Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Flawed Darwinist dating methods exposed: Human Population!

I have already used the population charting that population geneticists respect and utilize to chart populations.  A population like humankind will have a growth chart that displays a sigmoidal curve, which is precisely what we see in the human population of Earth.   This is evidence for the Noahic Flood, because the Bible asserts that a worldwide flood wiped out the population of the Earth and remade the face of the Earth and the atmosphere and the oceans but for the purposes of this post the key point is that eight people stepped off the Ark about 4300-4500 years ago AND the human population is just what you would expect if that was true.

One of the graphs from that post is below:


If you read the post, it has some of that uncomfortable-for-Darwinists-stuff called evidence. The basics of population studies and the kinds of growth that they represent is covered.  The various common curves (linear, cubic, exponential and sigmoidal curves) are discussed and the fact is that populations are represented by sigmoidal curves and the human population fits this model!  In fact, this entire post will be concerned about the evidence concerning the human population of the Earth.  Bottom line is that the population fits the Bible story perfectly and cannot be crammed into the Darwinist story at all without making utterly ridiculous and preposterous unscientific claims.




Population Statistics and a Young Earth

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Both sides of the creation/evolution debate are locked in a heated battle over the truth about human origins, the age of the Universe, and the ultimate Cause of all things. Interestingly, while this debate rages and arguments are flying from both sides of the issue, there is reasonable evidence available which sidesteps much of the seeming complexity of this conflict and helps to illuminate the truth on the matter of human origins. This evidence comes from the realm of population statistics. What is the reasonable conclusion that should be drawn from the evidence in this area?

There is no question that both viewpoints—biblical and evolutionary—require a commencement point for mankind to begin propagation of the species. The biblical (i.e., Flood) model asserts that God started the process, creating both Adam and Eve—one male and one female—approximately 6,000 years ago. From them, the human race was established and ultimately exterminated in the global Flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6-9), with the exception of Noah and his family. After the Flood, Noah’s three sons and their wives commenced the repopulation of the human species (Genesis 9:19).

The evolutionary model claims that the first “man” of the genus Homo emerged around two to three million years ago (cf. Corballis, 2002, p. 183; Johanson, 2001; “The Emergence…,” 2011; University of Utah, 2005; Walker, 2002). It has always been intriguing that the evolutionary side of the aisle appears to be quiet about the fact that at the commencement of the human species, both male and female human beings had to evolve simultaneously, in the same geographic area, and while both were alive, in order for the human species to propagate itself—not just one male or one female, and not two males or two females. Further, these male and female human bodies also had to contain the fully functional reproductive components that would be necessary to replicate humanity. In The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, Graham Bell discusses this quandary, stating that:
Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation (1982, p. 19).
Evolutionist Philip Kitcher admitted, “Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction” (1982, p. 54). Evolutionist Mark Ridley noted that “[s]ex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists” (2001, p. 111). Julie Schecter said that “sex remains a mystery to researchers, to say nothing of the rest of the population. Why sex?” (1984, 34:680). [See Thompson and Harrub, 2002 for an in depth discussion on the origin of genders and sexuality.]

Besides the problem raised for evolutionists by the origin of sexual reproduction, more problems exist that evolutionists appear to be quite reticent about. For instance, the patriarch and matriarch of the human race, having miraculously emerged in the same time period of history with each other, also had to be able to find each other on planet Earth without first starving, without being eaten by the ferocious animals that evolutionary images of early man portray, and without getting too old to replicate. And still further, just because there is another human being near you, does that mean you will be attracted to him/her? The male and female had to decide that they liked each other and do something about it before dying. And even further, the baby and mother had to survive the ordeal of child birth in those allegedly primitive circumstances. If the emergence of one human being from a non-human being seems ludicrous due to its contradiction of the Law of Biogenesis, surely this realization makes the evolutionary proposition beyond preposterous.

POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE EVOLUTIONARY MODEL

However, for the sake of argument, let us grant the atheistic evolutionist several miraculous feats—two living, opposite-sex human beings, with the necessary sexual components to propagate the species, in the same region on Earth, safe guarded from their primitive environment, with a desire for each other, and young enough to replicate. Even granting all of these significant but unrealistic assumptions, the evolutionist is left with statistical obstacles. Consider the mathematics for this argument.

Let us suppose that couples throughout history have had an average of (2 × c) children (i.e., c boys plus c girls). Starting with two humans, this would make the population after the first generation, Pn = 2+2 ∙ c. Then, the children, marrying each other, had another (2 ∙ c) children per couple. As illustrated in Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Lammerts, 1971), continuing this progression results in the following equation, where n is the number of generations for which the calculation is done.

1)  

After multiplying both sides of Equation (1) by c, subtracting the resulting equation from Equation (1), grouping, and dividing both sides by (c - 1), the following equation results:

2) 


This gives the total population after n generations, without any deaths. Assuming each person lives an average of d generations, the number of deceased people by the final generation (i.e., the (n - d)th generation) can be calculated using Equation (3):

3)


Therefore, the total population after n generations, accounting for death, can be calculated by subtracting the population of the (n - d)th  generation from the population calculated in Equation (2), resulting in the following:

4)


If each couple has only two children (i.e., c = 1), the population will remain constant, and if each couple has fewer than two children on average (i.e., c < 1), the population will decrease (Lammerts, pp. 198-205). [See also Morris and Morris, 1996 and Wysong, 1976 for more information on the derivation of the above equations.]

The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology, lifespans (especially considering the long lifespans in the generations immediately following the Flood and the shorter lifespans preceding the current state of medical knowledge), and fluctuating offspring production rates. However, this approach allows for the use of long-term averages to get a rough estimate of what the world’s population should look like over time.

Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2. Thus, each couple throughout history has had, on average, at least two children, and many times three or more children were born. Also, let us assume that each person has lived, on average, one and a third generations (i.e., d = 1.3). This means that each person died having seen some, though not all, of their grandchildren. Again, this estimate is likely very conservative, especially since effective birth control methods are a relatively recent innovation. However, these conservative estimates certainly take into account the long periods of time in history when people lived shorter lives and had fewer children. Let us further assign a reasonable estimate of a “generation” to be 38 years. This means that each couple has had all of their children by age 38. All of these numbers could easily and fairly be increased, but doing so would do even further damage to the evolutionist’s case.

Using these conservative estimates, if human beings have been on the planet producing offspring for one million years, over 26,000 generations have passed. There are currently about seven billion people on earth—6.9x109 (“U.S. & World Population…,” 2011). However, according to Equation (4), there should be over 102,000 people on the Earth today if propagation commenced one million years ago. That is a one, followed by 2,000 zeros. In order to try to fathom that number, consider the following analogy. The known Universe is thought to be 28 billion light years in diameter (Powell, 2006; Tully, 2000). That is the equivalent of over 1070 cubic miles of volume. If tiny, three foot humans, modeled as cylinders with five inch radii (i.e., very narrow shoulders), were crammed into the Universe like sardines, 1082 people might fit (if they have not eaten in awhile). That leaves more than 101,918 additional people! And what’s worse, if c, d, or n are increased, as they legitimately could be, the problem is further amplified. Consider also that these numbers are based on a starting point of one million years ago. Evolutionists claim that humans have been on the Earth for two to three million years.  To make their plight even worse, the evolutionary community digs its own grave significantly deeper by speculating that the original Adam and Eve were actually Adam, Eve, and about 10,000 other people (Hawks, et al., 2000). Even if 10,000 such miracles were accomplished in the same period of time in human history, one can easily imagine how many more people would result in a given period of time if  5,000 couples initially began bearing children instead of one couple. Where, pray tell, are all of the imaginary people that should be in existence if evolution is the true history of humanity?

