Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Sapiens]

I don't think that is correct, it may be close to modern values if we take a global average but its definitely not the case for industrialised nations. Even for adults the probability of reaching old age was greatly reduced due to the potential severity of any illness or injury. The potential maximum lifespan seems to have been not too dissimilar but the numbers reaching it as a whole were incredibly lower. Longer average lifespans among the wealthy of course but even for them reaching 60 was an achievement that needed some luck.

Disease was a big killer, especially so in the towns and cities.

Data is sparse for many centuries but in the middle ages for example a person who survived to adulthood would normally expect to live to their mid to late forties. That is a significant difference to modern industrialised nations. I remember that from anglo-saxon burials of the period none of the male labourers lived past 45. Similar stats for monks in abbeys, very, very few made it past 45.

Here's the data, see what you make of it: Life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JM2C]

We've already discussed this. Populations grows exponentially now thanks to the industrial and technological revolutions.
The only way that your argument would work is if you studied population growth in prior years. You can't take future growth numbers and apply them to previous centuries because that's not how math works...
Human Populations

Between 0 AD and 1,000 AD the world's population had only grown by a few million people... That's 1,000 years. Your math doesn't even work for known time periods, and you think it somehow applies to prehistory?

The difference between 3.2 million years [Lucy] to 2,000 years [today] is 3,198,000 years of no records of any population anywhere in the world. The average population growth since 1 AD of 200,000,000 to the present time of 7,000,000,000 is about 0.0018%/year using a simple spreadsheet.

If you start with just 100 people from 3,200,000 years ago and apply the same percentage of growth, or even less, you would end up with 51,929,041,012,036, this is with the T as Trillion and not billion, in just 15,000 years and you still have another 3,185,000 years more to go to the present time. Any actuary would support this theory. A simple spreadsheet could this. Just use your common sense if these numbers are possible today. 51 trillion in just 15,000 years from just 100 people. History is telling us that people do not decrease in numbers. There are more births than deaths and yes there were stagnancy in growth but the tendency of any creatures is to increase and not decrease and this evidence is right in front of us today, staring at us, 7,000,000,000 of them in just over 2,000 years from 200,000,000 of course.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The difference between 3.2 million years [Lucy] to 2,000 years [today] is 3,198,000 years of no records of any population anywhere in the world. The average population growth since 1 AD of 200,000,000 to the present time of 7,000,000,000 is about 0.0018%/year using a simple spreadsheet.

If you start with just 100 people from 3,200,000 years ago and apply the same percentage of growth, or even less, you would end up with 51,929,041,012,036, this is with the T as Trillion and not billion, in just 15,000 years and you still have another 3,185,000 years more to go to the present time. Any actuary would support this theory. A simple spreadsheet could this. Just use your common sense if these numbers are possible today. 51 trillion in just 15,000 years from just 100 people. History is telling us that people do not decrease in numbers. There are more births than deaths and yes there were stagnancy in growth but the tendency of any creatures is to increase and not decrease and this evidence is right in front of us today, staring at us, 7,000,000,000 of them in just over 2,000 years from 200,000,000 of course.

I am confused at your point. You feel that our current almost uninhibited growth is the same model that should be applied to our previous ancestors who were subject to inhibiting factors to the growth of their population? We know why the population didn't grow any where near as fast and we know that there are limits to the population within areas prior to the industrial revolution. There is an equilibrium that is maintained (up until now) about how much life can survive out of so many resources. If there is not enough resources then there will not be as much life. If there is abundant resources there will be more life. With the exceptions to the mass extinction events this has continued to be true. Humans have just gotten so good as surviving within recent time that we have in a way "broke" the system that we had been trapped in before. Our growth goes unchecked. We can survive things that normally would have killed us off thanks to modern medicine. We can utilize our resources in ways that was never possible before by any creature, ect.


Also you still haven't answered my question. Of all the hominid fossils how many are fake in your opinion? And please explain why.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If you start with just 100 people from 3,200,000 years ago and apply the same percentage of growth, or even less, you would end up with 51,929,041,012,036, this is with the T as Trillion and not billion, in just 15,000 years and you still have another 3,185,000 years more to go to the present time.

