hysterical Darwinites panic

crosswalk ^ | 2004 | creationist

[grey_whiskers]

"my take to"-- my turn to use the dictionary?

No--it was due to my big fat fingers mistyping!

[js1138]

If you had a point to make with your population curve, please make it.

[js1138]

We have many fewer species than we used to.

Your reasoning and evidence for this assertion?

[WildTurkey]

Pretty close, from my side.

[js1138]

I took the offer seriously also. I think I have had only one tantrum on this thread, and it was regarding the concentration camps.

[metacognative]

What end? It goes on and on and on........

[JeffAtlanta]

In haste I did not include the references where I provided what mathematicians consider sufficient proof, and I admit initiating the argument independently because it's so strong. But trust that I did not ignore "fundamental flaws" that have sometimes been presented with the argument.

Your equation is a model for UNLIMITED population growth thus it is meaningless in this context. Here is an example: they young earth crowd asserts that humans have been around for only about 6,000 years. For your equation to yield a current population of 6 billion, g works out to about .003644. Using this value, your equation yields the following results...

n	Year [AD]	p	Accepted Population (millions)
6000	2000	6,000,000,496
5900	1900	4,170,606,971	1600
5800	1800	2,898,993,511	1000
5700	1700	2,015,093,591	600
5600	1600	1,400,693,780	550
5500	1500	973,623,794	500
5400	1400	676,766,974	360
5300	1300	470,421,471	443
5200	1200	326,990,484	400
5100	1100	227,291,447	310
5000	1000	157,990,536	300
4900	900	109,819,396	226
4800	800	76,335,583	220
4700	700	53,060,948	207
4600	600	36,882,724	200
4500	500	25,637,222	195
4400	400	17,820,461	195
4300	300	12,387,022	220
4200	200	8,610,233
4100	100	5,984,982
4000	0	4,160,168
3500	-500	675,073
3000	-1000	109,545
2500	-1500	17,776
2000	-2000	2,884
1500	-2500	468
1000	-3000	76
500	-3500	12
0	-4000	2

As you can see, either your model is faulty or your model completely disproves the notion of a 6,000 year old human population.

According to your model, the total human population after 500 years would be 12 people. After 1000 years, 76 people. After 1500 years, 468 people.

Also notice how much your model differs from accepted population numbers in the last 500 years. Your model predicts a human population of 4 billion in 1900 while the accepted number is around 1.6 billion.

[Junior]

Looks like you got zapped. Oh well, I'm sure you'll be back again with a different name, but the same old tired, thrice-refuted arguments.

[WildTurkey]

I have been trying to figure out where 2 is at so after reading your post I clicked on #1251 to backtrack and it has been deleted. Was it that bad?

[JeffAtlanta]

I have been trying to figure out where 2 is at so after reading your post I clicked on #1251 to backtrack and it has been deleted. Was it that bad?

No, it was just the same old stuff. I think that she got suspended for creating a second ID after being banned. She mentioned that she had done that in one of her previous posts. The moderator probably just yanked all of her posts after she was suspended. I don't think the content of her posts, while full of errors, was offensive.

Basically she asserted that her population growth calculation model disproved evolution. Several posters, including myself, have tried to show her that population growths just aren't that simple - especially for higher life forms. My follow up post tried to show her how the model she is using doesn't even jive with the last 100 years of population growth.

[WildTurkey]

She promised to go learn entropy and get back to us. I wonder when that will be and what we will call her ...

[general_re]

Any idea which retread?

[Heartlander]

1. The first question is, why are ID proponents shocked to hear that biologists do not posit any particular direction to evolution?

This is not shocking to me at all.

2. The second question is, why do ID proponents calculate probabilities based on specified complexity? This makes no sense to a biologist because biologists do not theorise that specifications precede selection. Evolution does not seek a specified goal.

I actually think a formal equation is not necessary as we can logically infer the differences between an arrowhead and a snowflake.

Biology = function -> structure -> sequence (teleology inferred)
Evolution = sequence -> structure -> function (naturalism a priori)

We have always underestimated cells. . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.
Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell 92 (February 8, 1998): 291.

3. The third question is based on Heartlander's post, but applies to many ID proponents. Do you think selection just eliminates individuals at random? If not, why is selection characterized as accidental or random?

Accidental as in without purpose or ultimate reason. You could say unintended, unplanned, or fortuitous…

But I was looking at the ‘bigger’ picture in hope for some resolve in post 975 when I asked, “What do we do and how do we find common ground?” We can all argue until we are blue in the face (or fingers) but it is rare that we actually attempt to find a resolve or common ground. I think there can be a common ground if both sides are not so dogmatic with their beliefs. At least I can hope after looking through these last posts…

[Right Wing Professor]

Any idea which retread?

Originally I thought GoodSeedHomeSchool, but 2AtHomeMom mentioned she was in one of two states where Badnarik was not on the Presidential Ballot, which would (IIRC) mean New Hampshire or Oklahoma. And judging by the hours she was putting kids to bed, she was central time zone, so I'd bet on Oklahoma. GoodSeedHomeSchool was from Alabama.

Come to think of it, she said it was a certain Bush state, so that's OK, not NH.

Anyopne remember where DittoJed2 was from?

[general_re]

Don't remember, but I was thinking DJ myself. Oklahoma sounds about right.

[JeffAtlanta]

2AtHomeMom mentioned she was in one of two states where Badnarik was not on the Presidential Ballot, which would (IIRC) mean New Hampshire or Oklahoma. And judging by the hours she was putting kids to bed, she was central time zone, so I'd bet on Oklahoma. GoodSeedHomeSchool was from Alabama. Come to think of it, she said it was a certain Bush state, so that's OK, not NH.

Damn, you could be a writer for C.S.I. :-)

[general_re]

Oklahoma is just south of the DUmpster home base in Kansas, too ;)

[Right Wing Professor]

I just checked in over there. I was rather disappointed. No recent posts, no imaginary one-sided conversations with FReepers, it was, well...dead. They've even stopped naming the evo-loony of the week.

[JeffAtlanta]

They've even stopped naming the evo-loony of the week.

Have any real Freepers ever been named evo-loony of the week?

[general_re]

Figures. I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Defining yourself in terms of what you're not is a quintessentially French move - once they're all gone from here, what do they have left for a raison d'etre? Other than to try to sneak back, anyway...