The evolutionary community certainly has trouble adjusting the numbers to allow for this preposterous scenario. However, they must be able to come up with a reasonable explanation in order to maintain their position. If evolution is true, it must be assumed that there were times when the human population remained constant for very long periods of time or decreased to the point of extinction at different times in history (cf. Weiss, 1984; Hawks, et al., 2000). Such speculation is a leap into the dark without sufficient, verifiable evidence. History grants us no world population estimates based on census’s until the last 200 years. Before that, according to population statisticians’ estimates, the average annual population growth was estimated to be relatively constant, ranging between 0.03-0.15% from 1750 A.D. to 10,000 B.C. (“Historical Estimates of World Population,” 2010) [NOTE: World populations are estimated at this later date based on the assumption that the theory of evolution is true. Such a time frame would be pre-Creation, according to the Bible, and is rejected by the author.] Likely due to medical breakthroughs and technological advancement, the annual population growth has since jumped to about 2%. Note that even the irreligious community recognizes the likelihood of significant population growth on average over time throughout history and makes its estimates accordingly. The evolutionary position, in order to exist at all, must stand in contradiction to this fact. The evidence, as well as common sense, cannot be denied. If growth is the norm as the evidence indicates, evolution is impossible. The evidence conveyed by population statistics simply does not support the evolutionary model.

POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE CREATION MODEL

What about the creation model? Is it supported by the evidence from population statistics? The biblical position asserts that after the Flood, repopulation of the Earth commenced, starting with six people (i.e., Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives), instead of two (or 10,000). Using the aforementioned procedure, the following equation can be derived for calculation of the projected population for any given time, starting with six people:



If we assume, based on biblical genealogies, that the Flood took place roughly 4,300 years ago (cf. Bass, 2003), using the same c andd as above, as well as a generation of 38 years, then 113 generations have passed since the global Flood of Noah’s day. Based on these numbers, the approximate projected population for today can be calculated. According to the calculations, there should be approximately seven billion people on Earth—6.7x109. This is strikingly close to the current population as recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau—6.9x109.

CONCLUSION

What does the evidence indicate? Is the evolutionary model a plausible explanation for man’s existence? The evidence from the field of population statistics says, “Certainly not.” Even granting very conservative numbers in the calculation of projected populations, it is the biblical model that is in keeping with the numerical evidence provided by the world’s population. The evidence supports a young age for the Earth and mankind. One would have to be dishonest to examine such concrete evidence and dismiss it out of hand. Yet, this attitude pervades much of the scientific community today. The same people who proclaim that they, unlike theists, are the ones who examine the evidence without bias, only drawing those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence, are the very ones who turn against the evidence when it does not suit their purpose and agenda. Philosopher David Hume once said that no man turns against reason until reason turns against him (as quoted in Warren, 1982, p. 4). That certainly sums up the mentality of many in the scientific community. Why not choose to go with the reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence? The Earth is young. Evolution cannot explain human existence. The biblical model can…and does.

REFERENCES

Bass, Alden (2003), “Which Came First, the Pyramids or the Flood?” Reason & Revelation, 23[11]:97-103, November, http://www.apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/23_11/0311.pdf.
Bell, Graham (1982), The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
Corballis, Michael C. (2002), From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
“The Emergence of Modern Humans” (2011), Dolan DNA Learning Center, http://www.geneticorigins.org/pv92/intro.html.
Hawks, John, Keith Hunley, Sang-Hee Lee, and Milford Wolpoff (2000), “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17[1]:2-22.
“Historical Estimates of World Population” (2010), U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html.
Johanson, Donald C. (2001), “Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa?” American Institute of Biological Sciences, http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html.
Kitcher, Philip (1982), Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Lammerts, Walter, ed. (1971), Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed).
Morris, Henry M. and John D. Morris (1996), The Creation Trilogy—Science & Creation (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Powell, Richard (2006), “The Size of the Universe,” An Atlas of the Universe, http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html.
Ridley, Mark (2001), The Cooperative Gene (New York: The Free Press).
Schecter, Julie (1984), “How Did Sex Come About?” Bioscience, December.
Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2002), “The Origin of Gender and Sexual Reproduction [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 22[10]:73-79, http://www.apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/22_10/0210.pdf.
Tully, Brent (2000), “How Big is the Universe?” NOVA Online, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/howbig.html.
University of Utah (2005), “The Oldest Homo Sapiens: Fossils Push Human Emergence Back to 195,000 Years Ago,” Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223122209.htm.
“U.S. & World Population Clocks” (2011), U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html.
Walker, Matthew (2002), “What Does the Archaeology Record Tell Us About the Lifestyles of the Early Hominids?” New Archaeology, http://www.newarchaeology.com/articles/earlyhom.php.
Warren, Thomas B. (1982), Logic & the Bible (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press).
Weiss, K.M. (1984), “On the Number of Members of the Genus Homo Who Have Ever Lived, and Some Evolutionary Implications,” Human Biology, December, 56[4]:637-49.
Wysong, R.L. (1976), The Creation/Evolution Controversy (East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press).




