[_ Old Earth _] An analogy for the no transitional fossils arg

[Asimov]

Interesting....
I noticed that you didn't account for death rate. Considering the average lifespan of the people at the time of 4500 years ago.

While it is true that Noah’s sons lived to be a couple of hundred years old, the average life span was reduced to 70 by God sometime after the flood. From the time line I made from Jasher, (Excuse the caps, I’m not retyping all those names) SHEM BEGAT ARPHAXAD, ARPHAXAD BEGAT SHELACH, SHELACH BEGAT EBER, EBER BEGAT PELEG, PELEG BEGAT REU, REU BEGAT SERUG, SERUG BEGAT NAHOR, NAHOR BEGAT TERAH who was the father of Abraham. Peleg died at 239 when Abraham was 48 years old. While most of these men were just dying off at the time of Abraham’s birth, I didn’t add them to the population since it was not a factor after the first few centuries anyways. A hundred years is sufficient time to eliminate the previous generation. If you want to change it to fifty, or a hundred and twenty, that would be fine with me. If you reduce the number then you will have to account somehow for the extra people by adding them in to the children and then making some kind of allowance for when they die which is unnecessary for our purposes here. Like I said, you can monkey with the figures all you want, I just wanted to demonstrate how possible it was. Some people seemed to think starting with only 3 couples would not give us the population we have today. I think I have demonstrated that the problem is that we have to kill off all the extras, not scrounge to make up the difference. Good luck doing that for a million years worth of people. :-D

It's not possible, because you're not factoring in changes in the environment, health, death rate, life expectancy, inbreeding. Not to mention that all the other animals were also recovering, and with the lack of much vegetation, less food to eat, so a slow population growth.

 

[Asimov]

I guess it doesn’t work for flies.

No, it doesn't work for any real population.
[/quote]

 

[unred typo]

Asimov wrote:

It's not possible, because you're not factoring in changes in the environment, health, death rate, life expectancy, inbreeding.

Yes, I did. I figured they would have 3 surviving sons per son. That assumes they would have an equal number of daughters to make up 3 couples. I didn’t bother to give them 6 and then divide them into 3 couples. I didn’t bother to give them 5 sons and eliminate 2 for infertility or premature death due to disease and war. We can go to Jasher to get a more exact picture of it if you would like. I was just rounding the equation down to allow for those unknown factors. Also, I didn’t even add the parents to our example since I wasn’t even factoring them in or out again in my hypothetical example.

In real life, they were much more prolific. From the actual census, the sons all had more than 3 sons who survived to each have more than 3 sons born to them. Reading the Jasher record from approx. the year1656 A.C. (after creation) when Noah left the ark, to the year 1948 A.C. (after creation) when Abraham was born, approximately 7 generations had been born to Shem’s line in less than 300 years. The Jasher account says there were 300 men numbered in Japheth’s family, 460 men in Shem’s and 730 in Ham’s after only 5-8 generations. This is well within the 729 to 2187 I had in my generalized calculations.
From Jasher:

