Why is evolution so controversial?

Let's watch your non-silly world grow:After 300 years, 4000 years ago, or 2000BC the population is 35. These 35 people started creating neolithic Britain (Stonehenge), the Indus Valley Civilization, started the Bronze age in Chine, built Palaces in Greece and found Judaism. Abraham, then, being one of the 35.When Moses was demanding the Egyptian Pharaoh (ruler of a civilization) let his people go, in 1500BC, there were 436 people on Earth.

1. Abraham - 1 among 35
2. Moses - 1 among 436
3. King David - 1 among 5,300 (2sf)
4. Daniel's world had 65,000 people in it
5. Charlemagne - 43,000,000
6. Henry VIII - 1,400,000,000!!!!!!
7. Lincoln - 6.4 billion
8. 2,000AD - 1.9 x 10⁹⁴

Hrm, I think the rounding you did made a big difference. Let's try a more accurate one: 0.00478831033589

1. Abraham - 1 among 34
2. Moses - 1 among 369
3. King David - 1 among 4,000 (2sf)
4. Daniel's world had 44,000 people in it
5. Jesus' world had 490,000 people total
6. Charlemagne - 800 - 22 million
7. Henry VIII - 1500 - 640 million
8. Lincoln - 1800 - 2.7 billion
9. Himmler - 1900 - 4.3 billion
10. Bill Murray - 1950 - 5.5 billion
11. Angelina Jolie - 1975 - 6.2 billion
12. Emma Watson - 1990 - 6.7 billion
13. 2,000AD - Noah Cyrus - 7 billion

That doesn't really make much sense either. Here is another view:

1. Abraham - 1 among 27 million (if pop was 8 300 years ago, r would = 0.05)
2. Moses - 1 among 35 million (new r = 0.0005)
3. King David - 1 among 50 million (r = 0.0007)
4. Daniel's world had 100 million people in it (r = 0.001)
5. Jesus' world had 170 million people in it (r = 0.001)
6. Charlemagne - 800 - 220 million (r = 0.0003)
7. Henry VIII - 1500 - 425 million (r = 0.0009)
8. Lincoln - 1800 - 900 million (r= 0.003)
9. Himmler - 1900 - 1.7 billion (r = 0.006)
10. Bill Murray - 1950 - 2.5 billion (r = 0.008)
11. Angelina Jolie - 1975 - 3.9 billion (r = 0.02)
12. 2,000AD - Noah Cyrus - 6 billion (r = 0.02)
13. 2011AD - Haven (J Alba's baby) - 7 billion (r= 0.01)

What an odd model, population seemed to be doubling every 500 years but in the last 200 years we've increased in population size by seven-fold. What a silly idea.abe: the effective 'r' values Either your numbers are lies, or the Book of Numbers is

quote:

---

Num 1:23 - Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Simeon, were fifty and nine thousand and three hundred.

---

So is that a lie, or are your numbers, which insist the global population was less than 500 at this time a lie?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The challenge is that since using your numbers and model produces absurd results -have to admit this or show how I'm wrong. The maximum sustainable population size was steady until such time as methods and technology existed (ie., agriculture) to increase the maximum sustainable population size, at which point the population would increase in size until it found a new plateau. By 5,000 years ago or so, the plateaus were short lived and they became shorter and shorter till they stopped existing. Right now we are growing at a huge rate - chasing a maximum sustainable population size that we are continuing to find ways of increasing. If Malthus was right, there is a real risk we'll hit a plateau and it will hurt.In other words, there is no reason to think that r≈0 for a period is a fairytale. It happens all the time, just not to humans for a long time.

By observable and recorded do you mean, in the last few thousand years?Why would what is happening now, be reflective of what was happening 10s of thousands of years ago? Surely you realize that the world is different, and thus what populations are doing is different? No, technology has been popping up for a long time, since before homo sapiens entered the scene. This isn't really a thread to discuss why agriculture really started kicking off 5-10,000 years ago and not 45,000 years ago. That's what the facts show happened. I mean - why was over 4,000 years from Noah to mobile phones? Were the last 200 years magical? Really? I thought any high school math student knows about the population growth curve. All follow that curve. Even humans. Are you saying this isn't true, now? Because population growth curves have plateau phases and exponential phases. You are pointing at a recent exponential phase and saying 'see - no plateaus - therefore human populations do not and have not ever had one'.It would be like me looking back at my direct observations and noting 'England has never been at war with Germany, except - in a sense - East Germany for a few years, in my observations therefore WWI and WWII are able to be reallocated to the fables of anti-German sentiment'Even if humans have always grown exponentially - would you agree that this will not always be so?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

As has been explained to you. This would be possible if b ≈ d, that is if r ≈ 0. You haven't explained why such a state of affairs is not possible, despite it being a fundamental part of the population growth curve. Here is a high school standard explanation of this. Would you like to start with any follow up questions or are you happy repeating the same one?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Naturally, given that I just gave you the answer. Nice concession speech: but given your attitude I am struggling to think what would motivate me to engage in a discussion with you in the future.