Hi Peter, Your latest post under the above thread did appear on Goanet (Please see the archives). Therefore, I am posting this reply. Here are my responses to your points.
Peter D'Souza wrote: > >You are incorrect in stating that he assumed a >constant_ growth rate. In fact, this is what he did >say: "although it is obvious that the present rate of >growth (2%) could not have prevailed for very long in >the past, it does seem unlikely that the long-time >growth rate could have averaged significantly less > than (1/2)%." > I don't know whether you have a mathematics background or not. But if you tried to understand the math behind how you calculate a population change based on a variable growth rate (i. e. positive growth as well as negative growth or decline) then you would realize that the formula used by Morris assumes only a constant positive growth rate. He also assumes a constant average growth rate from 1800 to all the way back to the "origin" of man. You cannot simply average positive and negative growth rates, and use the average in the formula. There are good estimates that in the last 2000 years there were at least two periods when there was a negative growth rate (decline). Nobody has the slightest idea of the directions of population changes during the 4000 years prior to that. It is very likely that because of high infant mortality rates there was 0% growth or negative growth during some phases of this era. A real scientist with knowledge about the math involved would never have attempted to do the type of calculation that Morris attempted. One cannot derive a formula for this because one has absolutely no knowledge of when the population increased and when it decreased, and by how much, before 200 B.C. It is next to impossible to derive a realistic combination formula for variable increases during some variable periods and variable decreases at other variable periods. People have written hundreds of papers using all kinds of mathematical models on this subject. > >He seems to believe that one man or couple might have >been in existence 8,000/10,000/6,300 years ago and >that such a man's contemporaries were destroyed. This seems rational, given his mindset. I'm surprised that >you wouldn't agree but choose to dispute population >growth rate instead. > Please read your first Goanet post on your friend's argument. What you stated in that post emphasizes the 2% population growth, and mentions that your friend's estimate is an extrapolation based on that growth rate, allowing for some natural disasters. This original argument is similar to that of Morris, and is mathematically flawed, as shown above. It does not appear to me to be a genuine scientific argument at all. Perhaps, you misunderstood what your friend was saying. If you tell me his name, I could check if he has published his calculation in any scientific journal. If he has not published it, it is unlikely to be a serious, well-researched argument. > >I would not use the words "real" and "estimates" in >the same sentence. > I mean real scientific estimates as opposed to the pseudoscientific estimate of Morris. > >The same table says that the world population grew at >0% (zero percent) and stayed at exactly 5 million for >a period of 3,000 (three whopping thousand)years. Are >these guys serious? This was before the condom was >invented. > There is nothing unusual about 0% growth rate. I am sure you know that growth rate is birth rate minus death rate. If these two rates are equal then you have zero growth. If the death rate is more than birth rate then you have a decline or negative growth. In the old days the death rate was very high, especially the infant mortality rate. The latter rate was in some cases higher than 500 per 1000 live births. At this rate one needed a very high birth rate (more than 8%) in order to prevent extinction of mankind. This was very hard to do before large residential communities were established. People's life expectancy was also very low – perhaps, in the twenties. So the reproductive life span was also very short. The people who contributed the data in the table provided by the U.S. Census Bureau are the world’s experts on population theory, history and statistics. They are certainly more knowledgeable and qualified than Morris. Please do not prejudge them without reading and understanding their research papers cited at the bottom of that table. If your friend has published a paper like that, please let me know. I can read his and their papers, try to understand and compare them, and see whose estimates make more sense. > >"Radiocarbon dating, which depends on the steady >decay of carbon-14, becomes less and less reliable >once the artefact under study gets older than about >16,000 years." is what Dr. Chris Stringer, Natural >History Museum, London, > Radiocarbon dating is only one of many methods used for dating fossils and artifacts today. There are a whole bunch of other methods such as potassium-argon dating, geological dating, etc. The dates reported today are usually those obtained by a convergence of several different methods used in different laboratories. > >A couple of thousand years is hardly a topic for >dispute. Biblical genealogies sometimes leave out a >few generations, such as those presented in Matthew >chapter 1. They aren't always trying to portray a >complete genealogical line, but rather a certain >heritage which may be linked to a person (Abraham and >David in the case of Jesus) or tribe of >Israel(Benjamin in the case of the apostle Paul). So >6,300 or 10,000 years is not something I debate. > What would you say is the scientific accuracy of anything in the Bible? I am asking you because you seem to question the accuracy of scientific methods like radiocarbon dating. Would 195,000 years be outside the margin of accuracy of Biblical dates? The Omo I modern human fossils are dated to be 195,000 years old using potassium-argon and geological dating. > >Science--or rather the opinion of scientists--changes >from one day to another. With each new discovery some >of them "recalibrate" their numbers. Another extract >from the article I cited above says: "modern humans >in Europe seem to vanish for about 5,000 years from >many parts of the continent between 30,000 and 40,000 >years ago based on radiocarbon dating. Well, it might >turn out that they didn't vanish at all when we >recalibrate.” > Science by definition is a progressive enterprise guided by objective evidence. Any individual scientist’s opinion is not science. Science is not immutable dogma written down in a sacred book, whose accuracy cannot be questioned by anybody. Any person with specific knowledge on the science behind a given scientific fact or idea can question its validity, and try to correct it or improve upon it. However, one is not credible if one criticizes such a fact or idea, or science in general, from a position of ignorance, simply by resorting to blanket statements and innuendo. If you seriously read about any recalibrations that have happened, you would realize that in all cases they have resulted in greater accuracy and better knowledge. All these recalibrations have strengthened the case for a longer (more than 100,000 years) history of evolution of modern humans. I have already pointed out the flaw in your radiocarbon dating argument. > > My point in mentioning my friend and his luminary >mentor shows that you can be a committed evolutionist >and hold on to population growth estimates of between >1/3% and 2%. I didn't know Stephen Jay Gould. > Your point is only valid if it is true. I have not been able to find any reference to your friend’s argument in Steven Jay Gould’s writings. I am sure you know that in this internet age (and online research database age), it is very easy to find out if an eminent scientist has written something about a particular issue. If Gould thought your friend’s argument was a cogent one, I am sure he would have written about it, especially considering that he was your friend's mentor. > >Your defensiveness on the population growth issue >makes it seem like you want all your other beliefs to >line up with your beliefs in evolution, and you don't >want to be distracted by facts. > You misunderstand me. I have no interest in debating the population growth issue a la Margaret Mead, who, by the way, is not the founder of Planned Parenthood. That is Margaret Sanger. Margaret Mead was an anthropologist. You are falsely stereotyping me, perhaps, based on your misperception of my motives. I am only trying to show you why a population growth-based calculation of the type that Morris presented is completely wrong. My acceptance (not belief) of evolution is based on objective evidence or facts. What "facts" do you have against it? Do you consider the statements in the Bible to be "facts"? Cheers, Santosh *********************************************************************** * G * O * A * N * E * T *** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S * *********************************************************************** Greet your loved ones in Goa with flowers! http://www.goa-world.com/goa/expressions/ EXPRESSIONS - The Flower Shop. World famous all over Goa! ***********************************************************************