33: The Population Paradox
The page begins below.
Note: I constructed a page on the definitions needed to understand this page. This is not tough stuff, but you may feel more comfortable if you read the definitions page first. It’s an addendum listed under this page in the column at right: Population Definitions (34b).
500 million years after the Cambrian Explosion, the relatively short period of time that produced 75% of all modern phyla, came modern man: homo sapiens. Which brings us to another of the many problems for evolution. Evolution says that modern man has inhabited the earth for the last 200,000 years. Sounds good to me. Really. But, again a problem arises. One that just doesn’t add up. So let’s just imagine for a moment how things came about.
The doubling of a population can be a very handy tool to let us know if our scientific aging of certain species, in this case humans, is correct. The reason doubling is of interest is because, knowing the birthrate, average life span, average generation length of humans, and average recent doubling in the last few thousand years, we can calculate the approximate time a population of humans has existed on earth. It gives a way to double-check other methods of calculating the age of human existence. Obviously. And since those numbers are in the past and unchangeable, they should be faced instead of glossed over if we are talking real science. They should be dealt with. But they won’t be, as any fact that isn’t good for evolution science is discarded ragged on and ignored.Cambrian Explosion, the relatively short period of time that produced 75% of all modern phyla, came modern man: homo sapiens. Which brings us to another of the many problems for evolution. Evolution says that modern man has inhabited the earth for the last 200,000 years. Sounds good to me. Really. But, again a problem arises. One that just doesn’t add up. So let’s just imagine for a moment how things came about.
200,000 years ago there had to be a minimum of two human beings, one male and one female, for human procreation to start. Since 1800, and up until 2025 (estimates), the population of the earth doubled on average every 75 years. It would seem that doubling a population of a billion people would be much more difficult than doubling a few hundred or thousand. Which means, it would seem that the doubling would occur much more often than every 75 years eons ago.
Just for interest, let’s imagine the population did double every 75 years, and that there were only two humans in existence 200,000 years ago. (No, not Adam and Eve. I’m just trying to keep the math simple. I could use any reasonable number. See below for calculations with a start number of 1,000.) Reality would be that there were more like hundreds or thousands of people. It really doesn’t matter what initial number we started with, as long as there are minimum of two, as you will see. What would be the population today using those numbers? 200,000 divided by 75 years is 2,667; so the population would have doubled 2,667 times in 200,000 years. To calculate what the current population of the earth should be today would mean multiplying 2 times itself 2,667 times. Or 2 to the 2,668th power. Which yields: 1 x 10 to the 801 power, or a one with 801 zeros after it! Since there are 1×10 to the 80th power (a one with 80 zeros after it) atoms in the entire universe, you can see where I am going, and why using 2 for a starting point is irrelevant. Using a more realistic number for the beginning population, like 1,000, would just make the end result more absurd and astounding.
Of course we know that death, pestilence, wars, and infections killed an immense number of people, and radically kept down our modern population. So, just for discussion, lets say the population doubled on average every 800 years instead of 75. How conservative can we get? The population that resulted in 200,000 years would then be determined by multiplying 2 times itself 126 times. The end result would be 8.5 x 10 to the 37 power. One trillion is 1×10 to the 12th power, or a one with 12 zeros after it. So we would now have a population of over 85 trillion trillion trillion, still not close to reality. 8.5 x 10 to the 37 power is still immense beyond imagination.
How about if we try doubling the population every 2,000 years. That would mean the starting population would be 2 humans on earth, and 2,000 years later, or a period equaling time since the birth of Christ, there would be 4 humans. (And to anticipate dumb questions, no, I don’t mean that each person lives 2,000 years.) The result would be more than 2.5 x10 to the 30th power. Or a 25 with 29 zeros after it, or 2.5 million trillion trillion. Still not a number that would make any sense in reality.