Copyright © 2011 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Last time I presented the evidence about human population, the fairy tales invented by commenters were either painful or laughable.   Really, guys, the evidence shows us that the Flood happened, it is time to deal with it and move forward!

12 comments:

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

The comments on your previous post on the subject comprehensively take it apart, especially (but not just) on the subject of exponential/linear curves, to which Radar had no cogent reply.

"The various common curves (linear, cubic, exponential and sigmoidal curves) are discussed and the fact is that populations are represented by sigmoidal curves and the human population fits this model!"

In order to reach a human population of 8 around 2,000 BC, you have to abandon sigmoidal or exponential curves and go linear. An obvious "fudge" that renders this entire YEC argument moot.

Jon Woolf said...

The Bunny Blunder as a dating argument, Radar? Hmm, that's an interesting twist.

Populations only follow sigmoidal curves in certain conditions: plentiful resources and no meaningful limits on population growth. Those conditions didn't apply to humanity for most of the last few thousand years. Population growth was limited by disease, famine, war...

It's amusing that a fundamentalist Christian would have so little respect for the power of the Four Horsemen.

Anonymous said...

"It has always been intriguing that the evolutionary side of the aisle appears to be quiet about the fact that at the commencement of the human species, both male and female human beings had to evolve simultaneously"

Holy cow.

The stupid, it hurts, make it stop...

Anonymous whatsit said...

Radar, do you think it's possible to construct a sigmoidal curve that gets you to 8 people 4,000 years ago?

Has any YEC ever attempted such a thing?

And by the way, is your title a mistake or are you really saying that human population is a "Darwinist dating method"?

Chaos Engineer said...

I'm having a little bit of trouble figuring out why you posted this. It's a pretty foolish article even by Creationist standards.

One of the arguments shows a complete misunderstanding of evolutionary theory...evolution doesn't claim that two (male and female) humans must have been born to pre-humans in a single generation. A bright elementary school student who had read a basic children's book on evolution could point that out.

Another argument claims that population always grows exponentially even when there isn't enough food to go around. That's not even elementary-school level! A preschooler would be able to spot the flaw after five minutes of playing "Musical Chairs"!

A third argument claims that a conservative estimate for the value of "c" in an equation is 1.2, and that the number could "easily be raised"...but then admits that population researchers generally believe the historical value is on the order of 1.0003-1.0015. Clearly he just made up the "1.2" value in order to make the equation produce the number he wanted.

Do you really think that these were convincing arguments, or did you just post the article without reading it?

AmericanVet said...

First, evolution does not teach one thing, it teaches all sorts of things. The tree of life became a bunch of bushes and eventually a field of separately evolving organisms all from separate starting points. Statistically the entire Darwinist startup models are so impossibly impossible it hurts the brain. Also, evolution explains with stories every conceivable situation with no means of accomplishing what it claims to accomplish. Animals need to leave the sea to go to land, but then they need to leave the land to go to the sea. "Adapt" is a favorite Darwin word but you never have a means to accomplish it. So what the grade school child knows of evolution is propaganda based on stories and not evidence. I'm not going to prop it up!

