http://www.answersingenesis.org

dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
http://www.answersingenesis.org

Anyone been to this site? I am not a scientist, so curious what comments would come out of this piece:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/females.asp

Also, got to thinking. If an evolutionist believes we evolved from primates, then does it not follow that today's Africans are the last to evolve, making them...cognitively closer to primates, therefore not as intelligent as everyone else, thus, fueling racist ideology? I don't see anyway around this one. Please help me out.

From the above link:

"Savages, who were said to possess smaller brains and more prehensile limbs than the higher races, and whose lives were said to be dominated more by instinct and less by reason … were placed in an intermediate position between nature and man."

"The major intellectual justification Darwin offered for his conclusions about female inferiority was found in The Descent of Man. In this work, Darwin argued that the ‘adult female’ in most species resembled the young of both sexes, and also that ‘males are more evolutionarily advanced than females.’ Since female evolution progressed slower then male evolution, a woman was ‘in essence, a stunted man.’


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
Also, got to thinking. If an evolutionist believes we evolved from primates, then does it not follow that today's Africans are the last to evolve, making them...cognitively closer to primates, therefore not as intelligent as everyone else, thus, fueling racist ideology? I don't see anyway around this one. Please help me out.

 

I recently had a conversation with a theist that actually claimed this and I find it to be utterly repulsive. Our ancestors were climatically suited to their environments. They evolved to survive particular climates. By the logic you use, an albino would be the most evolved.

 

Quote:
Since female evolution progressed slower then male evolution, a woman was ‘in essence, a stunted man.’

How about Valerie Solanas' SCUM Manifesto- http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

  Man, she hated men!

 

But anyway,  I wouldn't read too much into who's inferior to who because we can't have one without the other, right? 


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, I should have

Sorry, I should have clarified these are supposed quotes and paraphrases from Darwin himself from "Descent." According to the author of this site, the inferiority issue mattered greatly to Darwin.

Read the first few paragraphs.

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Oh, I'm sorry if my last

Oh, I'm sorry if my last reply came off like I thought the you said or believed those things, my reply was aimed at the quotes you gave.  I just don't agree with Darwin in that respect and I may be wrong to disagree.  I admit I need to do more research on him.  I just recently started reading Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennet. 


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I am so sick of this

I am so sick of this disgusting strawman.

 

I've posted on this topic inumerable times, here's my standard boiler plate. If you wish me to expound, I'm happy to oblige:

 

There is no biological justification for race, let alone racism.

All humans are fundamentally the same. We all come from a common ancestor; we all share a common genetic history. One of the oldest and most baseless criticisms of evolutionary theory has always been that such a theory is racist, or could be used to justify racism; however to the contrary evolution tells us that we all come from the same place, from the same ancestor – that we are all literally very distant cousins of one another (1) and have been interbreeding with one another since the dawn of the species (and even before that if you want to get really technical). What’s more, the related field of genetics has shown that at our very core, our DNA, is fundamentally the same across our entire species and that we all came from the same place – Africa around 60,000 years ago (2).


Even more importantly, genetic studies have shown that human genetic diversity is more pronounced between individuals of the same population than between different populations or even continents (4), (5). In fact, it has been known for quite some time that human genetic variation lies largely between individuals within populations, rather than between populations or even between continents. Genetic studies have confirmed this using classical genetic makers to the point that we know that the apportionment of genetic diversity lies 88 to 90% among individuals within populations and 10 to 12% among different populations (6). I use the term population here rather than race, because biologically speaking, IMHO race simply does not exist when applied to homo sapiens. In other words, genetically speaking, Africans and Asians are more similar to one another as groups than any two individual Asians are to one another or any two Africans are to on another.


The reasons for this lack of genetic variance between populations, races and continents are many; DNA bottlenecks and near extinctions of our species (7), the fact that we are a relatively young species, the fact that we are historically nomadic and intermixing species, but the empirical evidence speaks for itself – we are much more similar to one another than most would imagine and most of our differences really are only skin deep. It is clear that the “races” do not differ genetically in any significant way. Thus it is unreasonable to assume that certain “races” of people would be more genetically predisposed to certain behaviors or traits than other “races”, even if it could be shown that genetic predispositions to behaviors like violence or intelligence even exist in a conclusive demonstrable capacity – no conclusive evidence exists, that I am aware of, that determinant genetic specific behaviors exist, let alone that they are quantifiable or measurable. We are a product of nature AND nuture. Elucidating the nuances and degree of contribution between the two is next to impossible.