Why in the world would you make the assumption that modern growth rates are applicable to more primitive populations 4 million years ago?

This is the third or fouth time now that you've tried to make this argument without explaining why you're making this HUGE assumption.

 

[metis]

The difference between 3.2 million years [Lucy] to 2,000 years [today] is 3,198,000 years of no records of any population anywhere in the world. The average population growth since 1 AD of 200,000,000 to the present time of 7,000,000,000 is about 0.0018%/year using a simple spreadsheet.

If you start with just 100 people from 3,200,000 years ago and apply the same percentage of growth, or even less, you would end up with 51,929,041,012,036, this is with the T as Trillion and not billion, in just 15,000 years and you still have another 3,185,000 years more to go to the present time. Any actuary would support this theory. A simple spreadsheet could this. Just use your common sense if these numbers are possible today. 51 trillion in just 15,000 years from just 100 people. History is telling us that people do not decrease in numbers. There are more births than deaths and yes there were stagnancy in growth but the tendency of any creatures is to increase and not decrease and this evidence is right in front of us today, staring at us, 7,000,000,000 of them in just over 2,000 years from 200,000,000 of course.

Completely bogus as it is based on one assumption after another after another... Some entire societies went extinct, such as the Huron Indians here in the Midwest. Hunting & gathering tribes had to make sure they didn't outstrip their food supply. Etc,, etc.

 

[McBell]

The difference between 3.2 million years [Lucy] to 2,000 years [today] is 3,198,000 years of no records of any population anywhere in the world. The average population growth since 1 AD of 200,000,000 to the present time of 7,000,000,000 is about 0.0018%/year using a simple spreadsheet.

If you start with just 100 people from 3,200,000 years ago and apply the same percentage of growth, or even less, you would end up with 51,929,041,012,036, this is with the T as Trillion and not billion, in just 15,000 years and you still have another 3,185,000 years more to go to the present time. Any actuary would support this theory. A simple spreadsheet could this. Just use your common sense if these numbers are possible today. 51 trillion in just 15,000 years from just 100 people. History is telling us that people do not decrease in numbers. There are more births than deaths and yes there were stagnancy in growth but the tendency of any creatures is to increase and not decrease and this evidence is right in front of us today, staring at us, 7,000,000,000 of them in just over 2,000 years from 200,000,000 of course.

Oh goody!!
More random Math jokes!

There are three people applying for the same job.
One is a mathematician, one a statistician, and one an accountant.
The interviewing committee first calls in the mathematician.

They say "we have only one question. What is 500 plus 500?"

The mathematician, without hesitation, says "1000."

The committee sends him out and calls in the statistician.
When the statistician comes in, they ask the same question.
The statistician ponders the question for a moment, and then answers "1000... I'm 95% confident."

He is then also thanked for his time and sent on his way.

When the accountant enters the room, he is asked the same question: "what is 500 plus 500?"
The accountant replies, "what would you like it to be?"
They hire the accountant.

 

[David M]

Here's the data, see what you make of it: Life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The trouble with the figures on the wiki page is that it is very broad brush. But it shows that average life expectancies were significantly lower in the past than now. The longer life expectancies shown are again for he exceptions to the rule, minority social classes that occupied privileged positions, where we would expect to see a longer life span. Of course we don't have that level of breakdown for modern nations but I would say that the well off in a western nation can usually expect to live into their 70s and 80s or even later.

For example the figures for the male members of the aristocracy in medieval Britain show that they could expect to live into their 60's if they made it to the age of 21. But of course even in that social class the chances of making it to 21 were not that certain. For the vast majority of the population the average life expectancy was lower, as I mentioned in my previous post. So it was not a case of surviving into the teens, its a case of surviving past their teens and being, generally, in one of the more wealthy social classes that gave a person a life expectancy close to modern times. And its again mostly for males as women did have to suffer the much higher risks of childbirth in their 20's and 30s.

But excluding the high mortality rates in youth is not that useful in my opinion, all that it shows is that the inherent high end lifespan for humans that mainly derives from a genetic basis has not altered that much, as we would expect. Its technological advances that have overwhelmingly altered the average life expectancy of humans, and a large portion of that has come in the last 2-3 centuries.

