33a: Population Doubling Explanation

Population growth can be a fascinating and pretty darn accurate tool that can be used to help determine the age of mankind. Since human generation times are pretty static, at about 20 to 30 years, and averages of the number of offspring for each human female/couple can be determined with pretty good accuracy, human population growth can act as a very reasonable time clock that can be used to determine how long mankind has existed on Earth. I’ve constructed several graphs that will help  clarify the parameters for a population study of the human race for the last 200,000 years.  It is very difficult to discuss this subject with evolutionauts who continually mix parameters and definitions. This makes discussion difficult to impossible.  Also for those of you who may not understand the discussion on population, these examples should help.

These graphs have very simplified numbers and time spans for ease of understanding, and clarity.  This first graph shows a population of a multi-cellular organism that grows from 2 to 128 in 60 years.  The starting population is fixed at 2, which is the minimum required for procreation, of course; one male and one female. For you evolutionauts, this number has NOTHING to do with Adam and Eve, it is only used as a starting point.  Using a larger population for a starting  point serves to make things worse for evolution. So, 2 is given (fixed) as the starting point, 128 is the final population and is also fixed. For simplicity, the graph uses a 60 year time span.   This number is fixed, as is the number of years evolution says man has inhabited the earth.  So, the starting number (2), finish number (128), and time span(60 years) are all fixed, and cannot be changed. In this example, the population has doubled six times. The six doublings are absolutely necessary to reach the final population of 128. So that number is fixed.   The doublings can be calculated as 2 times itself 6 times, or 2x2x2x2x2x2x2, or 2 to the 7th power, which is 128.  In this example, knowing the number of times 2 has doubled, and the total time span of 60 years, we can calculate that the AVERAGE DOUBLING TIME SPAN which again, on average occurred every ten years in this example. (60 divided by 6,the time between each doubling).  In this case, doubling occurred seven times to reach the final fixed population of 128.  So the AVERAGE DOUBLING number is 7, and is fixed. To summarize this graph:

(1) STARTING POPULATION for this sample graph:  2 

(2) FINAL POPULATION for this sample graph: 128 

(3) AVERAGE DOUBLING TIME SPAN for this sample graph: 10 years on the graph

(4) NUMBER OF TIMES POPULATION MUST DOUBLE to go from 2 to 128: 6 

All of the factors that increase or decrease populations are already factored in to the ending populations. All disease, pestilence, war, murder, holocausts, starvation, everything.  All are already in, as the final population is what it is. Period. When I discuss this information with evolutionauts, they continually want to add in population reducers.  I have a difficult time getting them to realize the final population has factored in all population reducing factors. As is usual, instead of facing the facts and numbers that are real, they will continually bring up, “What about war and sickness.”  They do not get the idea that those are in.   So I hope my example will thwart that defense before it starts. 





In my discussion I talk about the doubling of a population, how long that takes historically, and how that relates to the time span for humans on the planet earth. The above graph is an example showing that a population can double, and halve, increases and decreases, according to the conditions and factors surrounding that population. For this sample organism, the rise and fall STILL must yield a final population of 128 because the final population is fixed.  All of the conditions, such as disease, starvation, pestilence, war, et al, have already been factored in.  If there were LESS of these factors, the population would be more than 128 But we are fixed at 128. There could be more doublings than the six exampled in the original graph.  But the NET EFFECT, doublings minus halvings, rises minus falls, will still yield the AVERAGE DOUBLINGS of 6 for this example.   So this graph shows the ACTUAL POPULATION CHANGES. The ACTUAL POPULATION DOUBLINGS and ACTUAL POPULATION HALVINGS can be calculated from this graph.

This graph show the average yearly population increase, going from 2 to 128.  The average increase is calculated as 128 minus 2 (126) , divided by the number of years (60).  The average per year increase is 2.1 per year, or 21 per decade. Again, no factors or conditions can change these numbers, as the starting, and ending populations are fixed, and the time span is as well. The conditions and factors are already figured in.  

Now that you understand population doubling, you will see how using these rather simple calculations can make it easier to understand and rate the timelines given by ev-illusionists.  All you have to do now to test their validity is to plug in evolution’s numbers.  Ev-illusionists say modern man first appeared on Earth 200,000 years ago.  So that number is fixed and equates to the 60 years of my example.   The population of the Earth in 2025 will be 8 billion. 8 billion parallels the population of 128 in my example.  The starting number is 2, as it takes two to procreate, the exact same number as is in my example.  So 2 is the minimum population that can be started with and is the given population 200,000 years ago.  200,000 years is the given and locked timespan. 8 billion is the given and locked ending population.  With this information the number of doublings and the timespan between mankind’s population of 2 through 8 billion can be easily calculated, just like they were with my example.  


56 Comments

  1. ADParker said,

    “The starting population is fixed at 2, which is the minimum required for procreation, of course; one male and one female.”
    Never heard of Asexual reproduction then Steve.?

    “In this case, doubling occurred seven times to reach the final fixed population of 128”
    No:
    It started at 2
    (1) Doubled to 4
    (2) Doubled to 8
    (3) Doubled to 16
    (4) Doubled to 32
    (5) Doubled to 64
    (6) Doubled to 128.
    That’s six, count them six, times, not 7.
    You got this right before and after this, I suggest taking more care.

    “NOTE: all of the factors that increase or decrease populations are already factored in to the ending populations. All disease, pestilence, war, murder, starvation, everything. All in, as the final population is what it is. Period.”
    No actually, it is not “factored in” as much as brushed over. Those (often highly significant) details are lost in the calculation.
    We (the evil/deluded evolutionauts apparently) all understood the maths of the calculation by the way – many of us clearly more than you have demonstrated. What we also understand however is that the use and reliance on this calculation is a mistake in cases such as this.
    Those factors don’t change this single figure you are so enamoured with, they render it irrelevant. This is what you seem fiercely unwilling to get.

    “But the NET EFFECT” blah blah blah…
    Yes we know. The counter argument is that it’s irrelevant, that you are dogmatically holding onto a calculation that is inappropriate to the task at hand, you are using the wrong tool. You repeating over and over how you are using the tool only demonstrates that you are not listening to what is being explained to you.

    You are clearly not overly proficient in statistic modelling.
    One means of mathematically graphing human population changes over time might be to plot a graph by working out the right kinds of distribution and plotting from that. More complex ones, such as probably applies here over such long time-spans, would get even more complex. Involving a distribution graph which changes the form of distribution at certain points along the way. (This was 200 level statistics [2nd year undergraduate level university, for those not in the know] for me, best as I recall.)
    You see this means one does not hide and ignore nearly as much of the important data, and also offers improved odds of reliable future projection. Some value might be possible out of that. Your single little figure has no such value. Get over it.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hey, AD is back to read the stuff made by a clown! Pretty amazing.
      My gawd, AD, are you critical. Humans are sexual, so you think I would example an asexual organism? That IS lame. Must be weird to be you. Always on the attack, searching out little niggles, no matter what.
      Right, 2 to the 7th doubles 2 six times. That sure changes everything. In your mind, anyway.
      Your repeated declaration that the stats mean nothing is the declaration of a loser. Which is why you are back. You don’t like the taste of crow. You’re trying to get that crow meat out of your teeth. I am “listening”. Most of it is so inane, I can’t keep going back to the same stuff. You guys can’t figure out that the end result of 8 Billion occurred AS A RESULT of all the factors, island population (that was an excellent one), 1348’s, wars, etc. you throw at me.
      If the stats are so meaningless, why do you feel you have to keep telling me? A clown? You guys get stranger and stranger. If my stuff was truly meaningless you would NEVER be here trying to convince me. Would you now….

      • ADParker said,

        “Hey, AD is back to read the stuff made by a clown! Pretty amazing.”
        Clowns are funny sometimes – although sometimes kind of sad too.

        “My gawd, AD, are you critical.”
        I’m a dedicated critical thinker, it’s what I do. 😀

        “Humans are sexual, so you think I would example an asexual organism? ”
        No; you said that you graph was of “a multi-cellular organism and that “[t]he starting population is fixed at 2, which is the minimum required for procreation, of course; one male and one female.”
        Note that you declared that the MINIMUM is two (“of course” no less) and that it would have to be a male and a female.
        For multi-cellular organisms this is quite simply factually wrong. I though you might like to at least try to be factually correct in your efforts. I guess I was mistaken in that.

        “Must be weird to be you. Always on the attack, searching out little niggles, no matter what.”
        Not to me it isn’t. Sure there are some that find it “weird” that I am so careful to be accurate and to help others be so as well. I guess I just care about truth and reality more than some people.

        “Right, 2 to the 7th doubles 2 six times. That sure changes everything. In your mind, anyway.”
        Just helping you out by pointing out your error. You know; some people actually appreciate such aid. As it helps them get things as correct as they possibly can.