1 And these are the names of the sons of Noah: Japheth, Ham and Shem; and children were born to them after the flood, for they had taken wives before the flood.
2 These are the sons of Japheth; Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras, seven sons.
3 And the sons of Gomer were Askinaz, Rephath and Tegarmah.
4 And the sons of Magog were Elichanaf and Lubal.
5 And the children of Madai were Achon, Zeelo, Chazoni and Lot.
6 And the sons of Javan were Elisha, Tarshish, Chittim and Dudonim.
7 And the sons of Tubal were Ariphi, Kesed and Taari.
8 And the sons of Meshech were Dedon, Zaron and Shebashni.
9 And the sons of Tiras were Benib, Gera, Lupirion and Gilak; these are the sons of Japheth according to their families, and their numbers in those days were about four hundred and sixty men.
10 And these are the sons of Ham; Cush, Mitzraim, Phut and Canaan, four sons; and the sons of Cush were Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raama and Satecha, and the sons of Raama were Sheba and Dedan.
11 And the sons of Mitzraim were Lud, Anom and Pathros, Chasloth and Chaphtor.
12 And the sons of Phut were Gebul, Hadan, Benah and Adan.
13 And the sons of Canaan were Zidon, Heth, Amori, Gergashi, Hivi, Arkee, Seni, Arodi, Zimodi and Chamothi.
14 These are the sons of Ham, according to their families, and their numbers in those days were about seven hundred and thirty men.
15 And these are the sons of Shem; Elam, Ashur, Arpachshad, Lud and Aram, five sons; and the sons of Elam were Shushan, Machul and Harmon.
16 And the sons of Ashar were Mirus and Mokil, and the sons of Arpachshad were Shelach, Anar and Ashcol.
17 And the sons of Lud were Pethor and Bizayon, and the sons of Aram were Uz, Chul, Gather and Mash.
18 These are the sons of Shem, according to their families; and their numbers in those days were about three hundred men.
15
19 These are the generations of Shem; Shem begat Arpachshad and Arpachshad begat Shelach, and Shelach begat Eber and to Eber were born two children, the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the sons of men were divided, and in the latter days, the earth was divided.
20 And the name of the second was Yoktan, meaning that in his day the lives of the sons of men were diminished and lessened.
21 These are the sons of Yoktan; Almodad, Shelaf, Chazarmoveth, Yerach, Hadurom, Ozel, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah and Jobab; all these are the sons of Yoktan.
22 And Peleg his brother begat Yen, and Yen begat Serug, and Serug begat Nahor and Nahor begat Terah, and Terah was thirty-eight years old, and he begat Haran and Nahor.

Asimov wrote:

Not to mention that all the other animals were also recovering, and with the lack of much vegetation, less food to eat, so a slow population growth.

I doubt if lack of food was much of a factor since there must have been a good amount of well rotted humus, plenty of sprouting leaves from seeds, transplants and cuttings that either floated or rode on top of the vegetation mat of uprooted trees. There were only an arkful of grazers. With the abundance of food, they must have multiplied like rabbits. Lakes everywhere were leaving fish stranded as they dried up. The famines before the flood were over. The carnivores could probably find more than enough bones to chew on or dig up something if they couldn‘t stand another bite of seafood. Remember, it was a whole year before they left the ark. Everything was probably a mess but it doesn’t take long after a hard winter for spring to cover the world in green and I don’t see this would be much different.

Asimov wrote:

it doesn't work for any real population.

My formula gives Noah 9 grandsons and 27 great grandsons. The actual count was 16 grandsons and 58 great grandsons.

 

[Asimov]

Asimov wrote:

It's not possible, because you're not factoring in changes in the environment, health, death rate, life expectancy, inbreeding.

Yes, I did. I figured they would have 3 surviving sons per son. That assumes they would have an equal number of daughters to make up 3 couples. I didn’t bother to give them 6 and then divide them into 3 couples. I didn’t bother to give them 5 sons and eliminate 2 for infertility or premature death due to disease and war. We can go to Jasher to get a more exact picture of it if you would like. I was just rounding the equation down to allow for those unknown factors. Also, I didn’t even add the parents to our example since I wasn’t even factoring them in or out again in my hypothetical example.