 

[David M]

Any actuary would support this theory.

An Actuary would laugh his *** off at that theory, because Actuaries do have an understanding to how to calculate factors affecting human life expectancies. But the most important fact is that were we do have data from the last 2,000 years it clearly shows that your calculations are horse pucky (to borrow a phrase). The rate of human population growth has accelerated in the past couple of centuries at a massive rate due to advances in agriculture, transport and medicine.

"Carrying Capacity" is a vital concept in any theory about human populations and it explains why today's population levels are completely different to the figures we have data for from history.

 

[Sapiens]

The trouble with the figures on the wiki page is that it is very broad brush. But it shows that average life expectancies were significantly lower in the past than now. The longer life expectancies shown are again for he exceptions to the rule, minority social classes that occupied privileged positions, where we would expect to see a longer life span. Of course we don't have that level of breakdown for modern nations but I would say that the well off in a western nation can usually expect to live into their 70s and 80s or even later.

For example the figures for the male members of the aristocracy in medieval Britain show that they could expect to live into their 60's if they made it to the age of 21. But of course even in that social class the chances of making it to 21 were not that certain. For the vast majority of the population the average life expectancy was lower, as I mentioned in my previous post. So it was not a case of surviving into the teens, its a case of surviving past their teens and being, generally, in one of the more wealthy social classes that gave a person a life expectancy close to modern times. And its again mostly for males as women did have to suffer the much higher risks of childbirth in their 20's and 30s.

But excluding the high mortality rates in youth is not that useful in my opinion, all that it shows is that the inherent high end lifespan for humans that mainly derives from a genetic basis has not altered that much, as we would expect. Its technological advances that have overwhelmingly altered the average life expectancy of humans, and a large portion of that has come in the last 2-3 centuries.

The point I was making is that the major advance was a reduction in infant and maternal mortality followed by advances in reducing the occurrence and seriousness of childhood diseases. The data supports that.

 

[David M]

The point I was making is that the major advance was a reduction in infant and maternal mortality followed by advances in reducing the occurrence and seriousness of childhood diseases. The data supports that.

That's not really what you said in your post, you said that past ones teens average life expectancy would be about the same as today, in fact it would still be lower for most of history due to the modern reduction in adult mortality, which was a significant factor.

 

[outhouse]

This is the third or fouth time now that you've tried to make this argument without explaining why you're making this HUGE assumption.

Its not even an assumption, it is a critical error and a fallacy.

The math is not supportable in reality, as the percentage rate he applies, is not valid or credible for previous civilizations before the ice ages, and does not take into account the nomadic lifestyle. It was based on severe desperation and ignorance to any anthropological study.

 

[metis]

That's not really what you said in your post, you said that past ones teens average life expectancy would be about the same as today, in fact it would still be lower for most of history due to the modern reduction in adult mortality, which was a significant factor.

The estimate I have seen in regards to average life expectancy in early forms of Homo sapiens is between 30-35 years. Studies of human remains at the time of America's Revolutionary War has average life expectancy to be roughly 35 years of age.

Source: Scientific American.

 

[Sapiens]

That's not really what you said in your post, you said that past ones teens average life expectancy would be about the same as today, in fact it would still be lower for most of history due to the modern reduction in adult mortality, which was a significant factor.

World life expectancy for 2010 was 67.2.

The table above listed the life expectancy at birth in Medieval Britain for a male member of the English aristocracy from 1500 to 1550 was 71.

I'm comfortable with my statement qualified as it is by the word "almost."

 

[David M]

History is telling us that people do not decrease in numbers.

Except during plagues and natural disasters of course.

We know that the Black Death killed off about half the population of Europe and that it took over 200 years for the population to recover because we do have records from back then. It had a similar effect in Asia as well.

 

[David M]

World life expectancy for 2010 was 67.2.

For the "more developed" regions its currently 80.

The table above listed the life expectancy at birth in Medieval Britain for a male member of the English aristocracy from 1500 to 1550 was 71.

I'm comfortable with my statement qualified as it is by the word "almost."

