Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Homo Erectus build the Tower of Babel?
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 51 (479358)
08-26-2008 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Modulous
08-26-2008 2:51 PM


Re: Homo erectus
Mod writes:
Does P(t)=Cekt accurately model human populations?
You would want to hope so or else your radio dating is wrong.
P(t)=Cekt is a general solution for any exponential growth model where the amount present is determined by the rate of change.
y' = y
For a specific solution, let's be rather conservative.
At P(0)= 8 that is, when t=0 there is Noah, his misses, his three sons and their wives, so..

8 = Cekt = Ce0 = C
So our equation becomes;

P(t)= 8ekt
Say that Noah and his Misses didn't contribute any further to the population. In the next 20 years Noah and his Misses dies. Each of his sons and daughter in laws have 4 children each couple, live for another 20 years and die. So 20 years on we have a population of 4*3=12 people (not including the parents). Assuming that there are 6 males and 6 females we have 6 mating pairs. They each have 4 children per pair and die within another 20 years, and so on.
So after 20 years we have a population of 12. We can use this fact to find the proportionality factor k from P(20)=12
12 = 8e20k
ln(1.5)=20k
0.4055/20 = k = 0.02027

So now we have a specific solution to our problem;

P(t) = 8e0.02027t
Now what about at P(1000), that is, a thousand years later?

P(t) = 8e0.02027*1000 = 8e20.27
= 5 084 393 629
5 Billion in a thousand years!
Now think how ridiculous millions of years sounds!
Edited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 08-26-2008 2:51 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2008 4:51 PM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 08-26-2008 5:14 PM LucyTheApe has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 17 of 51 (479361)
08-26-2008 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by LucyTheApe
08-26-2008 4:42 PM


Phony growth curve
Your growth curve is phony.
Try the same thing with bacteria, and a reproduction time of 20 minutes.
Go back just a short time, and you can easily prove that we are now buried hundreds of feet deep in that bacteria.
Perhaps your formula did not model the variables correctly, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 4:42 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 5:03 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 18 of 51 (479362)
08-26-2008 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by LucyTheApe
08-26-2008 2:07 PM


Continuity of human populations
I have that from my own research. A skeleton dated to over 5,000 years in age is linked by mtDNA to living descendants. No replacement by Noah's type of mtDNA. (This disproves the flood right there.)
Eves' no doubt!
Your quip does nothing to make my data, and the data of many of my colleagues, go away. And that data disproves the global flood all by itself.
I can cite you three cases from the western US. My data is a 5,000+ year old skeleton with direct lineage ties based on mtDNA to living individuals in the same area. Another case, On Your Knees Cave in southern Alaska has a skeleton dated to 10,300 years of age with direct lineage ties (a different lineage) to living individuals spread from southern California to the tip of South America. A third case is Paisley Caves in southern Oregon, with human coprolites dated to 14,000+ years old. They too have direct lineal mtDNA connections to living individuals.
All three of these cases, and many others, show direct lineage ties from early skeletons to living individuals. There was no replacement with Noah's mtDNA at about 4,350 years ago, the purported date of the global flood. This continuity of mtDNA types alone disproves the global flood at about 4,350 years.
Quip all you want; the data will not go away. In fact, it will continue to grow.
And no, the skeletons we are dealing with are not Homo erectus; they are fully modern humans.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 2:07 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 51 (479363)
08-26-2008 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coyote
08-26-2008 4:51 PM


Re: Phony growth curve
coyote writes:
Your growth curve is phony.
Then so is your radio dating.
Try the same thing with bacteria, and a reproduction time of 20 minutes.
Exactly the same model. Of course when bacteria start poisoning each other and run out of food, they die off.
Humans move on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2008 4:51 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2008 5:20 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 25 by Coragyps, posted 08-26-2008 5:54 PM LucyTheApe has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 20 of 51 (479366)
08-26-2008 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by LucyTheApe
08-26-2008 4:42 PM


Re: Homo erectus
5 Billion in a thousand years!
Now think how ridiculous millions of years sounds!
Are you seriously suggesting that there were 5billion people on the planet over 2,000 years before Jesus was born? I'd like to see how many people your 'accurate' model suggests there are today.
P(t) = 8e0.02027*4000 = 8e81.08
I make that out to be 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Do you think that's accurate?
If not, then we can conclude your model is flawed since it gives clearly absurd numbers.
The reason is clear: it assumes that humanity can and has always been able to grow exponentially. When you start looking at actual constraints of human population expansion and migration you find it is much more gradual with a lot more stagnation. The population tends towards its maximum at exponential rate, but as it hits that maximum mortality rates (disease, fighting over limited resources, high infant mortality etc) ensure it gets no further. Then a new piece of technology (like irrigation for example) comes along allowing for more resources to be gained increasing the maximum population a town or village can hold. Meanwhile, occasionally nomads would find a new place rich in potential and settle there.
Why would middle eastern people walk 5,000 miles within a year to find something that is in abundance closer to home? They wouldn't - it's unrealistic to think they would.
It would be interesting to see the actual proposed rate of expansion, a rough timeline with the number of people and the distance proposed that they go. The problems I foresee are spreading humanity far more thinly that practical too quickly, or not reaching places like China, India, Japan or America, quickly enough to account for what we know about history (actually they automatically fail on that alone, but it would be interesting to see how catastrophically they do fail.
So let's see: What was the approximate world population during the tower of Babel, how long did it take for them to spread across the world? What was the population of the world at that point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 4:42 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 5:44 PM Modulous has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 21 of 51 (479369)
08-26-2008 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by LucyTheApe
08-26-2008 5:03 PM