        “Your repeated declaration that the stats mean nothing is the declaration of a loser”
        Cheap Ad Hominem attack, nice – real mature there. Hmm what would be an appropriate response to this? Oh I know:
        I’m rubber and you’re glue, Nyah!
        I think that keeps it at the level you took it.
        Oh; and the single stat IS useless for such things. You can insult me as much as you like, doesn’t change the statistical facts.

        “Which is why you are back.”
        Actually someone linked this on RatSkep, so I took a look. Perhaps you should get over yourself.

        “You don’t like the taste of crow.”
        Can’t say I’ve ever tried it (Crocodile, kangaroo, rabbit.,ostrich… No, no crow) is it any good?

        ” I am “listening”. Most of it is so inane, I can’t keep going back to the same stuff.”
        If you are listening, then your reading comprehension needs SERIOUS work.
        Yes, you DO keep going back over the same fallacious stuff. Not grasping that the problem is not in how you present/calculate that stuff, but that it is teh wrong stuff to begin with.

        “You guys can’t figure out that the end result of 8 Billion occurred AS A RESULT of all the factors, island population (that was an excellent one), 1348′s, wars, etc. you throw at me.”
        Actually if you really where listening (and capable of /interested in comprehending what you heard) to anything I (and a number of others) have been saying over and over – I fully accept that the average IS based on those three figures (start pop., end pop. and time) and results in an av. doubling time of ~6270 years, AND that this is a result of all those factors. The problem is that the figure is worthless – not “astounding” or “odd” or “a paradox” or anything of the sort. As it ignores the profound effects that all those factors (washed over with a simplistic single figure) can have, making a vast/wide range of figures perfectly plausible.

        “If the stats are so meaningless, why do you feel you have to keep telling me?”
        Actually I have no come to the point of only pointing it out for the laughs of seeing you once again fail to get it. Some people are far to closed minded that it becomes clear that they simply refuse to see sense. They fixate on a given (early) conclusion) refusing to budge, or even consider that they may have been in error, regardless of what comes to light, or how many time people try to explain it to them.

        “You guys get stranger and stranger. If my stuff was truly meaningless you would NEVER be here trying to convince me. Would you now….”
        On the contrary; we would stop if you stuff was MEANINGFUL. It’s the erroneous stuff that warrants the attention. SO as to educate and inoculate potential readers buying into (and perhaps spreading) those errors. (Just like those atrociously bad arguments so frequently parroted by unthinking apologists all the freakin’ time.)

  2. Unicron said,

    “(1) STARTING POPULATION: 2 on the graph, 2 on my 200,000 year calculations”

    Hate to burst your bubble Stevie but 2 individuals, a male and a female, are simply NOT enough to get a population started. Future generations would be the result of inbreeding which is dangerous because it exacerbates genetic abnormalities in future generations and the end result is a population where these defects have reached the point where reproduction is no longer possible and the population dies out.
    For a population to really take off there needs to be a high level of genetic diversity within the group in order to prevent the dangers of inbreeding and you’re not gonna get that from just two individuals. Current estimates place the minimum at 50 to 150.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hard to believe Unicorny. You didn’t burst any bubble, but nice try. Try actually reading the information, THEN comment. It’s really the best way to go. You will look more intelligent than you do now. So many of you evolutionauts don’t read or can’t get the idea of why I used two, so I bolded and red’ed several sentences on the page “The Population Paradox” to help you “attackers but non-readers” along. Haven’t you taken enough math so you can see that using a higher start number is deadlier for you?

      • Unicron said,

        “Hard to believe Unicorny. You didn’t burst any bubble, but nice try. Try actually reading the information, THEN comment. It’s really the best way to go. You will look more intelligent than you do now.”
        Brain-dead Ad Hominem that doesn’t do anything for you.

        “So many of you evolutionauts don’t read or can’t get the idea of why I used two, so I bolded and red’ed several sentences on the page “The Population Paradox” to help you “attackers but non-readers” along. Haven’t you taken enough math so you can see that using a higher start number is deadlier for you?”
        It’s called Harsh Reality Stevie. You need a minimum of fifty people at the very least in order to maintain genetic diversity and this is why the Adam-Eve story used repeatedly by creationauts is 100% FAIL. Try concentrating on the person’s message and the facts behind it for a change instead of being a whiny little bitch about the person who lays it all down for ya.

        “NOTE: all of the factors that increase or decrease populations are already factored in to the ending populations. All disease, pestilence, war, murder, starvation, everything. All in, as the final population is what it is. Period.”
        Yeah . . . sure, and do you take into account the frequency of these events or the scale in which they occur? Apparently not. You also completely fail to consider another important factor and it’s called Carrying Capacity. CC refers to such factors as technology and food production. Current advancements in agricultural developments and technology have caused the global population to sky-rocket in just the last century alone and your meaningless graphs and numbers utterly fail to take that into account.

        There are just so many factors that you never consider and this is why your population paradox is doomed to be the subject of some serious ridicule or just simply dismissed as irrelevant.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Unicorny: You still didn’t read the page. You couldn’t possibly have and come up with this nonsense. My gawd.

        Re: “Yeah . . . sure, and do you take into account the frequency of these events or the scale in which they occur?” With all of those events, and CC, death, disease, war, and everything you want to cite, what is the current population of the earth? I know this is over your head, but the current population of the earth is a RESULT of all of your factors. Amazing how evolution removes your ability to ponder, think, be skeptical. You believe, and no matter what you defend. You don’t think. You can’t and still be an evolutionaut.

  3. Unicron said,

    “Unicorny: You still didn’t read the page. You couldn’t possibly have and come up with this nonsense. My gawd.”
    Yes. I read your whole pointless little article and NOWHERE are the words ‘Carrying Capacity’ written or mentioned anywhere.

    “Re: “Yeah . . . sure, and do you take into account the frequency of these events or the scale in which they occur?” With all of those events, and CC, death, disease, war, and everything you want to cite, what is the current population of the earth? I know this is over your head, but the current population of the earth is a RESULT of all of your factors.”
    Whoa whoa whoa, slow down before you give yourself a migraine. Are you agreeing with me here or not? What point are trying to make with this?

    “Amazing how evolution removes your ability to ponder, think, be skeptical. You believe, and no matter what you defend. You don’t think. You can’t and still be an evolutionaut.”
    Easy there Stevie, no need to resort to your usual “indoctrination” excuse when you’re proven wrong . . . again.
    But still, it’s flat-out hilarious that you decided to write an article where you try, and fail miserably, to defend it.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Translation: you have nothing to say.

  4. ADParker said,

    You just REFUSE to get it don’t you stevebee92653?

    The Carrying Capacity which Unicron brought (as have others in varying ways) up IS a significant factor – no, not just in the final population number, but also in that precious doubling figure of yours.

    For example;, in the days when our entire species was in hunter-gatherer societies, the available resources, including the amount (and type) of terrain they could cover as well as the availability of game and all such resources, could and would SEVERELY constrain how rapidly a given population could grow. In fact at many points along the way the current Carrying Capacity would have been reached (even briefly exceeded) causing population growth to stall, even to the point of stopping entirely or going into reverse (population decline, not growth.)

    And that ALONE (one of a number of factors) could result in almost ANY number for the overall population growth rates of our species, especially over such an extended timespan.*

    *Because another thing you don’t seem able to grasp is that the longer the period under examination (in this case 200,000 years!), the greater the possibility of greater flexibility in such figures. As I and others have explained to you elsewhere; there is nothing even close to fundamentally mysterious about a 6-7 thousand year figure for (basically meaningless) this doubling figure. Because nothing would really prevent this, or even a ZERO figure (no doubling whatsoever), from occurring in any species, including our own.
    Note that on RatSkep I even pointed out one country (and teh lik reveals a couple of others that are the same) that CURRENTLY has basically the EXACT population growth, which would represent the EXACT doubling time (~7,000 years), that you seem to find so baffling. As well as some with far far larger (Doubling time =~15.5 years) and many with far far lower (negative growth rates, which represent no doubling – in fact halving – rates!)
    No paradox at all.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      You just REFUSE to get it don’t you ADParker?

      • Unicron said,

        What exactly is he refusing to get Stevie? Carrying Capacity is brought up because it’s a critical factor in determining population growth and at no point in your articles or arguments do you bring it up.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Because, Ultracorny, all those factors, CC, everything else, wars, disease, RESULTED in the 6.9 billion population. I know that’s a REAL TOUGH concept, one I have to repeat over and over until you get it. How many more times will you require before you understand? Give me a hint. You are tiring.

  5. Unicron said,

    “Because, Ultracorny, all those factors, CC, everything else, wars, disease, RESULTED in the 6.9 billion population.”
    Not really. Carrying Capacity has final say in how large a population can get and caps it off when resources get tight. Wars, disease, etc, have no real bearing on the issue since it doesn’t take too long for a population to bounce back when the allegorical fallout clears.

