Jump to content


Photo

Population Flaw.


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#41 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 02 December 2008 - 05:49 AM

Apes moving out of the trees "where there is plenty of food" to roam around starving to death waiting for pizza hut to establish itself for at least a million years.

Why did'nt I think of that?

Seriously though,the starving people in africa are increasing.It is also a known fact that the food and meicine being sent there is being stolen by warlords to trade for drugs and weapons.The people are'nt getting any of it.

View Post

What has all this to do with the topic?

Does anybody here seriously want to claim that any population will increase arithmetically (which means exponentially) over any greater period of time, unhindered?

The mere fact that we are talking about an average growth debunks the idea: Unchecked, a population grows exponentially. The mere fact that we mostly see linear growths proves that there are outside forces at play.

Hans

#42 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:28 AM

Sure Hans.Does anybody here seriously want to claim the numbers support a "greater period of time"?

#43 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 02 December 2008 - 03:21 PM

What has all this to do with the topic?

Does anybody here seriously want to claim that any population will increase arithmetically (which means exponentially) over any greater period of time, unhindered?

The mere fact that we are talking about an average growth debunks the idea: Unchecked, a population grows exponentially. The mere fact that we mostly see linear growths proves that there are outside forces at play.

Hans

View Post


Hans, Have you read Isaac Asimovs' The Case against Man?

It was a great arguement, but the earth is getting overpopulated by humans, and is growing rather unhindered. Even though Asimov predicted that the world population would reach at least 8 billion by 2005, he really wasn't too far off.

Todays population is now 6.7 billion, and only about 1.3 billion more people to reach Asimovs assumption, and it is also estimated to reach 9 billion by the year 2042. So yes the human population is growing rather unhindered. The only thing that would seem to stop this would be a nuclear war, or some sort of unstoppable disease. Both of which I hope never happen, or again in case of an unstoppable disease.

#44 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2008 - 04:01 PM

The only thing that would seem to stop this would be a nuclear war, or some sort of unstoppable disease.


Or availability of resources like food supply, water supply, etc. The reason we have experienced such population growth is because of technology that allows us to better match resources (i.e. food) to the population.

There are constraints on population growth, but because of technology we just haven't hit them yet.

#45 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 02 December 2008 - 07:05 PM

Or availability of resources like food supply, water supply, etc. The reason we have experienced such population growth is because of technology that allows us to better match resources (i.e. food) to the population.


Don't tell that to the British that ran head on into thousands of zulu warriors.

1)Either the Brithish are lying

2)Historians are lying about history

3)Populations are known to reach large numbers,unhindered,without modern technology.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Zulu_Empire

Colony, 1880. Population. - 1828 est. 250000 ...

The zulu's were just the dominate tribe in southern africa and numbered 250,000 at that time.

thanks.

#46 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 03 December 2008 - 03:48 AM

Don't tell that to the British that ran head on into thousands of zulu warriors.

1)Either the Brithish are lying

2)Historians are lying about history

3)Populations are known to reach large numbers,unhindered,without modern technology.


Of course populations can reach large numbers.

.....Seriously, are you joking or something?

The discussion here is whether a population can be extrapolated linearly, based on a current growth rate.

As for you Zulus, how many are there now?

Hans

#47 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 December 2008 - 12:15 PM

All population census reports from a long time ago, before modern technology, all show an exponetial increase not linear.Where are you getting your numbers from except your imagination.

Heres the growth rates for British Guiana from 1851 to 1881 in ten year incriments.

Posted Image

The population more than doubled in just 30 years.

Thanks.

#48 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 December 2008 - 12:29 PM

As for you Zulus, how many are there now?


10,659,309 (2001 census)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu - 68k -

#49 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 03 December 2008 - 01:59 PM

All population census reports from a long time ago, before modern technology, all show an exponetial increase not linear.Where are you getting your numbers from except your imagination.

Heres the growth rates for British Guiana from 1851 to 1881 in ten year incriments.

Posted Image

The population more than doubled in just 30 years.

Thanks.

View Post


Surely you realize that population dynamics do not follow simple functions. The above data is over an extremely short time scale. It is like looking at the GDP for a few years trying to fit it linearly or exponentially and proclaiming that you have discovered a function that models the GDP. Your function would of course be wrong because it doesn't include external influence. The same is true for population dynamics.

#50 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 December 2008 - 02:11 PM

Surely you realize that population dynamics do not follow simple functions. The above data is over an extremely short time scale.


Thanks for making my point for me.Your the ones who claim the data fits the old earth model.

Enjoy.

#51 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 03 December 2008 - 02:51 PM

Thanks for making my point for me.Your the ones who claim the data fits the old earth model.

Enjoy.

View Post



What old earth model? There is no reasonable model of human population growth that fits a continuous function for a long time scale. I haven't made your point. Populations growth is semi-oscillatory with discontinuous corners but not periodic so it can't be modeled with continuous functions (maybe a crap ton of piecewise functions?). If you choose a small time scale (as you did) you can fit population growth exponentially - however as you increase this timescale your data will deviate substantially from your curve. If you fit exponentially the population from 1310 - 1340 and then tried to predict the population in 1345 you would find that you were missing 75 million people plus their descendants. Simple models do not take into account environmental changes like war, famine, disease, and natural disasters.

Tell you what - why don't you come up with a simple continuous function that best fits the European Jewish population growth in Germany from WWI to after WWII. Is it exponential? Is it linear?

Enjoy.