In real life, they were much more prolific. From the actual census, the sons all had more than 3 sons who survived to each have more than 3 sons born to them. Reading the Jasher record from approx. the year1656 A.C. (after creation) when Noah left the ark, to the year 1948 A.C. (after creation) when Abraham was born, approximately 7 generations had been born to Shem’s line in less than 300 years. The Jasher account says there were 300 men numbered in Japheth’s family, 460 men in Shem’s and 730 in Ham’s after only 5-8 generations. This is well within the 729 to 2187 I had in my generalized calculations.
From Jasher:[quote:ca748]1 And these are the names of the sons of Noah: Japheth, Ham and Shem; and children were born to them after the flood, for they had taken wives before the flood.
2 These are the sons of Japheth; Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras, seven sons.
3 And the sons of Gomer were Askinaz, Rephath and Tegarmah.
4 And the sons of Magog were Elichanaf and Lubal.
5 And the children of Madai were Achon, Zeelo, Chazoni and Lot.
6 And the sons of Javan were Elisha, Tarshish, Chittim and Dudonim.
7 And the sons of Tubal were Ariphi, Kesed and Taari.
8 And the sons of Meshech were Dedon, Zaron and Shebashni.
9 And the sons of Tiras were Benib, Gera, Lupirion and Gilak; these are the sons of Japheth according to their families, and their numbers in those days were about four hundred and sixty men.
10 And these are the sons of Ham; Cush, Mitzraim, Phut and Canaan, four sons; and the sons of Cush were Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raama and Satecha, and the sons of Raama were Sheba and Dedan.
11 And the sons of Mitzraim were Lud, Anom and Pathros, Chasloth and Chaphtor.
12 And the sons of Phut were Gebul, Hadan, Benah and Adan.
13 And the sons of Canaan were Zidon, Heth, Amori, Gergashi, Hivi, Arkee, Seni, Arodi, Zimodi and Chamothi.
14 These are the sons of Ham, according to their families, and their numbers in those days were about seven hundred and thirty men.
15 And these are the sons of Shem; Elam, Ashur, Arpachshad, Lud and Aram, five sons; and the sons of Elam were Shushan, Machul and Harmon.
16 And the sons of Ashar were Mirus and Mokil, and the sons of Arpachshad were Shelach, Anar and Ashcol.
17 And the sons of Lud were Pethor and Bizayon, and the sons of Aram were Uz, Chul, Gather and Mash.
18 These are the sons of Shem, according to their families; and their numbers in those days were about three hundred men.
15
19 These are the generations of Shem; Shem begat Arpachshad and Arpachshad begat Shelach, and Shelach begat Eber and to Eber were born two children, the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the sons of men were divided, and in the latter days, the earth was divided.
20 And the name of the second was Yoktan, meaning that in his day the lives of the sons of men were diminished and lessened.
21 These are the sons of Yoktan; Almodad, Shelaf, Chazarmoveth, Yerach, Hadurom, Ozel, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah and Jobab; all these are the sons of Yoktan.
22 And Peleg his brother begat Yen, and Yen begat Serug, and Serug begat Nahor and Nahor begat Terah, and Terah was thirty-eight years old, and he begat Haran and Nahor.

Asimov wrote:

Not to mention that all the other animals were also recovering, and with the lack of much vegetation, less food to eat, so a slow population growth.

I doubt if lack of food was much of a factor since there must have been a good amount of well rotted humus, plenty of sprouting leaves from seeds, transplants and cuttings that either floated or rode on top of the vegetation mat of uprooted trees. There were only an arkful of grazers. With the abundance of food, they must have multiplied like rabbits. Lakes everywhere were leaving fish stranded as they dried up. The famines before the flood were over. The carnivores could probably find more than enough bones to chew on or dig up something if they couldn‘t stand another bite of seafood. Remember, it was a whole year before they left the ark. Everything was probably a mess but it doesn’t take long after a hard winter for spring to cover the world in green and I don’t see this would be much different.

Asimov wrote:

it doesn't work for any real population.

My formula gives Noah 9 grandsons and 27 great grandsons. The actual count was 16 grandsons and 58 great grandsons.[/quote:ca748]

Honestly, unred typo....

your method is fallacious because you DON'T account for those things. You said he'd have 3 surviving sons, and then it exponentially grows, because the sons never die!! Even though you hack off 1/3 of the population every 5 generations, 2/3's live forever.

That's the SAME problem with the flies. It doesn't factor in any death rate, predation..etc.

 

[unred typo]

Honestly, unred typo....

your method is fallacious because you DON'T account for those things. You said he'd have 3 surviving sons, and then it exponentially grows, because the sons never die!! Even though you hack off 1/3 of the population every 5 generations, 2/3's live forever.

That's the SAME problem with the flies. It doesn't factor in any death rate, predation..etc.