Re: Phony growth curve
coyote writes:
Your growth curve is phony.
Then so is your radio dating.
Think so? Bring on your data. And before you even begin, a tip: stay away from those creationist websites. This is one subject they tend to lie about quite shamelessly.
Try the same thing with bacteria, and a reproduction time of 20 minutes.
Exactly the same model. Of course when bacteria start poisoning each other and run out of food, they die off.
Humans move on.
Humans only move on when there is a place to move to, and the resources to sustain a population. Are you familiar with the parameters of human migrations? People just don't move hither and yon at will; they move with particular care to the environment and conditions. They tend to go around mountain ranges and oceans, while clustering in fertile river valleys. And they go at a pace commensurate with the conditions, and as population pressure dictates. Actually the rules of animal biology pretty accurately describe human movements before watercraft were invented.
But none of this matters, as modern humans had some 100,000+ years to populate the globe; they didn't have to cram all of the movements and developments into the slim period post 4,350 years ago, as there was no global flood that reduced the population.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 5:03 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 51 (479372)
08-26-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Modulous
08-26-2008 5:14 PM


Re: Homo erectus
Mod writes:
I make that out to be 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Do you think that's accurate?
The problem is with my initial assumptions. Don't blame me if you don't like the maths, blame Newton and Leibniz.
Lets say that there are only 9 people after 20 years, that's only one additional person.
After a thousand years there is 3200, after 5000 years there is 85 491 796 652 195 or 85 Trillion.
Both you and Coyote are missing the point; although at least you're beginning to see the consequences of dealing with vast quantities of time, it blows out.
The fact is growth is exponential. Using millions of years is just plain crap, can't you see that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 08-26-2008 5:14 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2008 5:50 PM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2008 11:19 AM LucyTheApe has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 23 of 51 (479373)
08-26-2008 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by bluegenes
08-26-2008 3:23 PM


Re: YEC opinions on erectus.
bluegenes writes:
So, having read Kurt Wise's AiG article, Alpha (and all other YECs), do you agree with his analysis?
The answer in general is yes.
God created mankind. Mankind is both a biblical and a well established scientific word. And mankind like every other kind of creature and plant has evolved over time.
YEC's have no problem with scientific evolution and speciation. We do believe for the most part that evolution that happens is rapid. That's what we see in people groups as well as dogs and other bred plants and animals. We believe also that God is involved with everything in this universe and not just creation. Genetic change happens with those gametes (for sexual animals). We believe He is involved with the selection process of all those gametes, especially the successful ones that make the zygote (the new soul). It's not natural selection it is divine selection. You are very important to Him.
Darwin's OoS looks something like this:
Random mutation + natural selection + genetic drift + time = all the living organisms we see today.
YEC's OoS looks something like this:
God created the kinds + divine selection + divine genetic drift + time = all the living organisms we see today.
They are not so different. Darwin needed a cause...nature. We need a cause...God.
Darwin saw one ancestor, we see many. Darwin saw a tree, we see an orchard. Darwin saw and needed millions of years (his natural magic). We don't need millions of years, because many kinds were created within 3 days. The rest is history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bluegenes, posted 08-26-2008 3:23 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by bluegenes, posted 08-26-2008 6:18 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 24 of 51 (479375)
08-26-2008 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by LucyTheApe
08-26-2008 5:44 PM


Re: Homo erectus
The fact is growth is exponential. Using millions of years is just plain crap, can't you see that?
No. You are using a flawed model and getting flawed results. That has no implications for the time spans involved.
Creation "science" as usual.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 5:44 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 6:10 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 25 of 51 (479377)
08-26-2008 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by LucyTheApe
08-26-2008 5:03 PM


Re: Phony growth curve
Then so is your radio dating.
Nope. Carbon-14 or uranium-238 or rhenium-187 are constrained to a constant rate of decay when they're sittin' around in some mineral somewhere. Animals including humans aren't tied to any one rate of population change.
And do rabbits or houseflies start poisoning each other when things get tough? Can't they move elsewhere, too?