    “I know that’s a REAL TOUGH concept, one I have to repeat over and over until you get it. How many more times will you require before you understand? Give me a hint. You are tiring.”
    Just answer the question: What did ADParker and I have trouble understanding? It’s a simple question regarding your responses that explained nothing and were clearly not meant to have any informative value.
    Come on Steve, let’s hear you say something meaningful for a change.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Meaningful? The current population of the earth is 6.9 billion. You and ADParker don’t understand that all factors you so innocently keep citing produced that number. So that’s another explanation. I think you are up to four? Want more?

      • ADParker said,

        {Sigh}
        That’s right stevebee92653. Those factors (Carrying Capacity based on things like available resources etc. being a big one, as are major events like supervolcanoes, plagues etc.) DID indeed result in the current population.

        And?

        And can you think beyond that? Consider what effect those factors would have played?

        No?

        Perhaps that it is THOSE VERY FACTORS that resulted in the population being what it is, as low as it is, such that if someone tries to ignorantly calculate an overall average doubling rate, as if it meant much of anything, would come out with a figure of around 6,300 years or so.
        Those factors kept the population in check, kept it from increasing into the tens of billions or whatever. More precisely (fitting in with the real world data) kept the global population relatively small, with slow if any population growth, for a long long time before certain advances allowed us to maintain far higher population levels, and keep them maintainable. In other words those factors explain why the population has grown to the size it has, and not the significantly higher population you seem to assume SHOULD be the situation case.

        Although you have closed your mind off from the possibility of recognising it, this destroys your imagined little paradox.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You actually think the earth, or more specifically, the continent of Africa, with a few million people as it had for nearly 190,000 years, would have Carrying Capacity problems? Most of the time before 10,000 BCE there was nearly 10,000 acres of land per person. You obviously do think CC is a problem, so good for you. I don’t think there would be much of a CC problem for 97% of man’s history if it was truly 200,000 years. I don’t think most tribes would be able to find each other or travel to each other’s domain to have wars. You also think a median tribe of 100 people before 10,000 BCE could not double in population for over 9,000 years? As long as the history of modern man? Astounding. You are willing to throw out logic and facts to support your belief.
        Re: “this destroys your imagined little paradox.” My paradox is “imagined” and “little”? Your friends at RS sure don’t think so. Else why do they spend so much time on it. I think it really bothers them…and you. The paradox wins out over your complete lack of willingness to think this one out. You are a dedicated little defender of your little belief system, and as such, you declare a monstrous victory before your little game is close to over. Which shows good solid indoctrination. Don’t celebrate too quickly.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      See my Population Definitions August 24, 2010 at 4:25 am to ADParker.

  6. ADParker said,

    “You actually think the earth, or more specifically, the continent of Africa, with a few million people as it had for nearly 190,000 years, would have Carrying Capacity problems?”

    Of course.

    ” Most of the time before 10,000 BCE there was nearly 10,000 acres of land per person.”

    I’m sorry? And you think that the amount of land is even close to the ONLY factor for Carrying capacity?!
    What does it matter how much land you have, if that land only offers the chance for a limited amount of food (as one example)?!
    And THAT is why the emergence first of agriculture and then intensive farming, and the sorrelated move away from simple hunter-gatherer food gathering, coincides with an increase in population – more food can be supplied from a smaller amount of land. For a hunter gatherer tribe an entire forest of savannah area might mean a lot of work for relatively little sustenance (depending on availability of game etc.) But only a few acres farmed (as well as herd stocks etc.) could provide a vast wealth of such resources, and thus sustain a far larger population.

    The Cheetah for example has a simply enormous amount of land at its disposal, yet their numbers are few. Because as they stand they can not sustain a much larger population no matter how much more dirt they have to roam over. That and other factors are making them increasingly at risk of extinction.

    ” I don’t think there would be much of a CC problem for 97% of man’s history if it was truly 200,000 years.”

    “Truly”? Another hint at you really being a closet YEC?
    You are simply mistaken. Just like your insistence on this doubling thing, you have a far too simplistic and simply erroneous concept of what Carrying Capacity actually entails.

    Oh will you look at that; I Googled “Carrying Capacity” and the first link I checked commented on the very error you make here – how easy was that?:
    http://www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/carrying-capacity.html

    ” I don’t think most tribes would be able to find each other or travel to each other’s domain to have wars.”

    Well if coming from a common stock and (African location,) then early on this is clearly fallacious isn’t it? But then “war” is only a relatively small variable, actually of greater note later on when societies got large enough to invade etc. Early tribal skirmishes of course, on a small population base, could have been a major hit. But I would think that population drops due to environmental conditions (disasters, disease and the like) where probably of greater impact.

    “You also think a median tribe of 100 people before 10,000 BCE could not double in population for over 9,000 years?”

    Um, what?!
    Of course it could, at least potentially. Not that your precious doubling figure is even about that far smaller 10,000 year period. But then innumerable factors could have also prevented such growth and/or decimated such tribes back to far smaller numbers with ease. Making it completely understandable that THE AVERAGE could be that low or even lower.
    Seriously what is so confusing to you that you can’t imagine that a population could fluctuate however wildly and end up no larger (or only slightly so) than it was 1,2,3 or 10,000 years later? Ups and downs could conceivably end at almost any figure. If a major major upheaval occurred today our species could be reduced to a fraction of what it now is, and that would make your 200,000 year doubling figure increase dramatically – and there would be nothing paradoxical about it. And even if it was such that the doubling figure then came out as 15,000 years; it would say nothing, and change nothing about how long it took an earlier population of 1,000 to double.
    One of your problems is that on the one hand you claim to understand that it is just an average over the entire period, then on the other ask questions as if you are assuming this doubling figure also applies in limited periods and circumstances within the whole.

    Take this for example: You find it baffling that it could take 9,000 years (why that number I don’t know) for a population of 1,000 to increase to 2,000. Yet it has been pointed out to you, as an example, that the Black Death resulted in a global drop in human population of ~20% (450,000,000 to ~360,000,000) and that it took 150 years for the numbers to reach 450,000,000 again: that is 150 years – in relatively ‘modern’ times, with humanity increasing its own growth and Carrying Capacity potential – with no growth (on average) whatsoever – not a doubling time of 9,000 years, but an infinite doubling time as it where. Similary a tribe, group or population, incapable of eeking out any more food resources from the land (pre agriculutural for example), would mean that once this “Carrying Capacity” (in this case limited by the availability of food to feed them) has been reached (as your hypothetical 1,000 people) it would, at best stall – Zero opulation growth (at wrst decline.) For ANY amount of time, centuries or millenia, until that limitation was somehow eased (such as the advent of agriculture, livestock keeping or more intensive farming methods.).

    “You are willing to throw out logic and facts to support your belief.”

    No. You are confusing “logic and facts” with your own assertions that this doubling figure of yours has any meaning beyond a most simplistic average.
    Hel; even in my earliest memories of learning statistics (primary/ementary school) I recall learning that sometimes the mean is useful, but in some data sets it is not, so we are better served by looking at the mode for instance, and/or removing clear outliers etc. And that was only the most rudementary of mathematics of course. It gets a whole lot more sophisticated than that with statistical modelling of real world data, it has to be for it to be of any real value.

    “Re: “this destroys your imagined little paradox.” My paradox is “imagined” and “little”?”

    Correct sir, it is.

    “Your friends at RS sure don’t think so. Else why do they spend so much time on it. I think it really bothers them…and you.”

    I think most anyone reading those comments will immediately see that they (some I consider my friends, others I don’t know at all) most certainly DO think so. And they are spending what you percieve to be “so much time” (we do so love our “chew toys” at times) in the (many have concluded hopeless) effort to correct you on just that very thing. Of course some of us only for the sake of others who might otherwise fall into the same traps as you have.
    This is like you asserting that the sinkhole on your property must be so good, because so many people are making so much effort in trying to fill it in and/or protecting others from falling in!

    “…and you.”

    In a small way it does. I started out (kind of) in university studying philosophy (esp. Formal logic) and statistics, and such abuses to both reason and statistics kind of bothers me.

    “The paradox wins out over your complete lack of willingness to think this one out. ”

    You haven’t even explained what this so called Paradox is. Not really.
    What is it about a slow overall population growth over an an extended period that so perplexes you?!

    You sated this:
    “(1)The paradox: the scientific age determination of man’s oldest fossils yields an age of nearly 200,000 years. Population studies show that not to be the case. They at least show a VERY odd correlation that needs to be addressed. Sorry I had to explain the paradox. I would think it would be obvious.”

    But ALL that says is that you find it odd for some unspecified reason that the human population could have, and has, ‘only’ increased to almost 7 billion in the last 200,000 years. But not a hint as to WHY you find this odd, let alone why anybody else should.

    “You are a dedicated little defender of your little belief system,”

    Ah the “Faith and doctrine” slur. Nice.
    And what “belief system” is that? The belief that all available evidence points to our species being a couple of hundred millenia old or so? Because on a number of occasions you claimed to accept that as well, Or that the current population is a little under 7 billion? I think we all accept that, don’t we? Or that the number of humans 200,000 years ago was 2? Well no, both you and a number of your critics (I haven’t bothered, but I do concur) have expressed that this is most unlikely.
    Because those where the only three numbers you thought to be of any importance.

