Manganese Nodules: Young or Old?

[Jukia]

That's all you can do is call names. You have no evidence.

Your "maths" are the lunacy here. You have 91 people on the entire planet 5000 years ago, when the pyramids were built. :kookoo: And you have more than the current population of the planet 300 years ago. Population growth isn't a simple linear curve with a constant growth rate. We know this is true for population growth in recorded history.

Your "reasonable alternative" is nonsense. :loser:

Or using Stripe's model wouldn't bacteria cover the earth several miles deep?

 

[Alate_One]

Or using Stripe's model wouldn't bacteria cover the earth several miles deep?

Pretty much. We have things called limiting factors like disease, predators, food supply etc. that tend to keep populations from growing beyond a certain point, the "carrying capacity".

The difference in humans is that we are able to increase our carrying capacity through technology such as agriculture. The biggest increase was due to the industrial revolution (that's the cause of the huge spike in population) which reduced mortality by introducing medical technology.

 

[Stripe]

That's all you can do is call names. You have no evidence.

All you can do is lie. When I show you a list of numbers that describes population growth, that is called evidence.

Your "maths" are the lunacy here. You have 91 people on the entire planet 5000 years ago, when the pyramids were built. :kookoo:

No, I don't, dummy.

That is a very simple model showing a very conservative growth rate for the last 6,000 years from an original population of two. It's got the starting conditions and the present situation. Only you benefit from suggesting it has to match reality at every point in between. In order to keep the population down to fit your ideas you are forced to invent all sorts of things. I present a very simple model - you dance all around the simple facts.

And you have more than the current population of the planet 300 years ago. Population growth isn't a simple linear curve with a constant growth rate. We know this is true for population growth in recorded history.

Hullo, dummy .. you don't like the model. Make up your factors that make reality so extremely different from what seems reasonable.

In the meantime it remains very reasonable to expect that a population of two would produce us in 6,000 years.

 

[Jukia]

Stripe: Why is the earth not simply covered in bacteria? I assume they started with 2 just 6,000 years ago as well. They reproduce a lot faster than people. I recognize they are a lot smaller but their growth rate, given your model would be going asymtopic long before now.
Or mice?
Or hamsters?

 

[Stripe]

Stripe: Why is the earth not simply covered in bacteria? I assume they started with 2 just 6,000 years ago as well. They reproduce a lot faster than people. I recognize they are a lot smaller but their growth rate, given your model would be going asymtopic long before now. Or mice? Or hamsters?

"Every mammal on this planet adapts a certain equilibrium..."

 

[Jukia]

"Every mammal on this planet adapts a certain equilibrium..."

Does the same hold true for bacteria?

 

[Alate_One]

All you can do is lie. When I show you a list of numbers that describes population growth, that is called evidence.

:rotfl: A made up list of numbers isn't evidence of anything other than your complete and total ignorance.

No, I don't, dummy.

You think a list of numbers starting at 2 multiplied by 1.1 is "evidence". It's pretty obvious you are the "dummy" here.

That is a very simple model showing a very conservative growth rate for the last 6,000 years from an original population of two. It's got the starting conditions and the present situation.

Um all it has is an assumption of starting conditions. It's wrong at every point in history. The present population of the earth isn't 17 billion it's 6.7 billion. Oops.

In any case the reason humans couldn't have started with 2 people 6000 years go isn't directly related to population growth rate, its genetics. You can't contain the hundreds of alleles of the current population in two individuals. Two individuals can only contain 4 alleles at maximum. Its the same reason every creature on earth couldn't have descended from 2 individuals 4000 years ago. There's no evidence for a global genetic bottleneck.

Only you benefit from suggesting it has to match reality at every point in between.

It doesn't match reality EVER. :rotfl: This has got to be the most idiotic thing you've ever suggested. Your audacity in calling me stupid after this little stunt is nothing short of awe inspiring.

 

[Stripe]

:: A made up list of numbers isn't evidence of anything other than your complete and total ignorance.

The numbers are what they are.

You think a list of numbers starting at 2 multiplied by 1.1 is "evidence". It's pretty obvious you are the "dummy" here.

You don't like maths, do you?

Um all it has is an assumption of starting conditions. It's wrong at every point in history. The present population of the earth isn't 17 billion it's 6.7 billion. Oops.