I’m sorry. My simple way of counting wasn’t simple after all because the unconventional way I did it was confusing to you. Let me prove it is not adding in past sons to the equation by a quick counting illustration.

1 SHEM 2 HAM 3 JAPHETH
Together with their sons makes:
4S 5S 6S ~~ 7H 8H 9H~~ 10J 11J 12J

Plus their sons:
13S 14S 15S~~ 22H 23H 24H~~ 31J 32J 33J
16S 17S 18S~~ 25H 26H 27H~~ 34 J 35 J 36 J
19S 20S 21S~~ 28H 29H 30H~~ 37J 38J 39J


You see by counting up and not subtracting the original sons from the additional sons we have a population of 39. Now if you do my method of multiplying the sons by the number of sons they had, you will start with the first 3 sons and multiply them times their 3 sons, 3x3=9, then take the 9 sons and multiply them by each of their 3 sons, 9x3 giving you 27, not 39. Those first dozen people, Noah’s sons and grandsons don’t have to “die“, because we are not adding them into the equation in the first place. They are only the factor to multiply by.

The additional hacking off is just to allow for wars that tend to wipe out an obscene number of sons before they become fathers.

If this doesn’t explain it for you, please do your own method and you will see what I am saying. I’m not trying to count the population at every generation, only prove that the population will grow to the 6 billion mark in less than the time since the flood. I hope by now you will never say that it is impossible for the present population to have come from Noah’s three sons. In fact, if the flood hadn’t happened, you must realize we would have an unimaginable number right now. What’s in your wallet? :wink:

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

unred typo: Your death rates are completely unrepresentative, your understanding of population dynamics doesn't cut it, and I don't like your tie.

 

[Asimov]

ah yes...not counting in-breeding.....

 

[unred typo]

Well, that’s it. SyntaxVorlon has spoken and we must all bow down before him. If you can’t admit you’re wrong, you can always proclaim yourself right. I told you that you could adjust the figures to your liking. I guess you’d prefer a ZPG rate. My point was, the population of today favors the start being less than 5000 years ago, and I still agree with my estimation, although I might just cut the number of children by half and eliminate the war/death factor. I’m sure I could come up with some figures you could learn to love.

The TFR (total fertility rate) is more useful for our simple illustration since we are not calculating the total population for any particular era, just the potential for reaching the present level. The TFR in some developing countries is more than 5 children per woman. In most developed countries, it is below 2 these days because I suppose we more sophisticated people find having children cuts into our play time and abortion is so available.
The Population Reference Bureau in Washington D.C. had some interesting info:

In 2002, the world birth rate was 21 births per 1000 population, with women averaging about 3.0 children each. The death rate was 9 per 1000 population; this combination results in a growth rate of 1.2 % annually. This growth rate was down from a peak of about 2.1 % in the late 1960s. With an annual growth rate of 1.4 percent in 2003, the United Arab Emirates would double it’s population in 50 years. Uganda at 3.0% would take 23 years.

The world’s population took 130 years to double from 1 billion to 2 billion. It then took 45 years to double from 2 billion to 4 billion and with no change in present rates it could foreseeably double from 6 billion to 13 billion by 2050.

At the beginning of this century, the world had fewer than 2 billion people, and at the end it had more than 6 billion people- over 80% of them living in developing countries.

Let’s do it again for old time’s sake. This time let’s even trash my amateur figures and go with the pros. I never said I was a census bureau. Starting with the population in Jasher of 1,490 men before Abraham's day and multiply times the lesser rate given by the PRB Population handbook’s 1.4% population growth rate per year, which would “double the population every 50 years†according to the experts, we get:
1,490x2=2,980 x2 = 5,960 x2= 11,920 x2=23,840 x2= 47,680 x 2= 95,360, x2= 190,720 x2= 381,440x2= 762,880 x2= 1,525,760 x2=3,051,520 x2= 6,103,040 x2= 12,206,080 x2= 24,412,160 x2= 48824320 x2= 97,648,640 x2=195,297,280 x2= 390,594,560 x2= 781,189,120 x2= 1,562,378,240 x2= 3,124,756,480x2= 6,249,512,960

OK…here we are at 6 billion+ and it’s only been 1,100 years. I guess we need to install some planned parenthood centers and cut that down. Maybe the Pharaoh’s plan to reduce the Israelite slaves by tossing baby boys in the Nile might help us achieve our goals.