    “and as such, you declare a monstrous victory before your little game is close to over. Which shows good solid indoctrination. Don’t celebrate too quickly.”

    What ARE you on about?! This is not the first time that you have claimed others to be “celebrating victory” when no-one has made any such indication. One can only suspect that this is projection on your part.
    Some of us actually care far more about the truth than merely “winning.”
    I see no victory here actually: I saw you make a mistake and have thus far completely FAILED to convince you of this fact (a fact seen by so many others just as readily as I.) But not for want of trying at least.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Re: Stevebee: “You also think a median tribe of 100 people before 10,000 BCE could not double in population for over 9,000 years?”
      ADParker: “Um, what?!Of course it could, at least potentially.”
      You can just brush off a 9,000 year doubling of a tribe of 100 people? 9,000 YEARS? As long as the entire history of modern man? You are jesting, of course. If there was a tribe of 100 natives circa 75,000 BCE, and you viewed them 9,000 years later, what would you expect to see? 200 tribe members? Time to be honest with yourself instead of playing pretend. You won’t. I know.
      Re: “Take this for example: You find it baffling that it could take 9,000 years (why that number I don’t know) for a population of 1,000 to increase to 2,000.”
      #1: Read the information. #2 THEN comment. Much better that way. You will certainly look more intelligent. On the Population Paradox page I highlighted/bolded the reason for 9,000 years. (actually 8,950. I am sure you will think the approximation is an error.) Starts with: According to all of the accepted…..Give a read if you like.
      The world population went from 310 million in AD 1000 to 791 million in AD 1750, an increase of 2.5 times in the 750 year period when the horrible diseases (black death of 1348) wars, pestilence, et al, that you and RS tout so loudly, dominated.
      NOTHING matches or relates to the 9,000 year doubling figure. Me? I really don’t know what that says if the aging of the fossils is correct. It IS paradox. TO ME.
      To you? You are an evolutionaut. Nothing amazes you. You have to keep an expressionless internet“face” through all of your discussions, as if the many astounding evidences that evolution may not be the answer are just ho hum nothings. And you can’t figure out why I may think population doubling rates presents a paradox.
      Me? I like BEING a skeptic. You like PRETENDING you are. You are nothing but a believer.

  7. Dexter said,

    Hey Steve,

    it’s always the same. If you’d be a professor in evolutionary biology they’d cry the same at you. And for you’re not, they cry just a bit more.

    It’s all about our will to discern something, which they haven’t. They don’t even realize their idea’s uselessness BECAUSE it’s everything they got. They haven’t anything else in life than some illusion of science’s truth.

    May el’schaddai guide everyone who searches for more than illusions

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Roger that. If I were a PhD biologist, I would need to be a TRIPLE PhD biologist.

  8. wolfgang said,

    First some side comemnts for the 200.000 base (or more with the neanderthal comment) :
    As for the latest datings pushing Neander 10.000 years back in time, Neanderthal is supposed to have died out before cro magnon moved into central Europe, with only a little admixture in the Levant occuring.
    At at the same time nobody knows where Cro Magnon went 10.000 years ago, and in what way he ‘evolved’ into ‘modern’ man or he himself got admixture from ‘newer’ human migrations.
    For instance the beaker-culture and swifterbant culture is supposed now to have been more cro magnon as thougth, (as late as 5000BC!) with far less admixture than thought earlier. So IMO Steve should take his maths from 10.000 BC and not from 200.000, good luck!

    But maybe here is a more controversial but simple solution to your math problem.
    The african population more than doubled from 1980 till 2013, from 450 million to one trillion, by the top of my head, despite wars and aids (whatever that might be, a hoax, but the aids money raisers predicted 200 millions of africans to die in the early ’90).
    On the other hand the native European population when you take out its artificial relatively small (compared to africa) growth of numbers by immigration from turkey, north and central africa, has DECLINED since 1980.
    For instance : the Netherlands were at 13.5 million in 1973 99% dutch natibe stock, today they are 17 million with over 5 million immigrants. Thus the native dutch declined. Figures are far worse in Germany and Scandinivia and some parts of Russia.
    European genetic stock went down from 50 to 33 to 8% of the world population in one century and these figures can unlike the above not be disputed, they are facts. The official figures from the EC state the original european popluation will be at 40% of european total by 2100 (in reality this wil bee far earlier, say 2050)

    What I am saying si you can not apply one mathematic rule to different groups of people, just as you would not do this for a hare and a rabbit.
    Yes birth rates from people of european and african descent are not the same. Hormone levels aren’t either. Proven over and over but hardly ever published in the world of PolCorrectness.
    This has nothing to do with poverty, wars or medecine.
    Very poor europeans volontarily declined their birth rates as early as 1900, when the horrific death rate at child birth went down, most couples went from 10 to 2 or 3 children max. My great great grandfather had 16 children of which 1 survived. My great great grandfather had 3 kids. This took one generation to adjust. The goal of europeans was to continue their blood line, not to make as many kids as nature (or public welfare) would allow them.
    Africans, whether they live in Nairobi or Paris, stick to high birth rates despite benefitting from the same medical and financial improvements my forefathers urged to lower his.
    So off course math does not work when you apply one rule for 2 entirely separate etnic groups (or races if you dare).
    Sorry Steve to throw in this more controversial point of view but I thought it had to be said.
    Off course evonauts are stuck in their hypocrisie as they will argue all humans are one and the same, one big family, despite their own theories about environment causing genetic differences.
    The population explosion came when european inventions of medecine, and european and american rice and grain surplus hit africa and asia.
    You can hardly apply any method to unlimited conditions for extra children when 2 genetic different groups react completely the opposite way.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      It’s interesting to note that the most advanced populations, both medically, with modern conveniences, and environmental conditions, are the slowest growing. The most backward, with the worst medicine, health facilities, and lowest number of modern conveniences have by far the greatest population growth rates; by double and triple. The more similar the population is to mankind 200,000 to 1,000 years ago, the greater the population increase by far. Which kills the notion of a 6,000 year doubling time for early mankind. Twenty to thirty year generation times and lack of birth controls means population growth will roll on like the tides. They are unstoppable in backward countries. The world population doubled twice in the last century even with the advent of modern medicine and conveniences, horrible famines, plagues, holocausts, and wars. The math is very basic, and it does work for the population of the Earth. Actually if we follow the same doubling times, the population will explode to trillions in the next few hundred years, which makes the future of mankind seem pretty dubious; pretty scary. What does this do for global warming zealots? The population will be over 16 billion by 2070. I wonder who gets to tell all of these new people they can’t use electricity? Or drive cars? Or…..

      • wolfgang said,

        Well your doubling theory remains the only part I don’t get of you sometimes brilliant demonstrations.
        Maybe it is that I don’t care about the global population . I just see my nordic race is wiped out of the face of the planet because less advanced species breed like rabbits and invade our homelands by the millions.
        I wonder how Dawkins deals with this (Darwin warned us though) :
        Indo europeans after 800.000 years sole on the northern european continent will become exctinct, their recessive genes of blonde hair and blue eyes unable to express themselves in a Brazil like new Europe. And if you resist or protest, you get censured.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You don’t get that the human population had to double only every 6,000+ years, on average, to reach 8 billion from 2 humans, 200,000 years ago? We doubled twice from 1900 to 2000. We doubled in 350 years during the Black Plague. Which makes 6,000+ years impossible for human doubling times. If you don’t get it, that’s OK. There are so many other items that you do get.

      • fellowprimate said,

        “You don’t get that the human population had to double only every 6,000+ years, on average, to reach 8 billion from 2 humans, 200,000 years ago?”

        The average as a doubling time would have been 6270, that is the population would have doubled every 6270 years if it had taken such a uniform route of growth.

        “We doubled twice from 1900 to 2000.”

        Almost, but not quite.
        Primarily due to radical decreases in the mortality rate in many countries as a result of improved sanitation and medicine, as well as a massive increase in agricultural productivity (not more agriculture but improvements on how it is implemented). Countries linked in terms of interacting and learning from one another.
        In other words; there was a reason for this spike in population growth

        “We doubled in 350 years during the Black Plague.”

        The Black Death as it was known didn’t last 350 years. And in it’s peak 3 years it resulted in a estimated 20% decrease in the world population! And it took something like 150 years for it to recover to its pre-epidemic levels.
        Looking it up it seems that the world population around that time (the 3 years being 1348-1351) look a little like this:
        1340: 443 million
        1400: 350 million

        “Which makes 6,000+ years impossible for human doubling times.”

        No it does not. That does not follow at all.
        That is where your whole thing falls flat. And as it is the key to your entire claim; that means serious trouble for your assertion.