That table shows 71 for someone who made it to 21, which is past their teens not into them.

I really don't think that a comparison between a tiny minority of the total population, once they reached 21, and a current global figure is very useful. The average life expectancy of that period was 35-40.

What you said was:

if a male made it to his teens he could expect to live almost as long as he would today

That is just plain wrong for the vast majority of the population at most points in those periods of time. For example in the Middle Ages they would be looking at reaching their mid to late forties if they were lucky.

 

[McBell]

Except during plagues and natural disasters of course.

We know that the Black Death killed off about half the population of Europe and that it took over 200 years for the population to recover because we do have records from back then. It had a similar effect in Asia as well.

Don't forget that in the state of Indiana alone, smoking accounts for one death every 36 seconds.

And you know it is true because whitelies.org would not lie.

 

[JM2C]

I am confused at your point. You feel that our current almost uninhibited growth is the same model that should be applied to our previous ancestors who were subject to inhibiting factors to the growth of their population?

We know why the population didn't grow any where near as fast and we know that there are limits to the population within areas prior to the industrial revolution. There is an equilibrium that is maintained (up until now) about how much life can survive out of so many resources. If there is not enough resources then there will not be as much life. If there is abundant resources there will be more life. With the exceptions to the mass extinction events this has continued to be true. Humans have just gotten so good as surviving within recent time that we have in a way "broke" the system that we had been trapped in before. Our growth goes unchecked. We can survive things that normally would have killed us off thanks to modern medicine. We can utilize our resources in ways that was never possible before by any creature, ect.

I appreciate your opinion but let’s be reasonable on how we think. The sample that I gave you is just 15,000 years at 0.0018% of growth/yr and that is just from 100 people.

If we lower the percentage growth at 1/10th of a percent per year growth average, which is really impossible, with 8 people to start with, you would have 1t,545b,626m,123t,097h in just 25,000 years and that barely touch 1% of the 3,200,000 years you guys are advocating. No infrastructure on earth can hold this much people then or today. We should have plenty of evidence of these people. Isn’t that what Darwin was saying “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

Our average of .0018% since 1 AD, if it continues to the year 5,000, we would have a population of 1t,607b,558m,414t,961h, and in the year 10,000 12q,921t,220b,287m,552t,600h and in the year 25,000 this is what we would have 4.05267E+28 and another 10,000 years we would have endless zeros at the end and you guys are talking about 3,200,000 years. Let’s be reasonable.

Also you still haven't answered my question. Of all the hominid fossils how many are fake in your opinion? And please explain why.

Let’s start with the mother of all fossils, Lucy’s hips. Was it altered to look like human hips by Dr. Lovejoy? Yes! You should watch this video.

 

[JM2C]

Oh goody!!
More random Math jokes!

There are three people applying for the same job.
One is a mathematician, one a statistician, and one an accountant.
The interviewing committee first calls in the mathematician.

They say "we have only one question. What is 500 plus 500?"

The mathematician, without hesitation, says "1000."

The committee sends him out and calls in the statistician.
When the statistician comes in, they ask the same question.
The statistician ponders the question for a moment, and then answers "1000... I'm 95% confident."

He is then also thanked for his time and sent on his way.

When the accountant enters the room, he is asked the same question: "what is 500 plus 500?"
The accountant replies, "what would you like it to be?"
They hire the accountant.

You and the other ninja are really a disgrace to your own race.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Animated GIF

 

[metis]

Let’s start with the mother of all fossils, Lucy’s hips. Was it altered to look like human hips by Dr. Lovejoy? Yes! You should watch this video.

No matter how you may try and manipulate the "information", Lucy was human-- an Australopithecus afarensis-- and definitely not an ape. Until more is understood as far as the lineage from the Australopithecines is known, they will not be put into the Homo category. However, don't confuse this with any question as to whether Lucy is human-- she was.

A recommendation: if you're going to deal with science, deal with science and not pseudo-science.

 

[McBell]

You and the other ninja are really a disgrace to your own race.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Animated GIF

Cry me a river.
Your sad attempt at using math really is a joke.
That you have no clue just how bad it is is actually most comical.