Actually to reach the population we will have in 2025, approximately 8 billion, the population would have had to double on average only every 6,250 years starting from 200,000 years ago. **6,250 years approximates the time from the beginning of the Egyptian civilization until now. So 193,750years ago there would be 4 people. And in 187,500 years ago there would be 8 people. And 181,250years ago there would be 16. Of course I am talking about averages, and I am starting with two initial humans for simplicity, two being a highly unlikely starting point. But using a larger population starting point just makes things worse. You can see the absurdity? Just imagine the incredible balance there would have to have been between birthrate and death-rate over those 2,000 centuries so that the population would double only on average every 6,250 years. Obviously there were lots of mitigating factors involved. The fact that there was no birth control would have, of course, increased the population rapidly. Again, fatal injury, which a good deal were, disease, pestilence, war, and famine would have decreased it. The amazing fact is that before 1900 there were few cures for disease, there were horrible wars, famine, pestilence, and no birth control. These factors changed little in the last 2,000 centuries. Yet the population doubled from 1 billion to 2 billion in 123 years from 1804 to 1927. Above is an article on the population of the earth in the 20th century. (Click on it if you would like to read it.) In just one hundred years, the population of the earth quadrupled! Any moderate advances in disease cures, and cleanliness would have reached few people worldwide, so that cannot be considered a major factor. In fact even today our modern medicine and environmental cleanliness has not reached a major portion of the earth’s population. And, horrible wars are always present. Interestingly, the population on earth who live with the poorest conditions, inferior sewage controls, bad drinking water, poor medical care, and near starvation, are the growing the fastest. This certainly doesn’t fit evolution’s model of immense population growth caused by modern medicine and conveniences.
Just for the fun of playing with numbers, lets pretend that there were 1,000 homo sapiens 200,000 years ago and see what that would look like. To reach a population of 8 billion in 2025, the population would have to double only twenty three times in 200,000 years. Which means the population doubling would occur every 9,090 years, just about longer than the entire history of modern man. So year one, 198,000 BCE, there would be 1,000 people. 9,090 years later, there would be 2,000 people. 18,180 years later the population would be 4,000. Astounding. Possible? It would seem that any population that could be so easily wiped out to coincide with these figures would never have survived. But, of course we did. You can pretty well eyeball what the doubling times might be for starting numbers between 2 (6,250) and 1,000 (9,090).
For those of you who are evolutionauts, and who cannot get the gist of the fact that the average span between doublings is fixed at 6,250 years, if you start with two (or 1,000) people, then 200,000 years later you have 8 billion, can you figure out the average population increases per year? I will help you along. The average yearly increase is 40,000; 8 billion divided by 200,000. In case you can’t figure it. Do you think wars, disease, or whatever will make a lick of difference? Absolutely not, because those already have been factored in. The ending number of 8 billion reflects all of those factors. If there were less wars, disease, pestilence or whatever, the ending number would then have been greater. 10 billion, or 20 billion….who knows. Got it? The AVERAGE increase yearly has NOTHING to do with the ACTUAL annual increase, which VARIED (past tense) according to the factors already listed over and over. Same with AVERAGE time span between doublings, 6,250 years, and the ACTUAL time span.
According to all of the accepted population studies, the earth’s population reached 4 million by 10,000 BCE. Which means that the population went from two (the minimum; a larger number only makes things more difficult) to 4 million in 188,000 years. The doubling rate would then be 22 times in that 188,000 time span and the average span between doublings would be 8,950 years. Imagine if you will an average tribe of 100 early humans nearly 200,000 years ago. 8,950 years later that tribe would then have a population of 200. The balance that would be necessary to sustain that kind of razor sharp growth is unimaginable. If our imaginary tribe had, say, an annual birth rate of 10 newborns, or 89,950 in 8,950 years, the deaths would have to number 89,750. The death rate for that 8,950 year times span would have to be 99.777% of the birthrate! The population increase for the time period 200,000 years ago to 10,000 years BCE for the entire earth was 52 people per year. What would be the doubling rate since 10,000 BCE? Starting with 10,000,000, and ending with 7 billion, doubling would occur on average every 1250 years. Still unbelievably out of range of rational science and what we know about doubling times for humans.
To give you an idea of the rate of increase and the doubling times that we should expect, here is a formula for calculating the doubling times of humans with the birth rate AND death rate included. So all of the wars, diseases, deaths from all causes are figured in.
Figuring the increase rate of a population per year:
Birth rate (b) − death rate (d) = rate of natural increase (r).
Death rate: Zimbabwe 20.43/1000
Birth rate: Zimbabwe: 30.64/1000
Rate of increase for Zimbabwe=10.21/1000 or 1.21% or .0121
The rate of population growth at any instant is given by the equation
dN = rN
- r is the rate of natural increase
- t — is some stated interval of time, and
- N is the the population at a given moment.
The algebraic solution of this differential equation is N = N0ert where
- N0 is the starting population
- N is the ending population
- a certain time, t, has elapsed, and
- e is the constant 2.71828… (the base of natural logarithms).
Plotting the results gives this exponential growth curve, so-called because it reflects the growth of a number raised to an exponent (rt).