When one uses the term race in a biological sense, they are implying subspecies categorization – there is absolutely no basis for such categorization in humans.

To understand what a subspecies is, one must first understand what a species is. Famed evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr (RIP )put it succinctly enough that his explanation is still quoted frequently by other biologists to this day: species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups" (. A subspecies is a taxonomic group that is a division of a species and is distinguished by (9):

1) Members of one subspecies must be reliably distinguishable from members of other subspecies.

2) The exchange of genetic material between subspecies must be minimal, and expected to remain minimal even if the two groups were placed in close proximity to one another.

3) In order to be regarded as subspecies, rather than a single varied species, the difference between subspecies must be distinct and NOT simply a difference of CONTINUOUSLY VARYING DEGREE. (For example skin color in humans).

Differences of continuously varying degree are called clines, and they are clear evidence of gene flow between populations and thus cause to question subspecies categorization. It is also important to note that the biological definition of subspecies and race are interchangeable; however the biological and colloquial definitions of race are VERY different. To qualify as a biological subspecies or race, a group must meet the above requirements. Examples of human subspecies (two of which are now extinct) are homo sapiens, homo sapiens sapiens (no, the extra sapiens is not a typo) and possibly homo neanderthalis


So there you have it; we are all the essentially the same genetically speaking, yet we remain individuals - for it is within individuals and not races that the genetic spice of life really lies.



(1) Dawkins, Richard. “River out of Eden” ch.2

(2) Cavalli-Sforza, L. L.(1998). The DNA revolution in population genetics. Trends in Genetics. 14(Feb.), p. 60-65.

(3) Wise, C., Sraml, M., Rubinsztein, D., Easteal. S. 1997. Comparative Nuclear and Mitochondrial Genome Diversity in Humans and Chimpanzees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 14:707-716.

(4) Jorde, L., Rogers, A., Bamshad, M., Watkins, W.S., Krakowiak, P., Sung, S., Kere, J., Harpending, H. April 1997. Microsatellite Diversity and the Demographic History of Modern Humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94:3100-3103.

(5) Bowcock. A.M., Ruiz-Linares, A., Tomfohrde, J., Minch, E., Kidd, J.R., Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1994. High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites. Nature 368:455-457.

(6) Lewontin, R. C. 1972. The apportionment of human diversity. Evolutionary Biology 6:381-398. Cited in Ref. 35.

(7) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html

( Mayr, E. 1940. Speciation phenomena in birds. Am. Nat. 74: 249–278.

(9) Subspecies and Classification, Smith, H., Chiszar, D., and Montanucci, R. 1997. Herpetological Review 28(1):13-16

http://www.goodrumj.com/Smith.html

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: then does it not

Quote:
then does it not follow that today's Africans are the last to evolve

 Wouldn't they be the first?

 

Quote:
There is no biological justification for race, let alone racism.

Well, ya. Becuase race is a horrably defined idea. 

 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: then does it not

Quote:

then does it not follow that today's Africans are the last to evolve

 Wouldn't they be the first?

 

Ophios: How? How did all the other continents get people there? The first Sapiens eventually moved out and populated other areas. The last to evolve then, would be those remaining.

Also, how does one explain this comment made by an African gov't official I met in the 80s:

"Europeans have spent their time wisely, creating technology and such. We, our people, have spent our time sharpening our spears and telling stories around the fire."

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: Quote:

dassercha wrote:
Quote:
then does it not follow that today's Africans are the last to evolve

Wouldn't they be the first?

 

Ophios: How? How did all the other continents get people there? The first Sapiens eventually moved out and populated other areas. The last to evolve then, would be those remaining.

Also, how does one explain this comment made by an African gov't official I met in the 80s:

"Europeans have spent their time wisely, creating technology and such. We, our people, have spent our time sharpening our spears and telling stories around the fire."

 

 

Really?  Who the fuck cares?  I am not trying to be rude, but what is your point already?  What difference does it make?  These sort of claims only suit an agenda aimed at seperation of races.  I am going to venture that you are "caucasian" because you want to somehow justify your white supremeness.  Please tell me this isn't the case. What you are really trying to get at?


