Remember Stevebee?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#301  Postby Rumraket » Aug 10, 2010 8:47 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Re:Oh my... did little Stevie get offended?
Sorry guys, I'm not offended in the least. I'm completely used to the ragging of course.

The martyr syndrome is strong in this one.

stevebee92653 wrote: Means nothing to me.

Of course not. Is that why you wrote that other whining post here, and the one about abuse and indoctrination on your blog?

stevebee92653 wrote:That's the way you play the game. Intelligent discussion takes two, and your choice is not to discuss,

Fantasist horseshite. How about you start answering the many questions and rebuttals you have recieved in this very thread?
You could start here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/remember-stevebee-t9281-220.html#p371643
And go on from my post, including the posts from several others that follow. So much for not participating in intelligent discussion... you have yet to actually discuss.
All we have are your horseshit blind assertions, our rebuttals and then no answers from you. Not much discussion going on on your part.

stevebee92653 wrote:which could be very interesting for both, but to continually rag on me. No melt down here. Sorry.You're wasting your effort.

In some ways I know I am. I know that you personally have decided to propagandize for doctrine, will not change your mind and will never admit to it. The only reason I persist in refuting your fantasist horshit and lies is for the off chance that someone might think answers don't exist for your ludicrous assertions and misrepresentations.

stevebee92653 wrote:Don't you get tired or writing the same stuff over and over?

No. I never tire from demonstrating what is true or explaining it to people who would like to know about it. You can't make me stop or go away.

stevebee92653 wrote:Since my last entry:
When ideas are idiotic they deserve to get called it.
all you ever do is talk out of your ass
Much of your bullshit has been explained and debunked in this very thread
your ideas is intellectually dishonest.
I love the smell of melt-down in the morning
Martyr complex, get over it.

I would get tired writing this kind of feedback. Why are you here. Why waste your time? I don't get it.

As I just explained, I like to inform people of the truth. I like it when I know there are people out there who benefit from the efforts me and others invest in this. Indeed I myself learned most of what I now know of evolutionary biology from reading the many very well written rebuttals to Intelligent Design/Creationist bullshit assertions on the old Richarddawkins.net forums. I like to imagine that I'm in some small way returning that favor.

stevebee92653 wrote:Take this to a math instructor. Forget about what have to say. It's simple math:
Given: 2 people, bulldozers, rocks, anything, at point A
8 billion bulldozers, rocks, people, anything at point B, 200,000 years later.
How many doublings occur, and what is the AVERAGE time span for each doubling of the quantity of people, bulldozers, rocks, anything.
Again, the number 2 is used for SIMPLICITY, which you have so much trouble with. Use a larger number if you like. 2 is best for YOU. You HAVE TO REACH 8 billion, so the food, disease, whatever doesn't matter. You MUST reach 8 billion. That is GIVEN.
Doesn't matter what the entities are. Everything is FIXED. I'm sure you won't spend a second getting a math answer. It goes against your belief system, and you have to play pretend and ignore the question. So, I really think your best ploy here is to demean some more. Don't do an honest search. I can't wait for the "answers".

There are roughly 33 doublings from 2 to 8 billion.
Though, last I heard, the lowest number of living humans in our distant history could have been as low as 10.000 people. There are roughly 20 doublings from 10.000 to 8 billion. What's your point?

PS. What is it I need a math instructor for?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13078
Age: 38

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#302  Postby Rumraket » Aug 10, 2010 8:58 pm

So you went offline now... ? What happened to having an intelligent discussion?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13078
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#303  Postby GenesForLife » Aug 11, 2010 3:33 am

The average is a quantity based on looking at extant data, it doesn't determine the data itself, what part of this do you not understand? Averages are never used to predict what may happen, to the point of scientific reliability at least, averages, at best, are used to highlight what is the most likely outcome in a Bayesian probability distribution is based on observed data, this however can only be done when the function which results in the data is conserved, it isn't the case in population dynamics.

