Replies

The three most active evos have advanced much science.

Thank you, we do our best.

Here is a deceptively simple mathematical science: population growth.

It's only "deceptively simple" when creationists deceitfully oversimplify it, as you do here:

Let g = annual average population growth rate of mankind (e.g. .005 for half-a-percent). Let n = age of mankind on earth, in years. Select g and n. WLOG let initial population be 2. Compute present population = 2(1+g)n. Providing 243 scientific explanations of this phenomenon should be simple.

This is, in a nutshell, completely idiotic. Your equation is the speed at which a population *can* grow in the absence of limiting factors (or across *short* periods if the limiting factors remain pretty constant *relative* to the growing population size), but it is *NOT* an accurate model of what happens in the REAL WORLD, since in the real world there *are* limiting factors, and they *do* change relative to the population in question (even if they remain constant in absolute terms, the growing population changes the relative limits, like the way a constant-sized food supply will change from "enough food" to "not enough food" as the population outgrows it).

So in short, your attempted "analysis" across centuries of human history is ludicrously simplistic since it assumes a *constant* growth factor over all those countless generations, in exactly the same way as the following two attempts to calculate the motion of a car by presuming a *constant* acceleration of the car:

1. If my car can go from 0 to 60mph in five seconds, then I can get up to 3000mph in 250 seconds...

2. If it takes me two hours to drive 100 miles, then my acceleration on the trip must have been 50m/h^2, meaning that after the first six minutes of driving I was crawling at 5mph and had covered only 1320 feet -- but by the end of the trip I was flying along at 200mph...

Clearly, "deceptively simple" is just a little *too* simple...

Here's what you're overlooking -- and this was taken from a school website designed for GRADES 3-6:

Limiting Factors
In the natural world, limiting factors like the availability of food, water, shelter, and space can change animal and plant populations. Other limiting factors like competition for resources, predation, and disease can also impact populations. If any of the limiting factors change, animal and plant populations change, too. Some changes may cause a population to increase. If there are more plants than usual in an area, populations of animals that eat that plant may increase. If one animal's population increases, the population of animals that eats that animal might also increase. Increases in population aren't always good. Sometimes a population will grow too large for the environment to support. Other changes in limiting factors will cause a population to decrease. If a population becomes diseased, the population may decrease and the population of animals that eat the diseased animals will also decrease. In nature, populations usually balance themselves. Sometimes when man impacts populations, they can't always reestablish a natural balance.

(Can someone tell me why anti-evolutionist "analysis" is usually done on a grade-school level -- or as in this case, in a way that *overlooks* gradeschool-level standards of knowledge?)

Nice try, but...

Using your same "analysis", you can "prove" that we should be up to our armpits in fruit flies every three days, or that the Earth should be buried miles thick in bacteria by now... But then, you can only "prove" that if you ignore the realities of real-world limits which cause fluctuations in population growth (and often population *loss* which your "model" does not allow for).