Re: [asa] Millions of years population growth

There is a pretty comprehensive rebuttal to this claim on Talk Origins

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html

As you say, their uniformitarian assumptions are not justified (hey, and
that's what they always complain about conventional science! The words
"pot" and "kettle" and the colour black come to mind).

The uniformitarian assumption of growth rate is assumed, and also it seems
to be assumed that population growth rates are homogenous over the world.
But I would guess that, for example, very small communities would tend to
remain in a single location, and would reach an optimum sustainable size for
the community. I'm also guessing that transport, agriculture etc would
stimulate population growth by connecting and mixing communities. Since all
this stuff comes very late in the million years history, it's probably
reasonable to assume that the population growth was pretty much zero for
most of that time.

I first came across this argument when a YEC colleague gave me a copy of
"Creation" magazine to read. I made these points and he agreed that this
particular claim of YEC's was highly questionable.

Iain

On 4/26/07, Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> My wife just bought a book on the human body at a homeschool conference,
> and realized afterward it was published by Answers in Genesis ("God's Design
> for Life - The Human Body", by Debbie and Richard Lawrence). Overall it's
> pretty good, aside from the section at the beginning, "How do I teach
> Creation vs. Evolution?" There were a number of statements here which I
> know how to answer, including some comparisons of "Evolutionary Myth" vs.
> "The Truth" -- except for one which I would like to ask here. I've read
> this one recently somewhere else, and would be interested in any comments on
> it.
>
> It says, "Evolutionary Myth: Humans have been around for more than one
> million years. The Truth: If people have been on earth for a million years,
> there would be trillions of people on the earth today, even if we allowed
> for worst-case plagues, natural disasters, etc. The number of people on
> earth today is about 6.5 billion. If the population had grown at only a
> 0.01% rate (today's rate is over 1%) over 1 million years, there could be
> 10^43 people today (that's a number with 43 zeros after it!) Repopulating
> the earth after the Flood would only require a population growth rate of
> 0.5%, half of what it is today. [Footnote referencing: John D. Morris,
> Ph.D., The Young Earth, p. 70-71. See also
> www.answersingenesis.org/go/people]"
>
> I haven't checked their math, but I'm sure their uniformitarian
> assumptions leave something to be desired. But how about the population
> growth after the Flood only requiring a 0.5% growth rate, versus the
> orders of magnitude longer time with the evolutionary history of mankind?
> I'm sure the growth rate earlier in history should have been higher than our
> present 1% due to larger families, but taking into account wars, plagues,
> disease, etc., the fluctuations in population could have been great too.
>
>
>
> Late in the book, when dealing with genetics, there was (I think) a rather
> unfair comparison of Darwin vs. Mendel.
>
> "Mendel performed his experiments at about the same time that Darwin was
> developing his theory of evolution. Unlike Darwin, who based most of his
> theory on guesses and suppositions, Mendel performed his research very
> carefully and recorded exactly what he saw. He was able to demonstrate each
> of his ideas by showing the data from his experiments. In fact, the results
> Mendel achieved contradicted Darwin's idea of selective breeding resulting
> in new species.
> Mendel was able to demonstrate that genes from the parents determine what
> teh offspring will look like. Therefore, he showed that one kind of plant
> or animal will always produce that same kind of plant or animal.
> Evolutionists have had to "update" Darwin's theory by saying that mutations
> (mistakes) in the genes are what caused the changes fromone kind of animal
> to another. However, nearly all mutations that have been observed have only
> resulted in negative changes, not positive changes as would be required for
> one creature to change into another kind of creature."
>
>
> There were a couple of other choice quotes in the book. In the beginning
> it describes the "scientific method", including making a hypothesis,
> observing the results of experiment, etc. "It's okay to have a 'wrong
> hypothesis.' That's how we learn. Be sure to try to understand why you got
> a different result than you expected."
>
> And, "Since the evidence does not support their theories, evolutionists
> are constantly coming up with new ways to try to support what they believe.
> One of their ideas is called punctuated equilibrium....There is no evidence
> for this, nor any known mechamism to cause these rapid changes. Rather it
> is merely wishful thinking. We need to teach our children the difference
> between science and wishful thinking."
>
> My comments to my wife were, too bad this YEC view of science isn't really
> science, because they propose a hypothesis, then throw out the test results
> which disagree with their predetermined belief. In fact, they are
> constantly "coming up with new ways to try to support what they believe" and
> engaging in "wishful thinking." The "evolutionists" (i.e. scientists) on
> the other hand are doing science, and regularly disproving current or past
> hypotheses based on actual data.
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
>

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.