        You give two examples, just two, and both from the last 7 hundred years, out of a time span of 2 hundred THOUSAND years!
        What were the rates during the 1 hundred and 99 thousand plus years before your oldest example?!
        Note how you make out that just a couple of examples set roughly within the FINAL ONE THIRD OF ONE PERCENT of the time proves something impossible for the entirety! That’s insane!

        What about the world population between 100,000 and 90,000 BCE for example? Could the increase have been less than that required to double it in 6,000 years? Could it have even have been negative, a decrease? It was during the last ice age after all, a tough time no doubt.

        “If you don’t get it, that’s OK. There are so many other items that you do get.”
        I get it. And in so doing I get that it is incorrect.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Adparker! Welcome back. I really miss your completely brainless comments, like this one. If it were anyone else, I wouldn’t waste my time with a response, but I will try to help you along here. You really need the help.

        Re: Earth’s human population doubled twice from 1900 to 2000. Primarily due to radical decreases in the mortality rate in many countries as a result of improved sanitation and medicine, as well as a massive increase in agricultural productivity (not more agriculture but improvements on how it is implemented). Countries linked in terms of interacting and learning from one another.
        In other words; there was a reason for this spike in population growth.

        Did you know that the countries with “improved sanitation and medicine, as well as a massive increase in agricultural productivity” have the LOWEST population growth Adparker? Yes, that’s true. Europe and the US have population growths of near zero to 1%. The backward countries without “improved sanitation and medicine, as well as a massive increase in agricultural productivity” have immense population growth. Again you make a fool of yourself.

        Did you know that WWI and WW II occurred in the 20th century? And holocausts, and advanced methods of birth control, and disease, and a worldwide flu pandemic in 1920 that killed 3-5% of the world population? And and… Your argument here is inane as always. There were immense population reducers, but very short doubling times. A few decades, not thousands of years. Which shows that the Earth’s population doubling times could not have approached 6,000 at ANY TIME in our history. Sorry Adparker.

        Re: “The Black Death as it was known didn’t last 350 years. And in it’s peak 3 years it resulted in a estimated 20% decrease in the world population! And it took something like 150 years for it to recover to its pre-epidemic levels.
        Looking it up it seems that the world population around that time (the 3 years being 1348-1351) look a little like this: 1340: 443 million 1400: 350 million”

        Gosh, ADparker, don’t you realize that YOU ARE ARGUING IN FAVOR OF stevebee here with this very accurate statement? My gawd, how dumb. Thanks! Lots of death and disease, and the population recovered in only 150 years! 😀

        Re: “Which makes 6,000+ years impossible for human doubling times. What about the world population between 100,000 and 90,000 BCE for example? Could the increase have been less than that required to double it in 6,000 years? Could it have even have been negative, a decrease? It was during the last ice age after all, a tough time no doubt.

        OK Adparker, here is a math lesson for you. The average doubling time from 198,000 BCE to the present HAD TO AVERAGE 6200+ years for the population to reach its current status. Two original people had to double their numbers ABOUT 32.5 times. So if there was a period where there was “no, little, or negative growth”, there had to be periods of GREATER THAN 6,270 to make up for the “no, little, or negative growth”. Got it? I didn’t think so. You need to take some math, Adparker, because this is obviously way over your head. I KNOW for certain that you cannot understand this very basic math. It’s about 5th grade level. What I would do if I were you is take it to a math instructor, and have him/her explain it to you.

        But really, thanks for the sincere try. I know you are trying your hardest. Your fellow rats will really be proud of you, and think you did a fine job!

  9. fellowprimate said,

    “Adparker! Welcome back. I really miss your completely brainless comments, like this one. If it were anyone else, I wouldn’t waste my time with a response, but I will try to help you along here. You really need the help. “

    I always ‘appreciate’ how you so often feel the need to start with cheap shot insults Steve.

    “Did you know that the countries with “improved sanitation and medicine, as well as a massive increase in agricultural productivity” have the LOWEST population growth Adparker? Yes, that’s true. Europe and the US have population growths of near zero to 1%. The backward countries without “improved sanitation and medicine, as well as a massive increase in agricultural productivity” have immense population growth. Again you make a fool of yourself. “

    Yes I do know that. One thing has nothing to do with the other. What do current growth rates prove?
    It was Latin America, Africa and Oceana that experienced the greatest population increase in that period. All of which benefited from those improvements in medicine agriculture, especially the “Green revolution.” Interestingly in large part benefiting other countries that had dominated parts of those regions, using them to produce their crops etc.
    Bottom line is that it is not as simplistic as you like to presume.

    “Did you know that WWI and WW II occurred in the 20th century? And holocausts, and advanced methods of birth control, and disease, and a worldwide flu pandemic in 1920 that killed 3-5% of the world population? And and…”

    Yes.

    “Your argument here is inane as always. There were immense population reducers, but very short doubling times. A few decades, not thousands of years. Which shows that the Earth’s population doubling times could not have approached 6,000 at ANY TIME in our history. Sorry Adparker. “

    Again you offer a complete non sequitur. HOW does modern population statistics render far less population growth in the past impossible? You simply assert this repeatedly with no justification.
    By the way; I would think that a global ice age spanning one hundred thousand years or so might just trump a world war or two. Spanning that time PRIOR to the advent of agriculture, animal herding and plant cultivation, medical science and practically every advance to human longevity by the way.
    On the contrary the pattern from the available evidence is that world population growth has been somewhat exponential, such that the average increase rate was much much slower in the distant past than it has been in the last few thousand years. Meaning that your statistics of the past few hundred years are useless in arguing about the average for the full duration..

    “OK Adparker, here is a math lesson for you. The average doubling time from 198,000 BCE to the present HAD TO AVERAGE 6200+ years for the population to reach its current status. Two original people had to double their numbers ABOUT 32.5 times. So if there was a period where there was “no, little, or negative growth”, there had to be periods of GREATER THAN 6,270 to make up for the “no, little, or negative growth”. Got it? I didn’t think so. You need to take some math, Adparker, because this is obviously way over your head. I KNOW for certain that you cannot understand this very basic math. It’s about 5th grade level. What I would do if I were you is take it to a math instructor, and have him/her explain it to you.”

    Ha ha ha ha! That was hilarious! To paraphrase your own words:
    So if there was a period where there was “no, little, or negative growth”, there had to be periods of LESS THAN 6,270 to make up for the “no, little, or negative growth”. Got it? I didn’t think so.

    For example if the population was small in 198,000 BCE, ignoring that 2 people nonsense, but failed to increase significantly for most of that time. Leading to an estimated world population of 1 million in 10,000 BCE. An ‘average doubling rate’ of just 9900 years or so. Due to the inherent dangers of small populations; it takes little to bring them to the brink, to almost (if fortunate enough to not actually) wipe them out. An epidemic in 1348 CE killed of 1/5 of the world population, in 100,000 BCE with a population of just thousands such an epidemic could have wiped out 95% or more!
    Well then; the next 12,000 years, from that date till today, would have had on average a far more rapid growth rate. Which should come as no surprise as at around that time man, in some regions at least, had started to move beyond simple hunter gather subsistence living and with improved agriculture etc. populations Could really start to flourish.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      When you understand that all of the events you describe resulted in an 8 billion population of the Earth, and that the doubling times averaged 6,200+ years from 200K years ago until now,then you will be able to discuss this subject intelligently. Wars, ice ages, disease, birth control, holocausts, famines are already accounted for in the 8 billion.

      Re: your “question’ for why I use two as a starting population. I use two as a starting point because you need a mommy and daddy to get things going. Didn’t you know that ADparker? Using four, or ten, or a thousand, just makes everything worse for evolution.

      • fellowprimate said,

        Um what?
        Of course I understand that the events of the past led to the present state, and that the world human population grew from it’s beginnings to the current level of a little over 7 billion. And that the average time it doubled would have been every ~6300 years if our species had started 200 thousands years ago (which is an estimate.) And I have never denied that.

        By reading that first paragraph of yours it suggests that you don’t even understand the point of contention between us. Because I agree that all events are accounted for. What I disagree with is what you try to conclude from that data:

        You are the one claiming that for some reason it is impossible for human population to, on average, have grown so slowly.
        And for some reason you seem to think it has something to do with evolution as well. I understand why young earth creationists have a problem with it; they don’t want any statistics to challenge their assumption that the world (and universe) is only a few thousand years old. What your real underlying problem with it is, I have no idea.

