Summations Only

Yes! 9,999: Yes!
10,001: Yes!
10,000: Never!Ok, ok - we get it.
But where does the Diamond and the 7 parts come from?

- -Often when one does not know the name or authenticity of certain stones like jasper or sapphire, the nickname given to that stone is crazy diamond.-In regards to the Human body, the number identifies who has made it. There is a number, 7, or a pair of seven in the palms of everyone's hands.-book of Job, '(S)He seals the hands of every person, that all men may know it's his(her) work.' And in another fragment: 'Behold, I have graven thee on the palms of my hands: the map of thy terms [walls - mediations] is constantly before me.'-When a person has a pair of seven, the letters of the tetragram — the letter h and the twins, jewd and vav, might be seen; two letters on each hand, and when the palms of both hands are gathered and kept pressed to one another with all one's strength then there is a trembling like a rapid-fire sequence.In the time that the laying up of hands with trembling is directed toward the clouds then the clouds become gathered and separate themselves from their initial trajectory revolving to another Initial stability more close and immediate. And the clouds remain for a time suspended in a place that the person chooses.With the sign of the lamb, the laying up of both gathered hands, the powers that are in heaven might be moved and the white clouds become like a tender row of fig branch having seven long leaves coming forth.-Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

CD - Would you be willing to resell some of that stuff you are smoking? I think I can get a premium price for it.

Can you provide a link to more information about this?

We've discussed this before. There isn't anything spectacularly genetically different about most of those different "ethnies" you listed. We can find more diversity that in most American family trees that can be found among that list of white European people you provided. And nobody is using natural selection to explain the development of different language. A few thousand years of hanging out together is plenty of time for a people to develop new languages.In other words, you haven't even pointed to anything that needs to be explained. I find this statement pretty silly. Don't you believe that the human population was once about 8, but now numbers in the billions? If so, surely the population must have been pretty close to 10,000 at some point.

- -Knowing from real life that families formed of a few dozen people were able of supporting themselves, that's evidence that their children and the children of their children would be capable of doing the same thing for themselves.It's evident that familes formed of only a few dozen people never needed the capability of supporting more than just themselves. For the generations to come were capable of giving the same support for their children. Observation shows that they took care of themselves and their own.Therefore the belief based argument that the generations to come would not be capable of giving to their children the same support that their parents gave to them is inconsistent and if applied to a classroom setting will not be bought by the pupils that are not spoonfed by many books containing the belief that the size of their brain is a product of natural selection.-

If a population of a few dozen people are capable of supporting themselves, their population with persist. And you're right - they don't need the capability to support anyone else - just their own group.If, however, they're incapable of supporting anyone else, their population cannot grow. There's a limit to how many people an environment will support, until you develop technologies that can increase the food supply.

A few dozen is an awfully small gene pool. Serious risk of dying out.

- -The referred limits appeared only after the Modern age.In all ancient ages and in Medieval ages there was always the circle in which one thing leaded to another:Population growth was the factor leading the new families of farmers to open up fertile lands in Europe.-Therefore the argument that a lack of population growth would have occurred in Early Europe because of an alleged environmental limit is inconsistent.-

This few dozen people wouldn't exist in isolation. There would be gene flow between them and adjacent populations. The point being made is simply that population size doesn't increase if the enviornment lacks the capacity to support a larger population.

There have always been limits to how many people an area will support. It is only in the modern age that we have overcome many of them, to allow our population to rise to such a large level.If you're living in a hunter-gatherer society, the amount of food available to support your population depends on how much food there is around. This is a simple and undeniable fact. If the amount of food in a given area which people are able to obtain is only enough to feed 200 people a year, then only 200 people can live in that area. If there are more, some will starve, or kill each other fighting over the scarce resources.The carrying capacity of each area varies a lot, of course. Hunter-gatherers in the Pacific Northwest could live at much higher densities than those in the Kalahari, because there's a lot more food lying around for the pickings. But once you're eating everything available then there's nothing more to eat!The only way you can increase the population beyond an environment's carrying capacity is to increase the carrying capacity, usually by some technological innovation. Better hunting techniques that allow you to catch more animals to eat. Or, the one you mention - the domestication of animals and crops. Before there was farming in Europe, all Europe's fertile land was already occupied; by hunter-gatherers. But there were less peopl then, than there were after farmers made this fertile land produce more available food.

