what population does it start applying?

I already stated that using exponentials starting with small numbers yields partial births.

You said in your first post that you wanted to present evidence, let’s see the evidence.

I did in my previous post.

What CIA numbers?

The ones linked to by someone in an earlier posting and which are the basis for the Wikipedia data which I just posted.

I don’t have to present evidence that there was some infant mortality at the time of Moses? Only a moron would think it was zero. Lol You want me to furnish evidence when you have avoided furnishing any evidence since the start.

I didn't have to because someone beat me to it by linking to the CIA database.

Your enumeration example only showed that you can put numbers down that support your argument. You have no support for your numbers.

My example of 4 children/woman was well below the rate of 7+ in the CIA database for some undeveloped countries in Africa.

So your theory is that if we took away modern medicine, the growth rate would increase. Even though it’s known that for at least the last 200 years, the growth rate has increased exponentially with modern medicine.

Modern medicine is more recent and applies mostly to developed countries.

If you average the growth rates of the countries you listed, you get 2.9% growth. Something that has never even been close to existing in modern history for a world growth and not even in local areas for any length of time. Yet as a science lover you want us to believe that that exist for the whole world for 400 years? That’s why you are in the upper 99% percentile Bob.

The example was Joseph and his 12 brothers who the Bible says grew to 600,000 men in 400 years. I demonstrated that this was feasible using current fertility rates.

But just assume that is the case. If the time from the flood to Babel were 200 years, that would mean there were 2500 men, women and children to build the tower.

It was more like 400 years, and this is validated by my enumeration example of 4 children per woman which showed that the population could have grown far larger than you have concluded.

I’m not wasting my time with this kind of nonsense any more unless you are going to provide some evidence that your outrageous assumptions could ever be valid.

I have demonstrated with modern data that the assumptions were not outrageous.

 

[Hank]

I already stated that using exponentials starting with small numbers yields partial births.

That's one of the dumbest things you've ever said. And you've said some doozies.

My example of 4 children/woman was well below the rate of 7+ in the CIA database for some undeveloped countries in Africa.

You just can't get your mind wrapped around the difference between the birth rate and the growth rate can you Bob. A war or a plaque can set that birth rate back many years. But then you’re never concerned with the truth, only your beliefs.

Calculate what the population of sub-Sahara Africa will be in a year based on your little chart and lets see how it works out.

It was more like 400 years, and this is validated by my enumeration example of 4 children per woman which showed that the population could have grown far larger than you have concluded.

400 years after the flood would have been about the time of Abraham. So you’re saying the Tower of Babel was built during the time of Abraham. You don’t seem to know much about the Bible or science. Most put the Tower of Babel about 100 years after the flood.

 

[bob b]

That's one of the dumbest things you've ever said. And you've said some doozies.

Actually it is a mathematical fact.

You just can't get your mind wrapped around the difference between the birth rate and the growth rate can you Bob. A war or a plaque can set that birth rate back many years. But then you’re never concerned with the truth, only your beliefs.

I have shown that even if many females died before having children the 7+ birth rate would be able to absorb this loss, which is why I posted the example of 4 children per female to demonstrate this.

Calculate what the population of sub-Sahara Africa will be in a year based on your little chart and lets see how it works out.

When the population is very large (compared to my example) the normal exponential curve works very well.

400 years after the flood would have been about the time of Abraham. So you’re saying the Tower of Babel was built during the time of Abraham. You don’t seem to know much about the Bible or science. Most put the Tower of Babel about 100 years after the flood.

It was undoubtedly more than 100 years. In addition the ages were longer both before and after the Flood, so the number of children per female was undoubtedly larger to start with and only gradually became less.

The point of my argument was only to demonstrate that the account in Genesis was statistically feasible and not a fairytale.

Surely as an engineer you must have heard of the term "feasibility study" ?

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Bob, can you explain the difference between the fertility rate, crude birth rate, and population growth rate [no Wikipedia links, I'd rather hear it in your own words]? It seems that you are confusing these three concepts.

 

[bob b]

Bob, can you explain the difference between the fertility rate, crude birth rate, and population growth rate [no Wikipedia links, I'd rather hear it in your own words]? It seems that you are confusing these three concepts.

Why do you think I am confusing the three concepts?

 

[Hank]

Actually it is a mathematical fact.

The results give decimals not partial births. And it gives decimals whether the numbers are small or large. The fact that you will not give a number where the exponential equation doesn’t work is proof you know your numbers don’t work. The funny thing is, you think you are being smart when everyone can see exactly what you’re trying to hide.

If you won’t answer the question of what number is the point where the exponential equation doesn’t work, then you’ve got no case.

I have shown that even if many females died before having children the 7+ birth rate would be able to absorb this loss, which is why I posted the example of 4 children per female to demonstrate this.

Absorb what loss? You just allow for a loss that will support your beliefs. Nowhere in history is there any record of growth rates that large for that long. But then you are never concerned with the facts, just your beliefs.

When the population is very large (compared to my example) the normal exponential curve works very well.

Sure, when it comes to testing your numbers, you run fast. But then that's pretty much what you always do.

It was undoubtedly more than 100 years. In addition the ages were longer both before and after the Flood, so the number of children per female was undoubtedly larger to start with and only gradually became less.

I checked ten Christian sites for Biblical timelines and every one of them gave 102 to 104 years and supported those numbers with data straight from the Bible which anyone can see. So where are you getting your numbers. I notice you didn’t give a number, just that it was “undoubtedly” more than 100 years. Apparently it’s not apparent to Christians other than you. lol

The point of my argument was only to demonstrate that the account in Genesis was statistically feasible and not a fairytale.

Of course it was. That’s always your point. It just doesn’t stand up to the facts.

Surely as an engineer you must have heard of the term "feasibility study" ?

I have but you apparently don't understanding the meaning of "feasibility". I don’t think you are really an engineer. If so, you’re giving us a bad name.

 

[noguru]

The results give decimals not partial births. And it gives decimals whether the numbers are small or large. The fact that you will not give a number where the exponential equation doesn’t work is proof you know your numbers don’t work. The funny thing is, you think you are being smart when everyone can see exactly what you’re trying to hide.

If you won’t answer the question of what number is the point where the exponential equation doesn’t work, then you’ve got no case.



Absorb what loss? You just allow for a loss that will support your beliefs. Nowhere in history is there any record of growth rates that large for that long. But then you are never concerned with the facts, just your beliefs.



Sure, when it comes to testing your numbers, you run fast. But then that's pretty much what you always do.



I checked ten Christian sites for Biblical timelines and every one of them gave 102 to 104 years and supported those numbers with data straight from the Bible which anyone can see. So where are you getting your numbers. I notice you didn’t give a number, just that it was “undoubtedly” more than 100 years. Apparently it’s not apparent to Christians other than you. lol



Of course it was. That’s always your point. It just doesn’t stand up to the facts.



I have but you apparently don't understanding the meaning of "feasibility". I don’t think you are really an engineer. If so, you’re giving us a bad name.

I think Bob did get a degree in engineering. But I think he was an administrator for the greater part of his career. He probably moved up the chain of command pretty quickly given his tenacity. And once this happened he was emersed in the bureaucracy of his employer.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Why do you think I am confusing the three concepts?

Because multiplying the crude birth rate over multiple generations is not analogous to the population growth rate. Also, the CIA data I posted was in regard to the fertility rate in Sub-Saharan Africa, not the population growth rate (as you later implied).

Case in point:

You're running from the questions I've asked.
You said you wanted to present evidence regarding population growth rates and your source was the UN reports on current population growth rates. I haven’t seen a single item from a UN report on current population growth rates. Nor have you addressed a single item I posted. As usual you change the subject or run from the debate.

The reason I did not bother looking for the UN data was that someone posted other data that proved my point.

 

[bob b]

Because multiplying the crude birth rate over multiple generations is not analogous to the population growth rate. Also, the CIA data I posted was in regard to the fertility rate in Sub-Saharan Africa, not the population growth rate (as you later implied).

Case in point:

I implied no such thing.

I was conducting a feasibility study. The current fertility rate is so much higher than my example assumed that it would have taken almost half the female children dying before starting to have children to invalidate my estimates. In addition I ignored the number of adults living beyond the birthing period as well.

Both factors (as well as others) would cause my example to be highly conservative.

 

[Hank]

I think Bob did get a degree in engineering. But I think he was an administrator for the greater part of his career. He probably moved up the chain of command pretty quickly given his tenacity. And once this happened he was emersed in the bureaucracy of his employer.

One thing engineers have in common is the ability to look at the evidence logically. I have worked with hundreds of engineers and trained over two dozen. Of that number, there have only been two that have not been able to think logically (and I have no idea how they got through school). But we all know that trying to slant the evidence in order to make it come out a certain way is disastrous for engineering designs. So only the most desperate engineer tries to do that , normally when they have designed something that will cost a lot to change. Of all the engineers I know, discussing things such as evolution or the age of the earth will always result in two outcomes. Either they will accept the evidence or admit that their beliefs prevent them from believing the evidence. But there is never any that will try and slant the evidence to look a different way. Engineers know and live with the fact that it is unacceptable to do so. That’s why I have a difficult time believing Bob is an engineer.

 

[noguru]

One thing engineers have in common is the ability to look at the evidence logically. I have worked with hundreds of engineers and trained over two dozen. Of that number, there have only been two that have not been able to think logically (and I have no idea how they got through school). But we all know that trying to slant the evidence in order to make it come out a certain way is disastrous for engineering designs. So only the most desperate engineer tries to do that , normally when they have designed something that will cost a lot to change. Of all the engineers I know, discussing things such as evolution or the age of the earth will always result in two outcomes. Either they will accept the evidence or admit that their beliefs prevent them from believing the evidence. But there is never any that will try and slant the evidence to look a different way. Engineers know and live with the fact that it is unacceptable to do so. That’s why I have a difficult time believing Bob is an engineer.

Perhaps Bob has a socio-political reason to do so. Perhaps when he accepted evolution he did something he is ashamed of, so now evolution makes a convemient scapegoat to blame.

 

[Hank]

I implied no such thing.

I was conducting a feasibility study. The current fertility rate is so much higher than my example assumed that it would have taken almost half the female children dying before starting to have children to invalidate my estimates. In addition I ignored the number of adults living beyond the birthing period as well.

Both factors (as well as others) would cause my example to be highly conservative.

Bob your “feasibility study” was simply an enumeration of each generations birth rates which is an exponential increase and can be calculated by an exponential equation. So your statement that “You don't seem to realize that an exponential curve is not appropriate until the population numbers grow higher” shows you don’t understand the mathematics’ of population growth. In addition, you did not ignore the number of adults living beyond the birthing period, you only ignored the number of women living beyond the birthing period. The men live the entire 100 years in your “feasibility study”. So you pretty much had a zero death rate. If all adults die immediately after the birthing period as you say, there would have been barely enough Jews to represent the men, much less the women and children. This whole “feasibility study” defies logic. This is hardly a conservative study, more like an unbelievable study.

If you use this “feasibility study” to look at the population of earth during the tower of Babel, based on 6 couples from Noah, you would get 378 people on earth 100 years later. You want to go with that evidence?

 

[bob b]

Bob your “feasibility study” was simply an enumeration of each generations birth rates which is an exponential increase and can be calculated by an exponential equation. So your statement that “You don't seem to realize that an exponential curve is not appropriate until the population numbers grow higher” shows you don’t understand the mathematics’ of population growth.

Actually I seem to understand it better than you do.

In addition, you did not ignore the number of adults living beyond the birthing period, you only ignored the number of women living beyond the birthing period. The men live the entire 100 years in your “feasibility study”. So you pretty much had a zero death rate.

Better look again.

If all adults die immediately after the birthing period as you say, there would have been barely enough Jews to represent the men, much less the women and children. This whole “feasibility study” defies logic. This is hardly a conservative study, more like an unbelievable study.

Nope.

If you use this “feasibility study” to look at the population of earth during the tower of Babel, based on 6 couples from Noah, you would get 378 people on earth 100 years later. You want to go with that evidence?

There were 4 couples not 6. And using an exponential curve fit for small populations gives absurd results.

For example: suppose each couple had eight children. The adults, both men and women we ignore.

So in the first generation there are 32 children, 16 males and 16 females.

20 years later these 16 couples each have 8 children yielding 128 children.

Assume that all adults die immediately after the birthing period.

20 years later the 64 couples have 8 children each yielding 512 children.

So in 40 years the population exceeds your figure and we still have 3 more generations to go with the population quadrupling every 20 years.

512 x 4 = 2048

2048 x 4 = 4192

4192 x4 = 16,768

This assumes that all adults die immediately after having children.

It does assume 8 children per female, but this may be conservation in the first years following the flood where there would be an advantage to having more hands to help with the work, even hands of children like in the settling of the West.

 

[Hank]

Actually I seem to understand it better than you do.

You keep referring to the population equation as an exponential equation. I have gone along with your terminology since you seem to think an exponential equation is one that has an exponent in it. The equation that is used to calculate and project populations is a geometric equation.

The formula for what you used is 12 ((2^(a+1))-2), where a is the generation. You will get exactly the same numbers you gave. Are you deigning your “feasibility study” is just an enumeration of the geometric equation used to calculate populations?

Better look again.

I did and you continue to add in the sons every generation.

Nope.

You made this statement “If all adults died immediately after the birthing period the total would still be 786,432”. Are you now deigning that number is barely enough Jews to represent the 600,000 men?

There were 4 couples not 6. And using an exponential curve fit for small populations gives absurd results.

As I stated above, no one I know of uses an exponential curve for any population. But the geometric curve is what you are using.

For example: suppose each couple had eight children. The adults, both men and women we ignore.

You used 4 children above, why the change?

So in the first generation there are 32 children, 16 males and 16 females.

20 years later these 16 couples each have 8 children yielding 128 children.

Assume that all adults die immediately after the birthing period.

20 years later the 64 couples have 8 children each yielding 512 children.

You are assuming every woman has a child about every two years and that none of them die or are killed. That’s ludicrous.

So in 40 years the population exceeds your figure and we still have 3 more generations to go with the population quadrupling every 20 years.

I based that on the latest numbers you gave which was 4 children per mother. At least that is somewhat closer to a growth rate that is not completely outrageous, even though even that growth rate has never been seen.

This assumes that all adults die immediately after having children.

But it assumes that every child lives to have 8 children. Do you really think anyone is stupid enough to believe that?

If all the adults die, who builds the tower, the children?

It does assume 8 children per female, but this may be conservation in the first years following the flood where there would be an advantage to having more hands to help with the work, even hands of children like in the settling of the West.

You are either not capable of understanding the difference between the birth rate and the growth rate or you are deliberately ignoring it. In the first case you are daft and in the second you are deceitful. Which one is it?

The Bible records how many sons each person had. Where are you coming up with all these children?

 

[bob b]

You keep referring to the population equation as an exponential equation. I have gone along with your terminology since you seem to think an exponential equation is one that has an exponent in it. The equation that is used to calculate and project populations is a geometric equation.

The formula for what you used is 12 ((2^(a+1))-2), where a is the generation. You will get exactly the same numbers you gave. Are you deigning your “feasibility study” is just an enumeration of the geometric equation used to calculate populations?

You better have someone who knows math check your work.

I did and you continue to add in the sons every generation.

The sons are needed to impregnate the women. Then they die. I kept only the children that were born.

You made this statement “If all adults died immediately after the birthing period the total would still be 786,432”. Are you now deigning that number is barely enough Jews to represent the 600,000 men?

It should have been obvious that one more generation was necessary. I thought it unnecessary to point that out. The 400 years had not been used up.

As I stated above, no one I know of uses an exponential curve for any population. But the geometric curve is what you are using.

You used 4 children above, why the change?

No. I used 8, 4 of which were females.

You are assuming every woman has a child about every two years and that none of them die or are killed. That’s ludicrous.

It is normal for woman without birth control to become pregnant every year.
I used a lower number of children per woman to take care of deaths before puberty.

I based that on the latest numbers you gave which was 4 children per mother. At least that is somewhat closer to a growth rate that is not completely outrageous, even though even that growth rate has never been seen.

Says you. You only look at current data in which women choose not to have children.

But it assumes that every child lives to have 8 children. Do you really think anyone is stupid enough to believe that?

Depends on what era being discussed.

If all the adults die, who builds the tower, the children?

That assumption was made only to show that the population would grow rapidly even if that were the case. Obviously that would not happen in practice.

You are either not capable of understanding the difference between the birth rate and the growth rate or you are deliberately ignoring it. In the first case you are daft and in the second you are deceitful. Which one is it?

Neither. The problem seems to be that you are in denial that a population could grow so quickly under favorable circumstances..

The Bible records how many sons each person had. Where are you coming up with all these children?

Good point, but you need to remember that females are born too, although only rarely mentioned in the Bible.

 

[bob b]

For Hank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exponential growth
In mathematics, exponential growth (or geometric growth) occurs when the growth rate of a function is always proportional to the function's current size. Such growth is said to follow an exponential law (but see also Malthusian growth model). This implies for any exponentially growing quantity, the larger the quantity gets, the faster it grows. But it also implies that the relationship between the size of the dependent variable and its rate of growth is governed by a strict law, of the simplest kind: direct proportion. It is proved in calculus that this law requires that the quantity is given by the exponential function, if we use the correct time scale. This explains the name.

 

[bob b]

For Hank:

10These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: 11And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 12And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: 13And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 14And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber: 15And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 16And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg: 17And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters. 18And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu: 19And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters. 20And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug: 21And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters. 22And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor: 23And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 24And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah: 25And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters. 26And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Working from Shem’s Geneology

Arphaxad – born 2 years after Flood
Salah - born 35 years later = 37 years after Flood
Eber - born 30 years later = 67 years after Flood
Peleg - born 34 years later =101 years after Flood
Peleg lived 239 years.

Some Bible historians believe that it was Peleg who started building the Tower.

So if Peleg was between 30 & 239 when the tower project was started, the range of dates would be between 131 and 340 years after the Flood when God confused the languages.

 

[noguru]

For Hank:



Working from Shem’s Geneology

Arphaxad – born 2 years after Flood
Salah - born 35 years later = 37 years after Flood
Eber - born 30 years later = 67 years after Flood
Peleg - born 34 years later =101 years after Flood
Peleg lived 239 years.

Some Bible historians believe that it was Peleg who started building the Tower.

So if Peleg was between 30 & 239 when the tower project was started, the range of dates would be between 131 and 340 years after the Flood when God confused the languages.

Bod despite the fact that most of your posts are non-sensical, I do not ignore them.

Oh, and please don't tell me that I have not supported my "ad-hominem attack" of you. You would not want to be a hypocrit. You gave no explanation for how or why my posts were "non-sensical".