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
  I am not a scientist,

 

I am not a scientist, and don't know that I buy evolution. I am here to learn and hear from the more learned on this subject. From my original post, the author argues that DARWIN is not only racist but sexist. The proof? Darwin's writings. So, my question is how do you accept his theories but say, "Oh, no! I'm not a racist." Mmmmmmm.

Again, from this site, just a paragraph or two down:

"As eloquently argued by Durant, both racism and sexism were central to evolution:

‘Darwin introduced his discussion of psychology in the Descent by reasserting his commitment to the principle of continuity … [and] … Darwin rested his case upon a judicious blend of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic arguments. Savages, who were said to possess smaller brains and more prehensile limbs than the higher races, and whose lives were said to be dominated more by instinct and less by reason … were placed in an intermediate position between nature and man; and Darwin extended this placement by analogy to include not only children and congenital idiots but also women, some of whose powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation were “characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization”’ (Descent 1871:326–327).13

Darwin’s personal life

Darwin’s theory may have reflected his personal attitudes toward women and non-Caucasian races. When Darwin was concerned that his son Erasmus might marry a young lady named Martineau, he wrote that if Erasmus married her he would not be:

‘… much better than her “nigger.”—Imagine poor Erasmus a nigger to so philosophical and energetic a lady … . Martineau had just returned from … America, and was full of married women’s property rights … . Perfect equality of rights is part of her doctrine … . We must pray for our poor “nigger” … Martineau didn’t become a Darwin.’14

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Dassercha,

Dassercha,

Right up until the early 20th century, pretty much everyone was racist and sexist. Even today, people are racist or sexist. What's your point?

Darwin's observation of natural selection has been verified by many experiments run by people in the modern day (many of whom were likely not racist or sexist.)

Why would people still in Africa be the "last to evolve"? Seems a leap to me. We are all human beings, and various populations are best suited to their environment. Whatever small differences that exist between various populations, those differences are based on their environment. To say one is "more evolved" than another is highly subjective. Evolution is not a ladder that one climbs.

I could speculate a bit on the different technology levels in Europe vs. Africa: Europe is perhaps more temperate and suited to agrarian living (more rivers and valleys) while Africa has large areas of desert, jungle, and generally arid areas. In Europe, more food led to more people, more people (and less land) equals more competition. More competition drives technology. I think Europeans were very busy killing each other and so an arms race drove their technology. (That's mostly speculation, but arms races often do wonders for technology and evolution.)

-Triften


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
triften

triften wrote:

Dassercha,

Right up until the early 20th century, pretty much everyone was racist and sexist. Even today, people are racist or sexist. What's your point?

Darwin's observation of natural selection has been verified by many experiments run by people in the modern day (many of whom were likely not racist or sexist.)

Why would people still in Africa be the "last to evolve"? Seems a leap to me. We are all human beings, and various populations are best suited to their environment. Whatever small differences that exist between various populations, those differences are based on their environment. To say one is "more evolved" than another is highly subjective. Evolution is not a ladder that one climbs.

I could speculate a bit on the different technology levels in Europe vs. Africa: Europe is perhaps more temperate and suited to agrarian living (more rivers and valleys) while Africa has large areas of desert, jungle, and generally arid areas. In Europe, more food led to more people, more people (and less land) equals more competition. More competition drives technology. I think Europeans were very busy killing each other and so an arms race drove their technology. (That's mostly speculation, but arms races often do wonders for technology and evolution.)

-Triften

Most certainly true. The Europeans maritime expansion around the 1400-1800s also led to many more technical advantages than before that time. Such as the rediscovery of Ptolomey's geography which showed a round, not flat, earth.  The use of the compass, astrolabe, and celestial navigation.   The development of longitude/latitude and knots.  These technical advantages were directly resulting from the need to break away from Muslim encirclement and to trade with the Indies and China.  And the main reason the Europeans were so ardent in getting out of their happy home was to christianize other areas and to encircle Islam.

When the Portuguese set out to the Kongo Kingdom to take slaves for the Sugar Islands, they considered the natives there to be subhuman and to have "no souls" since they had no organized religion.  That was the difference.  The technological advances made by the Europeans were to gain power not to be humane.  I don't think they gave a squat about humanity.  I would like to think that we have come far since those days.  While the Europeans may have had the drive and lust for power, they were barbaric in the way they attained the power.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Ophios: How? How did all

Ophios: How? How did all the other continents get people there? The first Sapiens eventually moved out and populated other areas. The last to evolve then, would be those remaining.

Uhhh... why? You evolve becuase of the enviroment NOT THE LOCATION!!

 

Quote:
Also, how does one explain this comment made by an African gov't official I met in the 80s:

 

Wow a quote from some gov't official, I really trust him with scientific ideas. I'll get Dr. Ruth (I think that's her name)and ask her what I should do with my petunias.

 

But anyway, his comment had to do with TECHNOLOGICAL evolution, not BIOLOGICAL evolution! 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote:   I am

dassercha wrote:

 

I am not a scientist, and don't know that I buy evolution. I am here to learn and hear from the more learned on this subject. From my original post, the author argues that DARWIN is not only racist but sexist. The proof? Darwin's writings. So, my question is how do you accept his theories but say, "Oh, no! I'm not a racist." Mmmmmmm.

I'm going to have to suggest that if you're trying to learn about evolution, reading about Darwin isn't the best path to doing so. He wasn't uniformly accurate. He was a significant part of the process of figuring evolution out, but he didn't do it all himself. Unlike religion, a man in science is not assumed to be infallible, and studying the man is no way to study the science.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Unlike

Vastet wrote:

Unlike religion, a man in science is not assumed to be infallible, and studying the man is no way to study the science.

Well put, sir.

-Triften 


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for everyone's

Thanks for everyone's input. I will continue to press forward with  continued (and hopefully) rational inquiry...

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Have you also examined

Have you also examined http://www.talkorigins.org

Particularly, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html may be rather useful. While some of the answers provided are rather short and may require additional research to verify/understand, sources are cited.

-Triften 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Homo Sapiens continued to

Homo Sapiens continued to evolve everywhere - even back in Africa. Over the time period involved, climate conditions changed, so there were continuing environmental pressures, therefore continuing evolution. 'First to evolve or 'last to evolve' really doesn't make sense.

There is plenty of genetic evidence for some continuing contact between human populations over the whole period of the spread out of Africa.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Another thing about

Another thing about this: 

Quote:
The first Sapiens eventually moved out and populated other areas. The last to evolve then, would be those remaining.

 

If this were true, wouldn't Europeans by less evolved then, asians, and the indegenus people of north/south america?

Am I more evolved then decendents of europeans that didn't move to america in the early 1800's? 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Thanks triften for the

Thanks triften for the info. I've got alot of reading to do! Foot in mouth

On another but related subject: I've always wondered what accounted for the uniqueness of Asian people's eye shape. A google search on the subject brought me here, a Dr. Beckerman, PhD:

http://www.calresco.org/beckermn/black.htm

Quote: "Mutations that endure are often advantageous to specific climates. For example...the Asian's eyelid folds protect their eyes against dry sandy desert winds..."

But those same type winds exist in North Africa, so...any ideas? 

 

 

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Curious about this one as

Curious about this one as well--website below. I'm trying to refute my parents' young world theory vis-a-vis The Flood. If the flood happened in 1556 BCE, then how do you account for other civilizations around the world that give no account of a flood around this time. Maddening.

Anyway this literalist site brought up a point which does seem strange. Any ideas? 

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/flooddate.html 

 Quote:

"The present rate of population increase in the world is more than two per cent per year, and the population is now over four billion. [This figure was correct when Dr. Morris wrote this. The figure is now much higher. — Creation Tips editor.] However, the average rate would only have to be one half of one per cent per year to produce the present world population in 4,300 years.

To put it another way, an average family size of only 2.5 children per family would suffice to develop the present population in just the length of time since Noah, even with an average life-span of only about 40 years per person. These figures are very reasonable, and in fact extremely conservative, showing that the Bible chronology is quite plausible in every way.

On the other hand, this same very conservative rate of population growth (only one fourth what it is at present), if continued for a million years, would have produced a present population infinitely greater than could be packed into every cubic foot of the entire universe! This fact alone argues that the supposed million-year history of man on the earth is completely absurd, whereas the Biblical chronology is perfectly reasonable …

Even if, by some miracle, the population growth rates were slowed down sufficiently to produce a population of only the present figure of three billion people after one million years of human life on earth, this would still mean that over 3,000 billion individual people had lived and died during that period of time. It is therefore strange that it is so difficult to find human fossils! It would seem rather that human remains ought to be extremely abundant everywhere. And this should be even more true of the pre-human ape-men that were supposedly evolving into men during 60 or 70 million years of pre-history."

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: Thanks

dassercha wrote:

Thanks triften for the info. I've got alot of reading to do! Foot in mouth

On another but related subject: I've always wondered what accounted for the uniqueness of Asian people's eye shape. A google search on the subject brought me here, a Dr. Beckerman, PhD:

http://www.calresco.org/beckermn/black.htm

Quote: "Mutations that endure are often advantageous to specific climates. For example...the Asian's eyelid folds protect their eyes against dry sandy desert winds..."

But those same type winds exist in North Africa, so...any ideas?

Interesting. I'd never heard that as a reasoning for epicanthal folds. (Evidently, another theory is that it helps protect from cold and light in the tundra/arctic.)

One thing to note is that epicanthal folds are also present among some Inuit (eskimo) and other Native American populations. So, given the present theory of human migration, folds diveloped sometime when we were trekking across Asia. 

(Warning: speculation incoming Smiling

If that is true that they protect from sand and wind, then the lack of folds in North African peoples could exist if the people there didn't survive appreciable time in the desert at a low enough technological level where they (folds) were an advantage. In other words, if humans went into the desert with clothing and shawls to cover their faces to protect from sand, then those born with folds weren't at any particular advantage.

Part of what drives evolution is mutation. Perhaps nobody in Northern Africa happen to develop epicanthal folds. If the mutation for epicanthal folds arose among the population of humans pressing eastward (East Asia, towards the Bering Strait), then the trait just never worked it's way back to Northern Africa.

Another factor to consider is cultural aesthetics. Perhaps the men and women of Asia found it more attractive and so they sought mates with that trait. Also, this can supress a trait. If epicanthal folds were considered unattractive in North Africa, then it'd certainly have trouble spreading.

-Triften 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: Curious

dassercha wrote:

Curious about this one as well--website below. I'm trying to refute my parents' young world theory vis-a-vis The Flood. If the flood happened in 1556 BCE, then how do you account for other civilizations around the world that give no account of a flood around this time. Maddening.

Anyway this literalist site brought up a point which does seem strange. Any ideas? 

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/flooddate.html 

 Quote:

"The present rate of population increase in the world is more than two per cent per year, and the population is now over four billion. [This figure was correct when Dr. Morris wrote this. The figure is now much higher. — Creation Tips editor.] However, the average rate would only have to be one half of one per cent per year to produce the present world population in 4,300 years.

To put it another way, an average family size of only 2.5 children per family would suffice to develop the present population in just the length of time since Noah, even with an average life-span of only about 40 years per person. These figures are very reasonable, and in fact extremely conservative, showing that the Bible chronology is quite plausible in every way.

On the other hand, this same very conservative rate of population growth (only one fourth what it is at present), if continued for a million years, would have produced a present population infinitely greater than could be packed into every cubic foot of the entire universe! This fact alone argues that the supposed million-year history of man on the earth is completely absurd, whereas the Biblical chronology is perfectly reasonable …

Even if, by some miracle, the population growth rates were slowed down sufficiently to produce a population of only the present figure of three billion people after one million years of human life on earth, this would still mean that over 3,000 billion individual people had lived and died during that period of time. It is therefore strange that it is so difficult to find human fossils! It would seem rather that human remains ought to be extremely abundant everywhere. And this should be even more true of the pre-human ape-men that were supposedly evolving into men during 60 or 70 million years of pre-history."

This is easy to destroy. Especially when the author makes such glaring lies as this one: "On the other hand, this same very conservative rate of population growth (only one fourth what it is at present), if continued for a million years, would have produced a present population infinitely greater than could be packed into every cubic foot of the entire universe! ".