        As for the starting number; if you actually understood evolution you would realize that new species emerge, their doesn’t suddenly appear two compatible members of a completely new species. But 2 is fine for the rough estimate calculation, so I will use it for that, but I won’t pretend that it is the reality.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Um, you do understand? You must have met with a math teacher. If you understood that fact, why did you continually do your diatribe about ice ages, and modern medicine, sanitation, and and and…. If you knew those were already accounted for?
        So now you don’t see my problem with a 6200 year doubling time? When human generation times are about 20-40 years, and “families” have been able to produce six or eight offspring, and when the plague hit Europe and wiped out a large portion of the Earth’s population, the doubling time was ONLY 350 years? You actually think if the Earth’s population was 100 200K years ago, it’s plausible that it would only be 200 6,200 (or there abouts) years later? A longer time than since the beginning of the Egyptian civilization until now? You can’t see my problem with that? You can’t see it because it’s not good for evolution. It’s more important for you to defend evolution than it is to use your own common sense and rationality. 350 years, the longest known doubling time in human history, is about 1/20 of 6,270 years. If 6,270 years seems plausible as a doubling time for humans with 20-40 year generation times, I say good for you. ADparker. But I would advise you to stop your debate, with such an absurd belief, the best you can do is look foolish.

      • fellowprimate said,

        “Um, you do understand? You must have met with a math teacher. If you understood that fact, why did you continually do your diatribe about ice ages, and modern medicine, sanitation, and and and…. If you knew those were already accounted for?”

        Of course I understand that. I always understood that, who wouldn’t?
        The discussion of things like the advent of modern medicine, agriculture etc., and the fact of the last ice age, were NEVER about arguing against the simple fact of the population doubling average rate, but are aspects of the explanation why population growth, stagnation and decline occurs. In other words why that figure you find so significant could have potentially been practically anything, higher or lower, due to various factors affecting human population numbers.

        “ So now you don’t see my problem with a 6200 year doubling time?”

        It’s hardly a matter of me ‘now’ not seeing it; I never did, it’s always been the problem.

        “When human generation times are about 20-40 years, and “families” have been able to produce six or eight offspring,”

        With many of them often dying before procreating themselves. For example the probability of offspring dying before the age of just five year old in London in the 1730s was around 75%! And what does the generation time have to do with anything?

        “and when the plague hit Europe and wiped out a large portion of the Earth’s population, the doubling time was ONLY 350 years?”

        It took that long to double again. It would have been faster (as it had immediately previously) but it took 150-200 years to just reach the level it had been at before the epidemic; 150 years with a net zero population growth. Imagine how devastating such an epidemic could have been on an earlier far smaller population!

        “ You actually think if the Earth’s population was 100 200K years ago, it’s plausible that it would only be 200 6,200 (or thereabouts) years later?[/quote]

        Absolutely. In fact with such a minuscule population there would have been every chance that the population 6,200 years later would have been zero!
        A population so small would be likely to remain relatively fixed in number (births ultimately equaling deaths on average,) as is, and has been, the case with many ‘primitive’ tribes discovered and researched. With only relatively slim chance of growing to any notable extent, and as said above; a far greater chance of being wiped out entirely by some misfortune or other.

        “A longer time than since the beginning of the Egyptian civilization until now? You can’t see my problem with that?”

        No, not at all. Small populations are more likely to struggle to survive, than to grow exponentially. Especially since we are talking about a period long before any kind of ‘advanced’ civilizations (in which I include the ancient Egyptian ones) came together in such a way to promote real potential of population growth.

        “ You can’t see it because it’s not good for evolution.”

        It has nothing to do with evolution. This is about the growth in numbers of a single species, not about any evolution going on.
        In the evolutionary framework species’ populations wax, wane, go extinct and remain relatively fixed; all kinds of population dynamics going on there. However ours has grown, quick or slow, has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution, nor does it challenge it in any way.

        “It’s more important for you to defend evolution than it is to use your own common sense and rationality.”

        I’m not even talking about evolution here, nor anything that has anything to do with it. It is you with the evolution fixation here.

        “350 years, the longest known doubling time in human history, is about 1/20 of 6,270 years.”

        You are talking about only the last sliver on the 200,000 years you are talking about. About half of that involving hunter gatherer societies living through an ice age, all before the records you are talking about. What where their doubling times like do you think?

        Imagine if you will the population of a species around 110,000 years BCE. And then the ice age hits, and lasts for ~100,000 years (to ~10,000 BCE.) What proportion of the population do you expect to have survived? Do you expect the species to have increased it’s population or not? And by how much?

        “If 6,270 years seems plausible as a doubling time for humans with 20-40 year generation times, I say good for you. ADparker. But I would advise you to stop your debate, with such an absurd belief, the best you can do is look foolish.”

        I note that you have once again done nothing but try to mock me for not finding the 6,270 year average doubling rate outrageously implausible, rather than actually present ANY reason why you consider it so yourself.
        The generation times of humans has practically nothing to do with it either.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        “I note that you have once again done nothing but try to mock me for not finding the 6,270 year average doubling rate outrageously implausible, rather than actually present ANY reason why you consider it so yourself.
        The generation times of humans has practically nothing to do with it either.”

        You deserve mocking. Your render yourself incompetent to discuss this topic. You don’t see how generations times and family size affects population doubling times? Now I suggest you go to your nearest demographer and have him/her explain it to you. I certainly can’t help you. If human generation times averaged 1 year, do you think that would affect doubling times? If humans had 100 offspring per family, would that alter doubling times. I’m trying to help you think rationally ADparker, instead of always defending you absurd belief system. Which is what this is about and we both know it. Or you wouldn’t be here. You want me to think you’re here to debate population growth statistics? You should be a comedian.

      • fellowprimate said,

        “You deserve mocking. Your render yourself incompetent to discuss this topic.”

        Well, I suppose if it’s all you’ve got.

        “You don’t see how generations times and family size affects population doubling times?”

        They play a part of course, I didn’t speak of family size, only commented on your bringing up generation time, which is practically irrelevant in this talk of 200,000 years of population dynamics.
        The only really important thing of course is how many survive to produce offspring of their own. Which of course is likely to vary a great deal over such a long period of time.
        It’s all smaller scale stuff though, while your claim is all about the larger scale. It is as you say “already factored in.”

        “Now I suggest you go to your nearest demographer and have him/her explain it to you.”

        No need.

        “I certainly can’t help you.”

        By which you mean you can’t explain why what you are claiming here is in any way reasonable. Which explains why you chose to mock and insult me for not believing you rather than explaining yourself.

        “ If human generation times averaged 1 year, do you think that would affect doubling times?”

        Only if none of the other factors changed, which is unlikely.

        “If humans had 100 offspring per family, would that alter doubling times.”

        Only if none of the other factors changed. For example; how many of those offspring survived to produce their own offspring.
        Basically; no matter what the generation time and family size (number of offspring) might be, what really counts is how many, on average, survive to reproduce themselves.
        As an example; a species with a short generation time (some bacteria have theirs at less than 10 minutes for example) that produces a lot of offspring (some can have hundreds, even thousands) may nonetheless have a slow, static or negative population growth rate due to relatively few members of the species actually manage to reproduce at all. In the long run (which is the topic at hand here) of course this can vary even further, such that at one point the species may flourish (lots of offspring) and at another may go into decline, or even perish (a common occurrence by it seems.)

        “I’m trying to help you think rationally ADparker, instead of always defending you absurd belief system. Which is what this is about and we both know it. Or you wouldn’t be here. ”

        Ha. This is about your beliefs, what you have claimed, not mine. This one out of all on your site amused me the most because it doesn’t actually have anything to do with its topic; evolution. I’m not even talking about evolution here, but for some reason you still seem to think that you are.
        And you aren’t trying to help me at all. Help would involve explaining why you think your claim that an average population doubling time for humanity over 200,000 years of 6270 years is impossible.

        “You want me to think you’re here to debate population growth statistics?”

        Yes.
        Or at least I would like to get a straight answer as to WHY you think that the number you came up with represents some kind of problem. Something beyond you repeatedly laughing at me for not accepting your baseless assertion that it is.
        And perhaps why you think it has anything to do with evolution, as you keep brining that up as well.

        “You should be a comedian.”

        Nice talking to you as well Steve.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Re: Generation time and number of offspring:
        ADparker: They play a part of course, I didn’t speak of family size, only commented on your bringing up generation time, which is practically irrelevant in this talk of 200,000 years of population dynamics. It’s all smaller scale stuff though, while your claim is all about the larger scale. It is as you say “already factored in.”

        Offspring numbers per male and female adults, and generation times are HUGE when discussing population doubling times. Not “practically irrelevant”. Your evo-filter is on. You can’t think logically or discuss with reason. You know goddam well you are here so you can argue and defend evolution, nothing else. You are a good bullshitter though. Population doubling times show that 200,000 year old mankind isn’t possible. A crushing blow to your belief systems, so you must act dumb to protect it like a good indoctrinate should. And like all of your evo-peers act at ratskep. You would rather act dumb than face reality. I KNOW you are smarter than you let on, but you gotta do what you gotta do. N’est-ce pas?

      • fellowprimate said,

        “Offspring numbers per male and female adults, and generation times are HUGE when discussing population doubling times. Not “practically irrelevant”.”

        Not that much when considering long periods of time like this.
        Over 200,000 years humanity could have risen to 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (ignoring the obvious problems preventing that of course), or dropped to zero (extinction) or anything in between, regardless of what the average number of offspring and generation times at any one time might be.