Time Required for Doubling
When a population has doubled, N = N0 x 2.
Putting this in our exponential growth equation, 2N0 = N0ert
ert = 2
rt = ln (natural logarithm) of 2 = 0.69
doubling time, t = 0.69 / r
Any doubling time can then easily be figured by inserting the rate of natural increase into r. The doubling time can be figured for any numerical count that is changing: populations, or even money: If we get 7% interest on our money, we would have:
t=.69/.07=9.8 YEARS So our 7% interest would double our funds in about ten years.
In our example above, Zimbabwe, the rate of increase=.0121.
Inserting this into the equation, we would get t=.69/.0121=57 years.
I selected Zimbabwe because is has a high death rate, due to AIDS and other diseases, and it is not a country that has high birth control use. So it closely resembles what we might have expected the numbers to be for ancient man. Does 57 years equate with the immense numbers calculated for ancient man? 6,000 to over 9,000 per average doubling? Can you see the absurdity?
As I already said, disease, war, pestilence, starvation, et al, have already been factored into the 8 billion people that will inhabit the earth by 2025; so these factors are not an issue. But in discussions with evolutionauts, they continue to bring these up and ignore the fact that they have already been accounted for. They think that because these factors have been largely removed in modern times, for some reason that negates all of the population statistics that I have put together. They seem to assume that modern health facilities have reached the entire population of the earth. So to those who think these factors are so important, the news for modern man isn’t as charming as one would think. Infectious disease continues to wreak havoc on billions of people on earth, even with modern medicine, which is available to a minority of earth’s inhabitants. 40 million people live with HIV/aids, with 3 million deaths per year. 1.8 million children die of dysentery and resulting diarrhea. Every year there are 350 to 500 million cases of malaria, with one million fatalities. 1.8 billion people have access to water within 1 kilometer of their homes, but not their house or yard. 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation. Almost 30% of the world’s population lack electricity. I wonder which global warming alarmist will get to tell them they will NEVER get electricity because the earth might get hotter! 2.5 billon people rely on some type of biomass like fuelwood, dung, or coal to warm their homes. The notion that modern man has solved almost all health factors and that that has a large effect on the population statistics over the last 200,000 years is just fooling themselves, which evolutonauts must do anyway. The number of people on earth affected by the above factors represents approximately the entire population of the earth in 1920. Almost half of population of the planet earth lives not much better than did man 10,000 years ago. These factors have nothing to do with my statistics, as I stated, they have already been factored in. But I had to add this information to neutralize the absurd notion that they have not.
So what do I say is the answer to this huge paradox? How could humans have inhabited the earth that long ago and still come up with the current population? Of course I have no answers. I fully believe humans did inhabit the earth that long ago. I fully believe in a 4.7 billion year old earth. But these numbers don’t add up. This is just another part of the puzzle that absolutely makes no sense. How do evolutonauts respond to these numbers? Of course they are befuddled as well, but they do a good job of pretending they are not. The explanations usually are rants against anyone who brings them up. A Young Earth Creationist made a video on the subject and placed it on a pro-evolution site, http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/evolution-debunked-human-population-for-dummies-t10608.html. The answers by the evolutionauts on the site ranged from ragging on the author of the vid to ragging on the mathematical figures to bemoaning the use of math in analyzing evolution. The use of math in evolution? What other sciences don’t want mathematical scrutiny? None that I know of; only evolution. Hard to believe. This is just another in a long line of astounding ratios and odds that evolutionauts so easily slough off. The ratio between the strong force and gravity (one to a trillion trillion trillion). The odds of all of the biochemicals needed for living cells assembling themselves on the sea floor in close proximity, forming up inside of a lipid bubble, then coming to life; unfathomable. The odds of biological systems inventing, designing, and assembling themselves when that scenario has never been observed. Everything evolution must deal with is one in trillions of trillions of trillions of……….
**The number of times 2 must be doubled is 33. We have 2 to the 33 power. The spaces between each doubling is 32. Exampled by 8 is 2x2x2. 8 is 2 to the third power. There are only two x’s or gaps between the three 2’s.
Here is a sampling of the responses to the YEC’s video:
by Crocodile Gandhi » Jul 26, 2010 11:33 pm
Good grief. It is amazing that creationists always seem to gloss over the fact that there are always limiting factors to population.
I’m looking for something in an attack dog. One who likes the sweet gamey tang of human flesh. Hmmm, why here’s the fellow … Wiry, fast, firm, proud buttocks. Reminds me of me – Charles Montgomery Burns.
by CdesignProponentsist » Jul 26, 2010 11:39 pm
By his calculations, we are swimming in an ocean of cockroaches.