#52 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 December 2008 - 03:12 PM

What old earth model?  There is no reasonable model of human population growth that fits a continuous function for a long time scale.  I haven't made your point.  Populations growth is semi-oscillatory with discontinuous corners but not periodic so it can't be modeled with continuous functions (maybe a crap ton of piecewise functions?).  If you choose a small time scale (as you did) you can fit population growth exponentially - however as you increase this timescale your data will deviate substantially from your curve.  If you fit exponentially the population from 1310 - 1340 and then tried to predict the population in 1345 you would find that you were missing 75 million people plus their descendants.  Simple models do not take into account environmental changes like war, famine, disease, and natural disasters.

Tell you what - why don't you come up with a simple continuous function that best fits the European Jewish population growth in Germany from WWI to after WWII.  Is it exponential?  Is it linear?

Enjoy.

View Post


We already have.Thats how we know to drop the exponential curve from 2% to 1%.Figuring in harsher conditions in the past before census records were kept,we can reduce it to .5%.That puts us originating 145,000 years before the earliest out of africa model 150,000 years ago.Or the last genetic bottleneck 4,400 years ago.

Thanks.



#53 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 03 December 2008 - 03:46 PM

View Post

C'mon like 75% of the German Jewish population was lost - a few percent change in your rate will not practically realize this drop. You have to introduce a jump discontinuity into your function to account for it. In fact to account for a 75% drop in population you would have to introduce a negative rate during those time periods which is non-physical.

Really the drop in population makes the function discontinuous thus making our model completely an effective model. discontinuities are introduced into our population models randomly making it impossible to make a population model that makes decent "postdictions" or predictions (especially before recorded history) over long time scales.

It took all of human history for the population of earth to reach 1 billion and then the industrial revolution took place and the population jumped to 6.7 billion in just 150 years. You can simply change the rate for rapid increases in population but for instant drops in population you can't change the rate. Another leap in population growth occurred when humans became sedentary due to the dawn of agriculture. Prior to this humans were nomadic and population growth was slow and probably hit a stable peak and stayed relatively constant for a long time. Now if you use a model of population growth after the dawn of agriculture and attempt to apply it prior to the dawn of agriculture you will find that your model is useless. The very fact that one has to change the rate just to account for population growths (not even considering population drops) makes it impossible and pointless to try and say well based on our population model there are not enough people alive today to account for an old earth. Surely you must see this.

Its like you have a blood sample with HIV and you are constantly introducing meds to decrease it but then then the virus population grows again and you introduce meds again and so on and so forth - then you make a model only during growth and don't take into account the decrease because of meds and you say well if this patient has had HIV for the amount of time he claims and if this is the growth rate then he should have no helper T-cells therefore he is lying about how long he has had HIV.

#54 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 03 December 2008 - 03:55 PM

If you go to the pop calc in the op and find what rate you need to get the population to climb from 791 mil in 1750 to 1 bil in 1850 you will get a rate of 0.003. Using this rate to estimate the population in 2008 starting with 1 bil in 1850 with the rate we used before only yields 1.6 billion. That is of course wrong. Why? We can't mathematically account for environmental factors (Industrial revolution leading to increased technology). You need to change the growth rate to 0.012 to get 6.5 billion by 2008. How do you do this prior to recorded history?

#55 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2008 - 04:58 PM

3)Populations are known to reach large numbers,unhindered,without modern technology.

The zulu's were just the dominate tribe in southern africa and numbered 250,000 at that time.

thanks.

View Post


But there still will be upper limits on population growth based on available resources. 250,000 people is not that big a number with respect to population growth and an environment like Africa.

My point was that at some point there will be a limit reached unless technology extends that limit. This notion that population growth will continue unabated for all time is utterly ridiculous.

#56 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 December 2008 - 05:43 PM

C'mon like 75% of the German Jewish population was lost - a few percent change in your rate will not practically realize this drop. You have to introduce a jump discontinuity into your function to account for it. In fact to account for a 75% drop in population you would have to introduce a negative rate during those time periods which is non-physical.


Your completely ignoring the fact that the jewish population still grew,just not in germany.

250,000 people were lost in indonesia in a single day.Did it slowly the human population growth for 150,000 years.

It took all of human history for the population of earth to reach 1 billion and then the industrial revolution took place and the population jumped to 6.7 billion in just 150 years.


Exactly and we can measure that,where did you think .5% came from?

Thanks.

#57 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 December 2008 - 05:47 PM

But there still will be upper limits on population growth based on available resources. 250,000 people is not that big a number with respect to population growth and an environment like Africa.


Ofcourse not,it's over 10 million now and still growing.Where is your mechanism that kept it below that for 150,000 years?

Thanks.

#58 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2008 - 06:07 PM

Ofcourse not,it's over 10 million now and still growing.Where is your mechanism that kept it below that for 150,000 years?

Thanks.

View Post


Technology. Or rather, lack of technology. Do you understand how technology changes availability of resources to a population? Especially food?

For example, do you understand that a hunter-gatherer society would have lower population limits than an argicultural society?

#59 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 December 2008 - 08:14 PM

Yes,it reduced natural availability from toxic waste and over development"commercial and residential"

Natural resources were more abundant in the past.

#60 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2008 - 08:53 PM

Yes,it reduced natural availability from toxic waste and over development"commercial and residential"

Natural resources were more abundant in the past.

View Post


;)

What?

Okay, let's stick with food here. What do you think is the most efficient way of getting dinner:

1) Going out in the forest and hunting it yourself.

2) Raising your own livestock and growing your own crops.

3) Going to the grocery store and buying what you need.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users