The entire universe my ass. I doubt it would fill the solar system. Or even Jupiter for that matter. Hell, considering the matter that makes up our bodies COMES from the Earth, there's a limitted amount of material for life to use for reproduction in the first place. He has no concept of reality. *sigh*

At any rate, you'll notice that there isn't a single calculation regarding death or stagnation in his calculation. It doesn't account for tens of thousands of wars. It doesn't explain the Chinese 20000 year old history of dynasty wars. It doesn't account for plagues and disasters. And it doesn't figure resource management and climate/technological limitations. All in all, it's a useless calculation. Despite his claims.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote:

dassercha wrote:

Quote:

"The present rate of population increase in the world is more than two per cent per year, and the population is now over four billion. [This figure was correct when Dr. Morris wrote this. The figure is now much higher. — Creation Tips editor.] However, the average rate would only have to be one half of one per cent per year to produce the present world population in 4,300 years.

First off, the population growth rate is actually around 1.5 percent today. And that's with today's agricultural and medical technology.

From records we have, population growth from 1000 to about 1800 was actually closer to 0.125 percent! (Less that 1!)

The problem with saying 0.5 percent per year is (as mentioned in http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html , item 3) is if you actually run the number. Then, when Moses was supposed to have commanded an army of 600k men (not counting women and children) in around 1450BC, the world population was all of some 730 people! The model just plain doesn't work.

dassercha wrote:

To put it another way, an average family size of only 2.5 children per family would suffice to develop the present population in just the length of time since Noah, even with an average life-span of only about 40 years per person. These figures are very reasonable, and in fact extremely conservative, showing that the Bible chronology is quite plausible in every way.

The life span of 40 years may seem very low to us, but the life expectancy of a newborn in Ancient Rome (according to records and other evidence) was probably closer to 25! Now I will grant that if a child lives to see 5, they will probably make it to 35 (at least according to the figures I'm looking at.)

dassercha wrote:

On the other hand, this same very conservative rate of population growth (only one fourth what it is at present), if continued for a million years, would have produced a present population infinitely greater than could be packed into every cubic foot of the entire universe! This fact alone argues that the supposed million-year history of man on the earth is completely absurd, whereas the Biblical chronology is perfectly reasonable …

Again, since records show that population growth rates from 1000 to 1800 are a quarter of what he claimed, 0.5 percent is _not_ a conservative growth rate estimate but a wildly optomistic one.

As pointed out, this model is grossly simplistic, assuming constant rates of growth.

dassercha wrote:

Even if, by some miracle, the population growth rates were slowed down sufficiently to produce a population of only the present figure of three billion people after one million years of human life on earth, this would still mean that over 3,000 billion individual people had lived and died during that period of time. It is therefore strange that it is so difficult to find human fossils! It would seem rather that human remains ought to be extremely abundant everywhere. And this should be even more true of the pre-human ape-men that were supposedly evolving into men during 60 or 70 million years of pre-history."

Only a small fraction of animals leave behind fossils. The situations that form them are fairly rare and us finding them is even rarer still.

Also fossils tend to take a long time to form so most human bones we find, are going to be just that: bones. Not fossils. Mineralization (the process that forms fossils) takes a long time, and if we dig things up before hand, we may not find much of anything.

This is speculation on my part, but given what we know of actual population growth (vs. made up figures), I think that places a majority of humanity being too recent to produce fossils.

-Triften


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote:Curious

dassercha wrote:

Curious about this one as well--website below. I'm trying to refute my parents' young world theory vis-a-vis The Flood. If the flood happened in 1556 BCE, then how do you account for other civilizations around the world that give no account of a flood around this time. Maddening.

Anyway this literalist site brought up a point which does seem strange. Any ideas? 

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/flooddate.html 

Yeah, I'm fine putting the smack down of quasi-psuedo science objctions to accepted science, but this one simply offends me - not as a scientist, but simply as a human who can do basic math and understands even the very, very basics of population dynamics.

There is a reason people laugh at creationists. This is one.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Again, thank you folks for

Again, thank you folks for the input.

triften, yes, thanks for your time. Right, it occurred to me that this author just assumed there would be fossils around that he wants, where as you stated, "fossils tend to take a long time to form."

Also, I was off on "The Flood" date. (note to self: don't type when tired). Creationists think it was around 2500 or so BCE, which still is mindboggling to think that Noah's descendants left the Ararat area for some reason and moved as far away as modern China and founded the Shang Dynasty (ca.1700 BCE). All within 800 years or less!! 

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!