A couple of other factors that apply.The limit to population is the amount of food at the leanest part of the year, not the average.This can be overcome to some degree by storage of food. As an example, you mentioned the Pacific Northwest; the fish from periodic runs were dried or smoked and stored for other parts of the year.Trade with neighboring groups was also critical. Folks in lowlying areas would have access to different resources than folks in higher elevations and trade would help to even out the annual fluctuations and the periodic shortfalls.

-Sample of questions brought to the front,- -Let's take 70 families with children under 21 living in Europe when European population was 1,000 persons. And let's consider that from 70 families living in Europe, 47 families would always cease from existing because of wars, famines, diseases and other eventualities, and they would surely not continue to multiply nor keep a continous genealogical series.In regards to the remaining families — Could one state with certainty or scientifically demonstrate that the remaining 23 (twenty-three) families total would not continue to multiply keeping a continous genealogical series from that point up until these days?-The allegation that annihilation on a global scale would have often occurred and with regularity for over 55 thousand years that immediately precede the recent 15 thousand years has been proved inconsistent for lack of evidences.In regards to the allegation that the lack of technology would have impeded the families formed of a few dozen to farm for the generations to come, the arguments have omitted that when families are formed of dozen persons this had to include their children.

quote:

---

Observation shows that they took care of themselves and their own. And they never needed the capability of supporting more than just their family.

---

-The generations to come were capable of giving the same support for their children because the less technology a farmer had, the more manpower a farmer required to do the job.And the more children a farmer had, the more labor force was available for them to increase the production of the farm.On this, given the lack of technology in those days and the need of labor force, the population growth was a solution and not a problem.-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . 10,000 inhabitants
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . 1 million inhabitants
1st cluster of 14,000 years — from 49 to 36 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
2nd cluster of 14,000 years — from 35 to 22 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
3rd cluster of 14,000 years — from 21 to 7 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?-Indeed, explanations have been asked but in response no answers based on real life were brought to the front that could possibly explain an alleged total lack of population growth from 70 thousand years ago to 50 thousand years ago; and from 49,000 years ago until the completeness of three rows of 14,000 years prior to the recent 7 thousand years.Neither some many men can see the open road that is called science (ascertained truth of the facts) so that they could see, verify and ascertain the truth in the fact that all things the Humans have done to the planet during a single cluster of 7,000 years, they would have done the same thing anyway during any of the three clusters of 14 thousand years that immediately precede the recent 7 thousand years.-On this, darwinism has a debt with the truth and unfinished business that needs to be answered in response for a lack of consistency in the natural selection theory (for the origin of the Human body) because in real life there is a disconnection of time and place between the consequences of having Humans on the Earth for a time no longer than 14 thousand years and the time that the darwinism has proposed for their multiplication.-Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : updateEdited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

- -Now you're bringing up facts of real life. And this can be ascertained from History of the World and Encyclopedia Britannica;There is nothing indicating that living in a planet Earth the minimum average of 33.3 % — a third part of Human population would not continue to grow and multiply a continuous genealogical series.-

quote:

---

Let's take 70 families with children under 21 living in Europe when European population was 1,000 persons. And let's consider that from 70 families living in Europe, 47 families would always cease from existing because of wars, famines, diseases and other eventualities, and they would surely not continue to multiply nor keep a continous genealogical series.

​

In regards to the remaining families — Could one state with certainty or scientifically demonstrate that the remaining 23 (twenty-three) families total would not continue to multiply keeping a continous genealogical series from that point up until these days?

​

-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . 10,000 inhabitants
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . 1 million inhabitants
1st cluster of 14,000 years — from 49 to 36 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
2nd cluster of 14,000 years — from 35 to 22 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
3rd cluster of 14,000 years — from 21 to 7 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?

​

-

---

-

Let's try a thought experiment. Imagine we have a volcanic island, out in the ocean miles away from anywhere. The island is approximately two acres square. The land is quite fertile, thanks to the volcanic dust, so a lot of the land can be farmed. The inhabitants have basic farming technology. Let's put 200 people on that island, and then gradually keep adding more.As more people are added, there are more hands to work the farmland. Do you believe, then, that we could keep adding people indefinitely and that the food supply would indefinitely increase, or not?