        Or perhaps you can do more than just ASSERT that they are “HUGE” and actually EXPLAIN how they are?

        “Your evo-filter is on.”

        Still nothing to do with evolution Steve.

        “You can’t think logically or discuss with reason.”

        That’s rich coming from someone who thinks that empty assertions count as such.

        “You know goddam well you are here so you can argue and defend evolution, nothing else.”

        Not on this particular matter I’m not. It isn’t about evolution, but the growth of one particular species.

        “ You are a good bullshitter though.”

        You have yet to show one place where I have done so. Lots of empty cheap shot insults though.

        “ Population doubling times show that 200,000 year old mankind isn’t possible.”

        I asked you to explain HOW it is impossible. Not only did I not ask you to once again just ASSERT it, I asked you NOT to do so.

        “A crushing blow to your belief systems,”

        What belief systems would those be? Still insisting that this has something to do with evolution? I asked you to explain how it is if you do think so, and note that you failed to do that either.
        So that’s two things I asked you to explain, and zero explanations from you.

        “so you must act dumb to protect it like a good indoctrinate should.”

        And another cheap shot insult. Nice.

        “ And like all of your evo-peers act at ratskep.”

        And then bringing others into it as well, as if that was of any relevance.

        “ You would rather act dumb than face reality.”

        Insulting cheap shot repeated.

        Perhaps you are the one that should ask a demographer, or even just a statistician? Perhaps they can teach you how to actually explain your point, instead of these empty assertions. That is of course on the off chance that you are actually correct.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        ADparker: It depends on the number of survivors.

        How absurdly obvious. This is why I love communicating with evolutionauts. One has to utilize every single word, and place every word correctly, or else absurdities like this one are the results. If I say 100 offspring, I must also add in “that survive to have their own offspring.” Why exactly is that you evos are like that? Any person with a modicum of intelligence would know that 100 offspring would mean lots more than the 3-6 that might have been average for mankind.

        ADparker: Ha. This is about your beliefs…

        My belief is that your belief is a hoax.

        ADparker: 200K year old mankind doesn’t actually have anything to do with its topic; evolution.

        Taking away evolution’s notion of a 200K year old man sure does. See, ADparker, this is why I am trying my best to help you.

        ADparker: Help would involve explaining why you think your claim that an average population doubling time for humanity over 200,000 years of 6270 years is impossible.

        This sentence proves you need help. Go to a demographer, not me, since I can’t rationalize with you at all. What would you think would be an impossible doubling time: 100,000 years? 350 years is the longest in recorded history, so the fact that you are willing to accept 6,270 years to protect your belief system means only one thing: you need help.

        Re: …repeatedly laughing at me for not accepting your baseless.
        Nice talking to you as well Steve.

        ADparker, you have chosen the tone of our communication. I communicate respectfully with those that do so with me. Your constant demeaning and screaming means you don’t get respect from me.

      • fellowprimate said,

        “How absurdly obvious. This is why I love communicating with evolutionauts. One has to utilize every single word, and place every word correctly, or else absurdities like this one are the results. If I say 100 offspring, I must also add in “that survive to have their own offspring.” Why exactly is that you evos are like that? Any person with a modicum of intelligence would know that 100 offspring would mean lots more than the 3-6 that might have been average for mankind. “

        Was there a point in that?

        “ADparker: Ha. This is about your beliefs…
        My belief is that your belief is a hoax.”

        Nice. Nothing to do with this subject though.

        “ADparker: 200K year old mankind doesn’t actually have anything to do with its topic; evolution.
        Taking away evolution’s notion of a 200K year old man sure does. See, ADparker, this is why I am trying my best to help you.”

        Why are you replying to that? I didn’t even say it, you just made it up. You do realize that people can actually read my comment and see that, that you are lying, don’t you?
        [Copy and search people, try to find that sentence anywhere but in Steve’s comment.]
        Why is this the first time you have suggested that (but still not explained why) the age of our particular species is the problem? How is it a problem, for anyone but a dedicated YEC? How is this, the current anthropological estimate for the age of our species, a problem for ‘evolution’ if incorrect for that matter?!

        “ADparker: Help would involve explaining why you think your claim that an average population doubling time for humanity over 200,000 years of 6270 years is impossible.
        This sentence proves you need help. Go to a demographer, not me, since I can’t rationalize with you at all.”

        Interesting. So you are saying that you can’t explain why it is the problem you assert it is after all. That’s a huge admission Steve, good first step.
        I have spoken to a couple of people well versed in human population dynamics as it happens ( a few years back now) and they seemed to have no problem with the concept of our species being well over 100,000 years old. It’s a shame that you can’t explain why you do.

        “What would you think would be an impossible doubling time: 100,000 years?”

        No certainly not that. If, using a simplistic example, a population of 10 million rose over almost 100,000 years to whatever number, then some disaster(s) wiped out all but 2 million, then there you have an ‘average doubling time’ of 100,000 years. Simple. More realistically was if it waxed and waned over that duration to result in that number, or if the carrying capacity was low due to simple hunter gatherer living for much of that time, and only significantly increased (due to advent of agriculture etc.) in the later years of that period.
        As for what would be impossible; Hmm; one that outstripped that of our species capacity to breed. One that required more births than humanly possible. This would of course result in an insanely short doubling time. No doubling time longer than the minimum possible would be impossible though. Although adding in factors such as the carrying capacities and the reasons for them would make it implausible it to be anything close to that minimum. But that is because I have no difficulty in imagining human population stalling, not growing at all (on average) for extended periods of time, nor in various carrying capacities stopping growth until means are reached to increase that capacity (herding and planting being one major example of such a development), while you do have a problem with that, although you can’t seem to explain what that problem might be.

        “350 years is the longest in recorded history,”

        And what proportion of our 200,000 years is that ‘recorded history’?

        “ so the fact that you are willing to accept 6,270 years to protect your belief system means only one thing: you need help.”

        It has nothing to do with what you imagine to be my belief system.
        I am simply asking you to explain your assertions. It seems you can’t.

        “ADparker, you have chosen the tone of our communication. I communicate respectfully with those that do so with me. Your constant demeaning and screaming means you don’t get respect from me.”

        You communicate respectfully with those that buy into your claims (mostly YECs I expect) but are quick to insult any who dares voice any objections. I think anyone can read through these comments and see who is and who is not the one being demeaning here.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Are “assertions” and “false assertions” your favorite words? You continually refer to conditions that have been accounted for since they brought about the current population, and the average doubling time for 200K yr. old man, if we truly are that old. Which means you don’t get it. The math is obviously over your head. For me to explain any more is useless. Try reading this page and try thinking as hard as you can. I know it’s tough. But try.

      • fellowprimate said,

        “Are “assertions” and “false assertions” your favorite words? “

        If you are going to try to avoid my request to explain your claim by going on about word usage you could at least get it right. I never said “false accusations.”
        I do say “empty assertions” quite often, not because I like the words, but because that is what you keep giving.

        “You continually refer to conditions that have been accounted for since they brought about the current population, and the average doubling time for 200K yr. old man, if we truly are that old. Which means you don’t get it. The math is obviously over your head. For me to explain any more is useless. Try reading this page and try thinking as hard as you can. I know it’s tough. But try.”

        So more avoidance it is then, no surprise there.
        Love how you say the math is over my head when I was the one who had to correct you in the first place when you got it wrong.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        If evolutions’s “age of man” and the current population numbers produced a million year doubling time, would you ask me to explain to you why that wasn’t possible? What is the threshold that ADparker needs explanations for before he realizes the doubling times are impossible? 500,000 years? Certainly I need to explain to you why it couldn’t average longer than the time from the beginning of the Egyptian civilization until now.

      • fellowprimate said,

        “If evolutions’s “age of man” “

        It’s not “evolutions’” age, it’s anthropological science’s.

        “and the current population numbers produced a million year doubling time, would you ask me to explain to you why that wasn’t possible?”

        If you claimed that is was impossible then yes, yes I would. Why would that be impossible Steve? Do you honestly expect people to just blindly accept your assertions WITHOUT any explanation?

        “What is the threshold that ADparker needs explanations for before he realizes the doubling times are impossible? 500,000 years? Certainly I need to explain to you why it couldn’t average longer than the time from the beginning of the Egyptian civilization until now.”

        Yes you would, if you have some reason for making such claims of impossibility. You have given absolutely nothing so far, just asserted that it is impossible. how is it impossible, what makes it impossible? Can’t you even answer that simple question? The question of why you make that claim?

        What is it that makes you think it impossible for a population to not grow that much over an extended period of time? Or more in tune with this case; what makes it impossible for a population to be not that much larger than it was thousands of years ago? What is the mechanism that you imagine prevents such an outcome?