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 5:03 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 6:35 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 26 of 51 (479379)
08-26-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Beretta
08-26-2008 10:01 AM


Re: Homo erectus
Beretta writes:
It doesn't appear to me that Wise is attempting anything on the subject of hominids. He says quite clearly that Homo erectus skeletons are virtually indistinguishable from modern humans meaning that they are our human ancestors, not our apeman evolutionary relatives.
Aside from the skull, he says. Although erectus could make basic tools and was likely to have been the first user of fire, we find his tools, and the idea of him building an Ark or a tower of Babel (or anything more than a basic shelter) is an interesting one. In relation to the ark, some do think he managed to raft between islands, but it's controversial. The idea of him making a wooden ocean going liner would make paleo-anthropologists laugh.
If humans scattered from a central postion and became isolated populations, they would have had subsets of the original genetic variation and thus would have had anatomical differences though they would have been entirely human nonetheless.
Wise's model is that there is nothing but H. erectus in layers of post-flood sediment until after the Babel event, when erectus spreads and also, somewhere, evolves into us. That requires a firm belief in a fast, spectacular degree of evolution.
When you've got the first H. Sapiens, what date would that be, do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Beretta, posted 08-26-2008 10:01 AM Beretta has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 51 (479381)
08-26-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Coyote
08-26-2008 5:50 PM


Re: Homo erectus
coyote writes:
No. You are using a flawed model and getting flawed results. That has no implications for the time spans involved.
I'm using EXACTLY the same maths you use to date rocks.
If my maths is flawed then so is yours.
Humans aren't all that selective, they cover the entire world, from the north pole to the south pole and everywhere in between. They live on the mountains and on the sea, in the deserts and on ice.
We make more food than we need, our population has increased 375% in the last 100 years. To suggest that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years just doesn't make sense.
If there were things that looked like humans, they would have to have been restricted to small geographic locations and been extremely stupid; they weren't human.
Edited by LucyTheApe, : typo

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2008 5:50 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2008 6:16 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 31 by bluegenes, posted 08-26-2008 6:32 PM LucyTheApe has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 28 of 51 (479382)
08-26-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by LucyTheApe
08-26-2008 6:10 PM


Re: Homo erectus
We make more food than we need, our population has increased 375% in the last 100 years. To suggest that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years just doesn't make sense.
This is the Science Forum, and you are presenting religious belief. You arguing from creation "science" and a religious belief in a young earth.
You should realize that the scientific argument for a young earth was abandoned in the early 1800s. The evidence since then has only grown exponentially in favor of an old earth.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-26-2008 6:10 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 29 of 51 (479383)
08-26-2008 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by AlphaOmegakid
08-26-2008 5:45 PM


Re: YEC opinions on erectus.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
bluegenes writes:
So, having read Kurt Wise's AiG article, Alpha (and all other YECs), do you agree with his analysis?
The answer in general is yes.
Good. Do you think you could attempt a timeline for us? I think Wise probably puts Babel at about 4,000 years ago, but you might know otherwise. So, we might be able to work out an approximate date for the emergence of H. Sapiens, and for all the civilizations before recorded history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-26-2008 5:45 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 30 of 51 (479384)
08-26-2008 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by AlphaOmegakid
08-26-2008 1:57 PM


Re: Homo erectus
Hi, AOkid.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
A person as wise and educated as you should know better than to make a statement like this.
Dude, it wasn't meant to be an in-depth, scientific analysis: it was just a perspective. Perhaps it was a little careless, but you didn't do much better yourself:
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Chimpanzees have a brain size of 400 cc's avg. Homo erectus has a brain size of 1000cc's average. That is 250% increase in brain capacity in roughly 1-1.5MY in evolutionary time.
Fine. Except that, strangely enough, the chimpanzee wasn't around until after Homo erectus, so there is no evidence of a 250% brain-mass increase. What does that do to your estimates (don't bother answering that: it's rhetorical. I can do the math myself).
Also note: why is it such a big deal for the erectus brain to have enlarged so much relative to ours in the same amount of time? You realize that, if just one additional round of cell division occurs in the brain early on, you can double the brain mass, yeah? That could probably be accomplished by a single mutation. That's a 100% increase in a single generation.
-----
Think of this: even the brainiest Homo erectus had only about 75% of the brain mass of the average Homo sapiens, yet, as far as I can ascertain, H. erectus was not significantly smaller than H. sapiens overall. Where we have a 1:50 ratio of brain to body (mass), the biggest-brained H. erectus has only a 1:67 or 1:70 ratio (most have 1:75 or 1:80). Compare to chimpanzee at 1:125.
Note: this is all my own math, and it was done based on numbers found in random papers from Nature and the H. sapiens ratio came from Wikipedia.
Do you believe that Homo erectus had the brain power to design and build the Tower of Babel without God's help (surely you believe that God didn't help them)?
I personally do not. However, this is based more on archaeological evidence and dating techniques that place Homo erectus in sediments wherein only the simplest types of tools are ever found, than it is on a rigorous investigation of neurological capacity. You, no doubt, do not accept this type of co-occurence evidence as meaningful.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-26-2008 1:57 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-28-2008 12:01 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024