Why can you not just have an honest conversation? The calculator is not supposed to mirror human population exactly.

 

[Jukia]

The numbers are what they are.


You don't like maths, do you?

Why can you not just have an honest conversation? The calculator is not supposed to mirror human population exactly.

How about dealing honestly with the allelle issue raised?

 

[Alate_One]

The numbers are what they are.

Yep, a pointless distraction.

You don't like maths, do you?

This has nothing to do with me liking or not liking math (that's simple arithmetic anyway). You are demonstrating a 6th grade level of understanding of population dynamics.

Why can you not just have an honest conversation? The calculator is not supposed to mirror human population exactly.

You referred to it as a "model". Models need to reflect reality, otherwise they are not "modeling" anything.

Did you show you can get from 2 individuals of anything to several billion with a consistent rate of increase in a few generations? Yes, but that much is obvious. The problem is getting a consistent rate of increase is only possible without the influence of limiting factors and will eventually reach the carrying capacity. The fact that populations can grow for a short period of time in linear fashion is common knowledge. However your numbers show the population growing infinitely, which has never been observed in nature.

In any case, none of this is the basis of the objection to YEC and a global flood. That would be the allele conundrum I mentioned . . . .

 

[Stripe]

You referred to it as a "model". Models need to reflect reality, otherwise they are not "modeling" anything.

It shows what a population of two can produce in 6,000 years given a conservative growth rate. :idunno:

Yes, but that much is obvious.

You say it like obvious is a bad thing.

The problem is getting a consistent rate of increase is only possible without the influence of limiting factors and will eventually reach the carrying capacity. The fact that populations can grow for a short period of time in linear fashion is common knowledge. However your numbers show the population growing infinitely, which has never been observed in nature.

OK, so show us your evidence that humans have ever reached "carrying capacity".

 

[Alate_One]

It shows what a population of two can produce in 6,000 years given a conservative growth rate. :idunno:

Again the problem is you can't get that kind of growth rate without modern medicine and food supplies. That particular rate of growth is the CURRENT growth rate of the human population, which is only possible because of technology.

OK, so show us your evidence that humans have ever reached "carrying capacity".

We did in the past (before agriculture), but we increased our carrying capacity through technology (agriculture, industry, the green revolution etc.).
This is human population

Any other species that doesn't have technology to grow their own food and stop disease will have a growth curve that looks like this:

If humans don't bring population growth in check, we will eventually hit our own overshoot. The earth isn't infinite.

 

[Stripe]

And your evidence that this actually happened....?

 

[Jukia]

And your evidence that this actually happened....?

That what actually happened? That creatures have reached carrying capacity?

 

[Alate_One]

That what actually happened? That creatures have reached carrying capacity?

^^What he said^^

 

[Jukia]

^^What he said^^

What does this mean? My question was whether or not Stripe was questioning if there was evidence of populations reaching carrying capacity per your last graph. If that is his issue, then the answer is simple---take a population genetics course at the local university. (Remember my "Learn some science mantra?)

Oh yeah, but that is likely to be taught by a person steeped in the godless scientific conspiracy. Sorry.

 

[Alate_One]

What does this mean?

I meant I had the same question as you did. "That actually happened?" doesn't mean much when you have two relatively complex graphs posted. Was he asking about humans or animals? And which parts of the graph(s)?

The graph for animal populations I posted earlier is an example rather than a real population. The one below is a real population of deer.

Populations can also be cyclical.

And there is evidence of humans reaching and overshooting their carrying capacity at Easter Island (Rapanui). They ran out of food, cut down all of their trees so they could no longer build boats to escape and harvest fish.

 

[Jukia]

I meant I had the same question as you did. "That actually happened?" doesn't mean much when you have two relatively complex graphs posted. Was he asking about humans or animals? And which parts of the graph(s)?

The graph for animal populations I posted earlier is an example rather than a real population. The one below is a real population of deer.

Populations can also be cyclical.

And there is evidence of humans reaching and overshooting their carrying capacity at Easter Island (Rapanui). They ran out of food, cut down all of their trees so they could no longer build boats to escape and harvest fish.

Yep, I remember those types of graphs from grad school.

 

[Stripe]

So ... no evidence then?

 

[Jukia]

So ... no evidence then?

Evidence of what?