BTW, I don’t own a tie. :wink:

 

[Asimov]

You're taking figures from now, and applying them to then?

:roll:

 

[unred typo]

Asimov wrote:

You're taking figures from now, and applying them to then?

Excuse me? You took my method and applied it to flies. It’s ridiculous for flies because they reproduce in such numbers that their death rate probably reduces their populations by more than 95%. Even when their reproduction increases, birds, dragonflies and frogs reproduce faster as well. If they bother us people too much we zap whole populations with poison. They don’t take up much room at least. They’re small, eat two.

I think if you will scroll up you can see that the rate was phenomenally higher back then. God said to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The numbers I got from Jasher bear this out. If anything, I should use the rate from Uganda, which would be about twice as fast at 3% instead of the very, very conservative 1.4%. Since my final number would overshoot the present population after only 700 years, the the figures would have to be adjusted down for several population diminishing events. If you take the 1.4% from United Arab Emirates that I did use and make a few deductions for earth shaking instances of death and destruction, it would probably hit right on target.
:-D

 

[cubedbee]

If you take the 1.4% from United Arab Emirates that I did use and make a few deductions for earth shaking instances of death and destruction, it would probably hit right on target.
:-D

No, it's nowhere near target, which is why everyone can say with certainty that your model is wrong. There have been approximately 4000 years from your start date, with 1490 people, and today, with 6.1 billion people. If the 1.4% number had been effect for this whole time, then the current population would be 9 x 10^26. That's 9 followed by 26 digits. The real population is 6 followed by 9 digits. Those numbers are not at all close. It would be like you asking me what the sales tax on a candy bar would be, and the right answer is $0.03 but the answer I give you is $5 trillion dollars. You could instantly know, without being much of an expert in anything, that I am wrong.

You said a "few deductions" for earth shattering events. Well, even if you kill off a whopping 50% of the population every 100 years, your "model" still says that there should be 1.6 X 10^15, which is over 250,000 times what the actual population is.

Obviously, you are not accounting for something in your assumptions. My guess is that you haven't accounted for the fact that death rates have fallen drastically, with birth survival rates likewise rising, in the past 100 years due to medical technology, and that modern growth rates would far exceed anything from before the industrial age. My guess is supported by any historical population growth study, which shows a relatively flat population from 1700-1900, followed by an explosive growth in the 20th century.


I'm not sure how any of this is very relevant though. unred typo is using unrealistic assumptions in his growth model. However, using a valid growth model, you can defeinitely grow a population of 6 billion humans from a seed of a couple hundred over the course of 5,000 years. Multiple models have been published in scientific papers indicating humans had a common ancestor in the historical period, within the 6,000 years that the YEC believes in. So, the current population doesn't discredit YEC.

 

[Asimov]

Asimov wrote:

You're taking figures from now, and applying them to then?

Excuse me? You took my method and applied it to flies. It’s ridiculous for flies because they reproduce in such numbers that their death rate probably reduces their populations by more than 95%. Even when their reproduction increases, birds, dragonflies and frogs reproduce faster as well. If they bother us people too much we zap whole populations with poison. They don’t take up much room at least. They’re small, eat two.

I think if you will scroll up you can see that the rate was phenomenally higher back then. God said to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The numbers I got from Jasher bear this out. If anything, I should use the rate from Uganda, which would be about twice as fast at 3% instead of the very, very conservative 1.4%. Since my final number would overshoot the present population after only 700 years, the the figures would have to be adjusted down for several population diminishing events. If you take the 1.4% from United Arab Emirates that I did use and make a few deductions for earth shaking instances of death and destruction, it would probably hit right on target.
:-D

Dude....