        If that is beyond you perhaps an example (which you will most likely ignore like all the rest) will offer an easier question for you:
        If there was a population of a species of 100,000, what would make it impossible for that species to number less that 200,000 7,000 years later?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        My stuff is for people who can still use their brains instead of being so indoctrinated that they cannot. In your case, it’s too late. You have just shown that rational discussion with you is just as impossible as a million year doubling time.

      • fellowprimate said,

        So prediction confirmed on my expectation of you not bothering to answer any of my questions.

        “My stuff is for people who can still use their brains instead of being so indoctrinated that they cannot. In your case, it’s too late.”

        So it’s back with the usual insults I see. Blaming the reader for your failure to convince. Apparently you confuse “using ones brains” with “accepting what you assert without question.”

        “You have just shown that rational discussion with you is just as impossible as a million year doubling time.”

        And the cheap shots continue. By your reckoning the asking of questions instead of just assuming your assertion is correct counts as an inability to conduct rational discussion.

        You have funny ideas of what rational discussion entails. It makes sense that you prefer a blog where you can act as preacher, over a forum where actual two (or more) way discussion is the standard.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Be sure and buy my book, ADparker. It will have all of the “explanations” for you for this and so many other of my other evo-challenges. It will be available in a few weeks. I must say you have a different demeanor here than you do at ratskep. Is that because of the audience there? Do you act more aggressive and challenging there to keep those guys satisfied? Do you think I should put a thread on there with my book so the rats can challenge the hell out of it? I would like some real intelligent constructive criticism, on a very scientific level, and I am sure I would get it there. Think of the fun!

      • fellowprimate said,

        “Be sure and buy my book”

        It might be worth a laugh, but I see no reason to expect anything more than that, anything better than the contents of this blog offer. I don’t think it worth spending any of my money on though, so I very much doubt that I will be buying that.

        “It will have all of the “explanations” for you for this and so many other of my other evo-challenges.”

        That you have failed to provide any on this blog, any worth a damn at least, I highly doubt that.

        “I must say you have a different demeanor here than you do at ratskep. Is that because of the audience there? Do you act more aggressive and challenging there to keep those guys satisfied?”

        Do I? I hadn’t noticed. The nature of the other contributing people does somewhat shape the form of my interaction of course, but there is no intent to be less or more aggressive. “Challenging” I’m always up for.
        Actually I don’t post nearly as much as I used on to the open forum, being busy behind the scenes nowadays, and with real life stuff.

        “Do you think I should put a thread on there with my book so the rats can challenge the hell out of it?”

        If you like.

        “I would like some real intelligent constructive criticism, on a very scientific level, and I am sure I would get it there. Think of the fun!”

        I doubt you are being in any way honest here, as you basically ignored such critiques when you were last there, like here preferring to mock, belittle and insult rather than discuss or argue. Some might enjoy it though.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Laugh? You evos have no idea when something is meant to be funny, so you won’t get a real laugh. Probably many fake evo-laughs though, when you read something you can’t answer. The difference between you and me is I buy and read evolution books, (The Genius Within, The Cannon, The Blind Watchmaker, Selfish Gene…..) so I can understand evo’s position. You must shield you eyes, so as not to commit blaspheme.

      • fellowprimate said,

        “Laugh? You evos have no idea when something is meant to be funny, so you won’t get a real laugh. Probably many fake evo-laughs though, when you read something you can’t answer.”

        Same old same old eh Steve. Laughing AT what you claim Steve, nothing to do with you trying to be funny, although sometimes that gets a laugh, although not in the way you probably intend.
        As it happens I recently read discussions and watched a couple of videos (such as “An Appeal to Creationists….” on YouTube) on anti-atheist and anti-evolution comedy which all made the same point; that it invariably falls flat as they tend to do no more than make themselves sound foolish. Same case here.

        “The difference between you and me is I buy and read evolution books, (The Genius Within, The Cannon, The Blind Watchmaker, Selfish Gene…..) so I can understand evo’s position. You must shield you eyes, so as not to commit blaspheme.”

        What’s “The Cannon”? Is it “The Canon” by Natalie Angier, is it any good? Never mind, why am I asking you?! Did you buy it because it also had Richard Dawkins name on the front?
        I have read anti-evolution books as it happens, I just don’t expect yours to even be at their level. The only ones worth reading in my opinion are those that are likely to carry some weight in the minds of the ‘believers.’
        I’m guessing you are imagining this “difference” on the presumption that my saying that I am unlikely to buy YOUR book is also implying that I don’t buy ANY books promoting things I don’t already accept. This is manifestly false, an erroneous presumptive inference on your part.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You watched an anti-evolution comedy? Wow. That’ really heavy stuff. Your problem is you think the only challenge to evolution is religious/creationist. Try “Signature in the Cell”. As you are not educated on protein synthesis, nor familiar with the DNA/RNA code, it will give you a great education. Darwin’s Black Box is also an excellent read. Even if you disagree with the obvious conclusions, they are very educational like The Canon, Blind Watchmaker etc. were for me. There is always stuff to refresh, relearn, and learn.
        My book would make you think on your own, and challenge your belief system. So good idea for you to stay away. I certainly agree with that notion for you. And it’s really not a good idea to throw so much money (15 bucks) at anti-evolution crap with baseless assertions.
        That you don’t read anti-evo books is pretty obvious from your comment. I would bet you don’t even read pro-evo books, since I haven’t seen one listed by you.

  10. fellowprimate said,

    I’ve read excerpts of Signature in the Cell. It isn’t written by an actual geneticist or even biologist, and it shows. I have read (and own) a fair few books on the sciences (biology & physics mainly) and prefer those written by actual professionals in the field, or at least with a strong grasp on the material without some overriding agenda, they tend to get in the way. Even Paulo Davies, generally an excellent writer of books on physics (being a physicist himself) sometimes rather obviously pulls himself short in order to let his god still fit in. What I have read of Darwin’s black box is rather poor often amounting to nothing more than “This sounds really complex (because I explained it in the most complicated and confusing manner I could muster) therefore Design-dun-it.”

    If your book would “challenge my belief system” as you claim, then it must be leaps and bounds beyond what you have presented here. I guess only time will tell.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      You’ve read excerpts of Signature in the Cell? That seems impossible. And excerpts of Darwin’s Black Box? If you really read “excerpts”, you couldn’t possibly make any kind of conclusion about what these books have to say. Your belief system couldn’t be challenged anyway, and I fully realize that. Group psychology has locked in the belief you do have. So you are an evo for the rest of your life. That’s what evolution and groupthink does to people. There are so many entities that make evolution not a possible source, and no matter how many I name or discuss, this would be your reaction:”This sounds really complex (because I explained it in the most complicated and confusing manner I could muster) therefore Design-dun-it.”
      There is nothing too complex or absurd that it couldn’t be formed by evolution, in your eyes. Just like the million year doubling time, the Krebs cycle, human consciousness and intelligence, photosynthesis, mitosis, the DNA code… It matters not what anyone cites, you will ask “Why is that too complex or too absurd for evolution.” You can’t take a critical or thoughtful look at the belief that is permanently locked into your being.

      • fellowprimate said,

        “You’ve read excerpts of Signature in the Cell? That seems impossible.”

        Demonstrating once again how quickly you are to leap to “That’s impossible!” Look it up on Amazon for a start; quite a few pages free to view, then there are reviews that include excerpts as well. It’s simplicity itself to find excepts, yet to you it seems impossible!

        Like the subject of this blog entry of yours; you seem to go on your gut ‘common sense’ intuitions. “Thousands of years to double in population size?! That just seems impossible to me!” And fixate on that as some fundamental truth or something. Ignoring the well known finding of modern science that shows us that our common sense intuitions are very often dead wrong, especially when one makes the mistake of trying to apply it to areas in which we do not normally experience (commonly sense). Such as the population dynamics of an entire species over hundreds of thousands of years, our intuitions aren’t equipped to weigh in on such areas.

        The rest of what you said was just repeats of your usual cheap shots, insults and indications of typical arguments from ignorance. Not interested. If you had any real evidence or even reasonable arguments you would have presented them already. You have not.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Pretty hard for me to believe you read “excerpts”. Even if you did, excerpts don’t qualify you to comment the validity of the books. In my case, I fully read The Blind Watchmaker, and reviewed it fully on my blog. The ignorance is obviously yours, since you can’t even recognize the DNA/RNA code, and you obviously haven’t read even this blog. You critique it with broad meaningless generalization, which is typical evo-fare. You ask me questions about population growth that are clearly answered on this page. Which means you didn’t read it, or if you did, it was over you head.

      • fellowprimate said,

        “Clearly answered on this page.”

        Ha ha ha ha ha!!! That’s says it all, it really does. You have nothing, nothing but intuitive confusion.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Every question you asked and comment you made on the page was clearly answered in the text and very basic graphs. So why did you bring up ice ages, disease….. when I already explained that they had been accounted for? I know! I bet you read only excerpts! HAR HAR HAR The big question is, why did I bother answering when it was right in front of your eyes. The other big question is what the hell are you doing here with so many comments? What’s the attraction?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: