ShaneDK Population Argument

A request for evidence to support the evolutionary population model and a request for evidence to prove his claim at 80% and greater infant mortality rates in early populations.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• shanedk
• evolution
• creation
• population
• model
• early
• infant
• mortality
• creationism
• evolutionist

[raponte1955]

It's pretty obvious the evo-heads resort to ad-hominem and all sort of logical fallacies for a reason: they can't refute a single piece of data/analysis in this video! The stupid "resourcefulness" argument from evolutionist is the most patehtic: today's population:resource ratio is incredibly much lower today than when humankind started - as per the evo model - and still, the last 100 years growth rate has averaged > 2%.

[Equestions]

@raponte1955 The population problem is just one of NUMEROUS problems with evolution but I find this one very strong actually. They require millions of years for evolution but then the human population becomes a problem. Shorten the time and evolution doesn't have enough time to happen. Quite a conundrum. I love how they just pass the population thing off as 'not enough resources' and such to deny the obvious. The know it doesn't make sense but they have to keep the paradigm!

[raponte1955]

@Equestions And if we take for granted the "not enough resources" argument, the thing only gets worse as the implication is then a very high mortality rate and/or very low fertility rates, bringing population below the demographic equilibrium level. Anything below 1.2 children per family - on average, after mortality - would have brought humankind to full extinction after only 150 years.

[Equestions]

@raponte1955 Man.....that is SO right. I can NOT get the evo's to understand that type of stuff and it's so obvious! It's just simple math!!!

[raponte1955]

@Equestions Yes, simple math. But it's evidence, that when "push comes to shove", evolution is a religion whose aim is to defend their creed beyond any degree of reasonableness, logic and plain simple math reasoning. The "billions of years" argument must be defended no matter what, because it is the essential foundation of this stupid fairy tale.

[Equestions]

@raponte1955 It's really just as simple as you state and yet I'm amazed at how irrational the evo's will be all in order to protect the paradigm. They just ignore the obvious and dismiss logic because they're so indoctrinated to believe evolution HAS to be true....no matter what. Their brainwashing is unparalleled in today's society.

[jzuidema]

@raponte1955 still waiting....come on, show me the calculations...

[jzuidema]

@raponte1955 Still working on the sheet or inactive on YT?

[jzuidema]

@jzuidema ooh and just this, for an easy answer on your question: a population survives if their net growth rate, in the end, is equal to or larger than zero. As in : P(n) = P x (1+ (zero or larger))^n but I understand this is not the answer you were probably looking for... :)

[jzuidema]

@jzuidema (cont6...) But please, if you do so, answer first the two questions in my first reply if you like, that would clear things up for me as well as to what you mean by your post... kind regards

[jzuidema]

@jzuidema Estimating population sizes is almost exclusively done in hindsight, based on available evidences. I therefore also think that the spreadsheet you mentioned will not be correct in showing population numbers of humans in the past (if that is the goal at least). It must be a pretty difficult equation to work, and even then, the top scientists working on this are not able to give exact numbers, see the peer review lit. for yourself.

But by all means, Id like to have a look anyways!

[jzuidema]

@jzuidema (cont4...) Events like an ice age setting in, or climate change in general, will greatly alter growth rates. Only by examining for example the rock/ice/varve layers for climate changes, together with all other factors mentioned earlier, are scientists able to come up with an educated guess as to population size and growth.

In this light, your question of estimating how long a certain population would survive is hardly possible, except for the most extreme, stable situations. (cont4.)

[jzuidema]

@jzuidema (cont3...) And I firmly believe that is, at least for most creationist, the fundamental misunderstanding in this question. People like Kent Hovind and Morris seem to want to simplify the matter to a single growth rate.

Instead what one arrives at, is a complicated differential equation which can estimate population growth at a certain time, but not for all time in once. Conditions vary from one generation to the other, from one area to the other...(cont3...)

[jzuidema]

@jzuidema (cont2...), infant mortality, life expectancy, resources, fertility rates, living space, war, disease, climate etc.... but these numbers are difficult to come by, so were are mostly left with estimates. One of the biggest factor in population sizes is way of living. Without agriculture for example, hunting gathering communities are severely restricted in how large they can become. But this number is not stable, there is no "one" number for fertility, nor for any other factor (cont2...)

[jzuidema]

@raponte1955 He Raponte, I would love to see that excel sheet, can you upload it somewhere for me to see? And please expand on your definition of "below equilibrium demographics" in this context. The definitions I have for it don't seem to fit this particular situation without it.

That said, I sense that you still view this problem (incorrectly) as a "one solution" problem. You are completely correct in assessing that to calculate what you ask, we need parameters like death rates...(cont)

[raponte1955]

@jzuidema Just answer this: for how long an existing population could survive, without becoming extinct, living under the conditions of limited resources/limited availability? Hint: factor-in the mathematical implications of very high mortality rates and low fertility rates and below equilibrium level demographics. It's just plain mathematics. Go grab an excel spreadsheet and do the exercise. If you are too busy I could provide mine.