At the beginning of this century, the world had fewer than 2 billion people, and at the end it had more than 6 billion people- over 80% of them living in developing countries.

Why do you think this is so? 2 billion at the beginning of the century....6 billion at the end.

Health.

Medical Advancements.

This is why it is wrong to apply todays standard to 4000 years ago. You are taking these figures out of the context of today, and applying them to then.

Your method is ridiculous for ANY population. I did exactly what you did.

 

[Asimov]

However, using a valid growth model, you can defeinitely grow a population of 6 billion humans from a seed of a couple hundred over the course of 5,000 years. Multiple models have been published in scientific papers indicating humans had a common ancestor in the historical period, within the 6,000 years that the YEC believes in. So, the current population doesn't discredit YEC.

Cubedbee....I'm not saying anything of the sort. He's not using a couple hundred. He's starting with 6 people, not a couple hundred.

 

[unred typo]

B3 wrote:

You said a "few deductions" for earth shattering events. Well, even if you kill off a whopping 50% of the population every 100 years, your "model" still says that there should be 1.6 X 10^15, which is over 250,000 times what the actual population is.

You don’t like my formula? You don’t like the official population growth rate of 1.4% from United Arab Emirates? No problem. All I ever wanted to prove was that it was possible. When I said a few, I meant whatever would do the job. You see, some people here think the problem is there would never be enough people to repopulate the earth in such a short time. The biggest problem I found was too many.

Here’s a death rate added to the formula that would please even Lord of the Flies.

Starting with 3 so we don’t worry about cheating and we’ll double the population for our growth rate every fifty years and then eliminate half the population every fifty years for good measure:
3 x 2 = 6 - 3 = 3 x 2 = 6 x 2 = 12 - 6 = 6 x 2 = 12 x 2 = 24 -12 = 12 x 2 = 24 x 2 = 48 - 24 = 24 x 2 = 48 x 2 = 96 - 48 = 48 x 2 = 96 x 2 = 192 - 96 = 96 x 2 = 192 x 2 = 384 - 192 = 192 x 2 = 384 x 2 = 768 - 384 = 384 x 2 = 768 x 2 = 1536 (the actual number in Jasher for just the men, not the total population, was 1490 after 300 years, not 1536 after 850 years btw, so let’s just subtract out a few to make it the same ) - 46 = 1490.….
1,490 x 2= 2,980 -1,490 =1,490 x2 = 2,980 x 2= 5,960 x2 = 11,920 - 5960 = 5,960 x 2= 11,920 x 2 = 23,840 - 11,920 = 11,920 x 2 = 23,840 x 2 = 47,680 -23,840 = 23,840 x 2 = 47,680 x 2= 95,360 - 47,680 = 47,680 x 2 = 95,360 x2= 190,720 -95,360= 95,360 x2= 190,720 x2= 381,440 - 190,720 = 190,720 x2= 381,440 x2= 762,880 -381,440 = 381,440 x2= 762,880 x2= 1,525,760 -762,880= 762,880 x2= 1,525,760 x2= 3,051,520 -1,525,760 = 1,525,760 x 2= 3,051,520 x2= 6,103,040 - 3,051,520 =3,051,520 x2= 6,103,040x2= 12,206,080 - 6,103,040 = 6,103,040 x2= ……..
Hey, just for the fun of it, let’s whack it down to the 1,490 we started with, o.k.? Wars, rumors of wars, a tsunami, a black plague and a dozen earthquakes all in one 50 year span… we’ve got plenty of time left to get to 6 billion….
12,206,080- 12,204,590 = 1,490 x 2 = 2,980 -1,490 = 1,490 x 2 = 2,980 x 2 = 5,960 x 2 = 11,920 -5960 = 5,960 x 2 = 11,920 x 2 = 23,840 - 11,920 = 11,920 x 2 = 23,840 x 2 = 47,680 -23,840 = 23,840 x 2 = 47,680 x 2= 95,360 - 47,680 = 47,680 x 2 = 95,360 x 2 = 190,720 - 95,360 = 95,360 x 2 = 190,720 x 2 = 381,440 - 190,720 = 190,720 x 2 = 381,440 x2= 762,880 -381,440 = 381,440 x2= 762,880 x2= 1,525,760 -762,880= 762,880 x2= 1,525,760 x2= 3,051,520 -1,525,760 = 1,525,760 x 2= 3,051,520 x2= 6,103,040 - 3,051,520 =3,051,520 x2= 6,103,040x2= 12,206,080 - 6,103,040 = 6,103,040 x2= 12,206,080 x2= 24,412,160 - 12,206,080 = 12,206,080 x2= 24,412,160 x2= 48,824,320 - 24,412,160 = 24,412,160 x2= 48,824,320 x2= 97,648,640 - 48,824,320 = 48,824,320 x 2 = 97,648,640 x2 = 195,297,280 - 97,648,640 = 97,648,640 x 2= 195,297,280 x 2 = 390,594,560 - 195,297,280 = 195,297,280 x 2 = 390,594,560 x 2= 781,189,120 - 390,594,560 = 390,594,560 x 2 = 781,189,120 x2= 1,562,378,240 - 781,189,120 = 781,189,120 x 2 = 1,562,378,240 x 2= 3,124,756,480 - 1,562,378,240 = 1,562,378,240 x2 = 3,124,756,480 x 2= 6,249,512,960- 3,124,756,480 = 3,124,756,480 x 2 = 6,249,512,960

