“In the non-human populations such a greater number of deaths than births is what results in the extinction of the population, and we have innumerable examples of non-human population extinctions. We also have numerous examples of various human populations, meaning different sub-groups of humans.”
Sure, but that tells us nothing about the average population growth rate of all humans. We know the total growth rate, on average, must be positive from day 0 until now, so the only question is how large is the average growth rate? Maybe he is overestimating it at 4.5%, but then what is the real figure? Is the rate which would be consistent with humans being 100,000 years old also consistent with observed human growth rates or not?
I tried to use a reverse compound interest figure to get an estimate, but putting in 100,000 years for the calculation crashed the script :)
You are using false assumptions, so you get obviously false results. You are for some reson blind to the false assumptions, which are so blindingly obvious to others.
To illustrate the point with an exaggerated example, consider the fictoinal case of Homo antiquus. This notional human population is very fecund and experiences a population growth of 100 percent in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth periods. In the tenth period, Homo antiquus experiences a 100 percent population decrease. What is the compound percentage population growth at the end of the tenth period of time? What is the projected population of Homo antiquus at the end of the eleventh period?
What is the compound average of the population growth for Homo neanderthalis?