“Doubt is the healthy state of mind. It is certainty that can kill you” – Me
by robinhood » Jul 26, 2010 11:42 pm
great rebuttal to not only this claim but also a few others.
You can’t reason with the religious. Otherwise there would be no religious people- Dr. House
by redwhine » Jul 27, 2010 1:06 am
The first 150 years is problematical.
Either a 150 year old couple had twins or there were several generations of incestuous inbreds. (Which could explain why they thought theism is a good idea.
RELIGION: treat it like it’s your genitals – don’t wave it about in public, and don’t try and shove it down your kids’ throats.
by Jef » Jul 27, 2010 1:58 am
By his own claims on the rate of doubling etc, even if the YECs were right and the world was only 6000 years old we would still expect to have close to 11 trillion people on the planet right now.
(Me: This guy realizes the problem, but can’t even consider the difficulty it poses for evolution.)
by Crocodile Gandhi » Jul 27, 2010 2:04 am
I think you are forgetting about Noah’s flood, silly.
by Jef » Jul 27, 2010 2:24 am
Let’s set duh flud at about 4285 years ago (AIG). Now according to the wholly babble, just after the flood we have noah, his sons, and the sons of his sons etc. all listed (Genesis 10). In total, there a 30 named males. For the sake of argument we will have to assume one female for each male.
So starting from 60 and doubling in size each 150 years (28 doublings), I get 16,106,127,360 people. Hmmm.
(Me: So, what does this mean?)
by Blackadder » Jul 27, 2010 3:10 am
Creationists and mathematics rarely combine well. It’s like letting a two-year old child play with a power tool. At best the results will be messy. More often than not they inflict terrible damage upon themselves.
by Nautilidae » Jul 27, 2010 11:06 am
It’s amusing that he thinks that he can apply mathematics.
(Me: Right. Isn’t that amusing? NEVER apply mathematics to evolution. The whole thing would crash.)
by Ubjon » Jul 27, 2010 11:07 am
You get to a point where you don’t even bother watching these things
Interfering with the food chain when you’re situated at the top is a bit like putting a noose around your own neck and kicking the stool away.
by Calilasseia » Jul 27, 2010 11:56 am
Let me guess … this is yet another YouTube creo-wanker who doesn’t understand such basic concepts as predation, disease or carrying capacity?
I remember demonstrating the absurdity of unconstrained population growth using Mola mola, which is ideal for the purpose.
(Me: the absurdity is the numbers Cali. And they bode ill for you and your belief system. So slough them off.)
by hackenslash » Jul 27, 2010 11:58 am
Worse, it’s the same Youtube creo-wanker, (un)truthful cretin
Dogma is the death of the intellect
Reality is that which cannot be defined out of existence
(These guys LIVE by dogma. They just don’t know it.)
by Millefleur » Jul 27, 2010 12:00 pm
Without even watching it I can tell from the caps and retarded title its by lady-hands Matthew the Troothful christian.
Fuck the motherfucker, fuck the fucking fucker,
Fuck the motherfucker he’s a total fucking fucker
Fuck the motherfucker, fuck the motherfucker,
Fuck the mother fucker, fuck him, fuck the motherfucker.
Fuck the motherfucker, fuck the motherfucking pope.
(Me: Right. Don’t watch it, then put down your incredible comment. Do you just go around the net posting stuff like this? Why are these people always showing off their intelligence?)
by Ash » Jul 27, 2010 12:39 pm
Ugh. I watched that to waste time while waiting for something to download. The progress bar would have been more interesting and informative
Mission accomplished though.
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best.
by HughMcB » Jul 27, 2010 12:47 pm
Basically this moron needs to brush up on his stats skills and his magical immortal population of humans.
(Me: So that’s it. That’s evolutionaut response to numbers that just don’t make sense to evolution and me. If I find an intelligent response from an evolutionaut, I will post it. Don’t hold your breath. As far as I am concerned, I still have to go with the current timeline. Humans appeared 200,000 years ago, even though it makes no sense, and there is no plausible explanation. And I freely admit I can’t argue this one out. Did populations get almost entirely wiped out hundreds of times? If we were so feeble, we never would have survived the period when the earth was inhabited by only a few humans. There would be no humans today. So I will stick with science’s current timeline and just avoid thinking about this one. As I said, nothing makes sense when you are trying to solve the Puzzle.)