Re: The Creationist Bob Crowley Opens the Debate

On May 30, 3:23 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 25 May 2007 05:50:26 -0700, in alt.atheism , bobcrow...@xxxxxxxxxxx





in <1180097423.986318.66...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let's make the charitable
assumption that growth from humanity's origin up to year 1000 was
constant at .0032% per year.

I'll get back to dealing with some of your other posts when I've got a
bit more time. However your charitable growth rate of .0032% means 32
extra people per year per 100,000 population if my maths is correct.
That is to say that if the total population was 100,000 then we would
expect only 32 net extra gain per year. So if a half of that number
were of childbearing age ie. 50,000, representing 25,000 couples, we
should expect only 32 new head per year?

In an age of non-contraceptives?

I have no idea what uncontrolled fertility rates would be, but I
should think 8 births per couple would not be unreasonable on
average. That is to say over about 20 years of childbirth fertility,
we would expect 200,000 births. Out of that 200,000, by your
charitable estimate, a grand total of 640 would result??

Where'd you get the charitable figure from, and what is it based on?

Read your Malthus: the net population increase for any species, over
time, is going to be pretty close to 0. History show that human
population has mushroomed in the last 2 centuries due to technological
changes.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The human species is different to any other species in that it has the
ability to vastly improve it's chances of survival. The average
creature is completely dependent on available forms of food, climatic
conditions, soil conditions and all the rest. It can do very little
to change that.

But humans hunt with weapons, fish with nets and other implements,
develop agriculture, work together, build houses to survive the
winter, store food, and all the rest. We've always done these things,
most notably in the last couple of centuries or so as you say.

To compare the human species with any other species is not valid; at
least not in this context, for the simple reason we have intelligent,
socially cohesive and manipulative abilities not remotely approached
by any other living creature.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Future of Man: the Speciation Process
    ... That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that the ... basic definition of the human species is not changing, ... Even is Reason is the defining characteristic in the human species ... this speciation process is such that it introduces ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
    ... But my intuition tells me that for speciation ... but then the species did develop races. ... effectively puts in touch populations that were previously isolated. ... We might even speak of `virtual human species`, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Human species may split in two
    ... Peter Ashby wrote: ... there would be an "elite" species with global range, and one "underclass" species per continent. ... The Neanderthals aren't with us and only the Maori ... The lack of any descendants from Neanderthals makes the human species inability to coexist peacefully with any other competitive sentient species clearer. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Mendel refutes evolution
    ... Matt Silberstein wrote: ... evolution respectively up to and beyond the species level - so speciation ... is macro, not micro. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A letter I agree with
    ... We can and do live with all those species (we can't avoid doing so, ... devastate the human species through climate change. ... cars with minimal emissions. ... that total CO2 emissions are reduced to historic levels. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)