There. We started with only 3 brought it to the actual population from Jasher and used the official Population Reference Bureau’s growth rate for a third world country and then we chopped the population in half every fifty years to account for some major earth shaking horrific event, just to kill time, not out of meanness. That made it take 4200 years from the time of Noah’s flood to the present, mol, to get to the 6 billion mark.

If anyone thinks for a moment that it is not possible to take 3 couples 4200 years ago and multiply their children by an average population growth rate to get the present numbers, they have to be dense, obstinate or just trying to aggravate me. No problem. It was as good as counting sheep. :-D

 

[unred typo]

My formula was a rough generalization to show the possibility of the dramatic increase from 3 to 6 billion in 4000 years, mol. It's not in any way accurate or functional for anything else. It was an attempt to jump start some sluggish minds. The rate I used obviously would only work for actively reproducing populations. I knew it needed much work when I got to 6 billion so fast. I did the math so long ago, I had forgotten the actual formula to be quite honest. :wink:

 

[unred typo]

Asimo wrote:

Why do you think this is so? 2 billion at the beginning of the century....6 billion at the end.
Health.
Medical Advancements.
This is why it is wrong to apply todays standard to 4000 years ago. You are taking these figures out of the context of today, and applying them to then.
Your method is ridiculous for ANY population. I did exactly what you did.

Actually the developing countries where “health / medical advancements†are not even close to what they are in our advanced nations, the rate is much higher… double the rate I used. My method is not ridiculous if you use it as I intended, as a base to juggle the figures and determine that the flood was a most logical starting point for our population.
Since you “have rebelled against nothing“. and are, in short, a rationalist and believe only that which reason tells you is so, isn’t it about time your keen logical abilities kicked in?
:wink:

 

[sheseala]

You should really use the exponential growth equation:

N=No*e^(kt)

No= Original population

N= final population

e=natural log base

k= growth rate (or birth minus death rate), in this case in decimal places per year

so..

A 1.4 % growth rate starting with 6 people over 300 years gives us
6*e^(.014*300)=541

Simpler, no? Careful though, growth is exponential now. Might want to look into log growth.

 

[unred typo]

You should really use the exponential growth equation:
N=No*e^(kt)
No= Original population
N= final population
e=natural log base
k= growth rate (or birth minus death rate), in this case in decimal places per year

so..

A 1.4 % growth rate starting with 6 people over 300 years gives us
6*e^(.014*300)=541
Simpler, no? Careful though, growth is exponential now. Might want to look into log growth.

Thanks Sheseala. It’s not simpler for me but it may be for you. Tell me, by taking your equation to 4000 years later, what do you get for a final number?