But on this population issue you are all so far off it is a shame to you all. Especially Chaos who I expect more from...HLH either didn't read or didn't understand the model. Jon typically barfs out the standard Darwinist line as if he was a press agent for talkorigins or NCSE. But I thought Chaos would produce something thoughtful. Sad.

A sigmoidal curve doesn't look sigmoidal at first, duh! But when you are discussing populations it fits and it just so happens it fits perfectly here. What is happening is that Darwinists do not think critically about their own stories. If humans had been around for 200,000 years we would be standing on each other's heads! But we would also be standing on the backs of inumerable others of all kinds of organisms. The Earth would be overwhelmed with the sheer numbers of everything because while some populations of animals are in stasis and some go extinct, the long view is that more and more of the Earth is being populated with more people and other organisms as time goes on.

Here you have been presented with evidence that humankind cannot have been on Earth very long because the population is just now reaching the top curve of the sigmoidal graph. 7 billion people now figures back to about 4,500 years ago. You can fudge that and get maybe 4,000 and maybe even 5,000 and change but 10,000 is not realistic and 200,000 is out of the question.

Who are you writing these comments for? Do you think I am going to buy your propaganda? In this case what you all say is somewhere between disingenous to completely preposterous arguments.

Chaos Engineer said...

I'm having trouble understanding your objections. Let me start from the beginning. The article makes three claims that I think are ridiculous:

Those claims are:

1 - Evolution teaches that there was a specific individual who was the "first man of the genus Homo". (Rebuttal: Evolution teaches that some populations of hominids gradually became more 'human-like' over time, so that there's no clear boundary between pre-humans and humans.)

2 - If humanity had survived for 26,000 generations, there would necessarily be 10^2,000 people living today. (Rebuttal: Population can only grow exponentially if there's enough food/water/shelter to support exponential growth. I think you're aware of this on some level, since you talked about sigmoidal growth.)

3 - In the provided equation, "c" has averaged 1.2 or higher over the course of human history. (Rebuttal: Where did this "1.2" estimate come from? Population statisticians who have actually researched the subject say that the number is much lower. Unless he can back up his number with some data, I think we have to assume that he just made it up in order to get the results he wanted.)

I don't want to get too bogged down, so can we focus on just one of those three? Pick whichever one you like.

If you think I've misrepresented the author's claim, then let me know where you think I went wrong. Or if you think the author's claim is correct, then let me know what's wrong with my rebuttal.

Anonymous whatsit said...

I can think of a number of other flaws in the YEC approach here (as I'm sure Chaos Engineer can as well), but I think CE's line of questioning is solid, and I look forward to Radar's response.

AmericanVet said...

Chaos, I may make a post based on your objections. Keep in mind that what evolution teaches has no more authority than what creationism teaches. You have an opinion which is not a fact. Evolution has to eventually decide to call man a man, and the "hominids" you folks keep showing us are all apelike in structure. Yes, an artist depicted Lucy with human-like hands and feet, which was deceptive. The hominids that are used to supposedly be our ancestors are all suitable for climbing trees and apelike walking, which means they appear to be forms of apes.

Neanderthals, on the other hand, appear to be human and are simply a part of the human genome that did not make it to modern times. That they had superior eyesight to us and lived longer is evidentially established and that Darwinists have manipulated their skulls to make them look more apelike is also established.

Jon Woolf said...

Yes, an artist depicted Lucy with human-like hands and feet, which was deceptive. The hominids that are used to supposedly be our ancestors are all suitable for climbing trees and apelike walking,

Do tell.

Anonymous said...

"A sigmoidal curve doesn't look sigmoidal at first, duh!"

So what does it look like "at first"?

Linear?

radar said...

Bad language will be deleted don't forget.

You can see for yourself that a signmoidal curve is somewhat linear at the beginning and the end. Like any such standard model (take a bell curve as another example) one does not expect perfection in that all populations will produce a nice smooth curve all the way through. But after long periods of time the sigmoidal shape will be apparent and that is the case with humanity.