Doubling is true only for the exponential phase, where N (number of individuals) is 2n, where n= number of generations, but even this linear function is oversimplified and suitable only for asexually reproducing organisms like bacteria which divide by binary fission, where doubling takes place and the death rate is negligible, as soon as death rate begins to pick up and nR/t = nD/t (number of living and dead cells wrt time) the population doesn't double, it stays constant (nR/t / nD/t = 1) , if death rate begins to exceed growth rate then nR/t / nD/t < 1

Even in such a simplistic model, the average doubling time is dependent on the constraint of there being no deaths at all and resources being suitable enough, and an average during the exponential phase, or the doubling time, indicates sweet fuck all about the other phases.

In humans of course, there are other factors that come to the fore, firstly, the time available for reproduction (for women are limited to reproduction between puberty and the menopause) , child mortality (wiping out a significant portion of those who could reproduce affects more than one generation) , fertility , which can be dependent on nutrition, for instance, as malnourishment can impose constraints on fertility. The fact that the average is skewed by an explosion where the influence of such constraints was supressed doesn't allow the same average to be applied throughout human history to assert that growth ought to be exponential throughout with a doubling time blah blah blah, as you've glibly done.

In other words, while averages tell someone about the most likely outcome, they don't determine it, you need to get yourself to a population dynamics instructor.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
 
Birthday
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#304  Postby stevebee92653 » Aug 11, 2010 4:30 am

Rumraket wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:Re:Oh my... did little Stevie get offended?
Sorry guys, I'm not offended in the least. I'm completely used to the ragging of course.

The martyr syndrome is strong in this one.

stevebee92653 wrote: Means nothing to me.

Of course not. Is that why you wrote that other whining post here, and the one about abuse and indoctrination on your blog?

stevebee92653 wrote:That's the way you play the game. Intelligent discussion takes two, and your choice is not to discuss,

Fantasist horseshite. How about you start answering the many questions and rebuttals you have recieved in this very thread?
You could start here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/remember-stevebee-t9281-220.html#p371643
And go on from my post, including the posts from several others that follow. So much for not participating in intelligent discussion... you have yet to actually discuss.
All we have are your horseshit blind assertions, our rebuttals and then no answers from you. Not much discussion going on on your part.

stevebee92653 wrote:which could be very interesting for both, but to continually rag on me. No melt down here. Sorry.You're wasting your effort.

In some ways I know I am. I know that you personally have decided to propagandize for doctrine, will not change your mind and will never admit to it. The only reason I persist in refuting your fantasist horshit and lies is for the off chance that someone might think answers don't exist for your ludicrous assertions and misrepresentations.

stevebee92653 wrote:Don't you get tired or writing the same stuff over and over?

No. I never tire from demonstrating what is true or explaining it to people who would like to know about it. You can't make me stop or go away.

stevebee92653 wrote:Since my last entry:
When ideas are idiotic they deserve to get called it.
all you ever do is talk out of your ass
Much of your bullshit has been explained and debunked in this very thread
your ideas is intellectually dishonest.
I love the smell of melt-down in the morning
Martyr complex, get over it.

I would get tired writing this kind of feedback. Why are you here. Why waste your time? I don't get it.

As I just explained, I like to inform people of the truth. I like it when I know there are people out there who benefit from the efforts me and others invest in this. Indeed I myself learned most of what I now know of evolutionary biology from reading the many very well written rebuttals to Intelligent Design/Creationist bullshit assertions on the old Richarddawkins.net forums. I like to imagine that I'm in some small way returning that favor.

stevebee92653 wrote:Take this to a math instructor. Forget about what have to say. It's simple math:
Given: 2 people, bulldozers, rocks, anything, at point A
8 billion bulldozers, rocks, people, anything at point B, 200,000 years later.
How many doublings occur, and what is the AVERAGE time span for each doubling of the quantity of people, bulldozers, rocks, anything.
Again, the number 2 is used for SIMPLICITY, which you have so much trouble with. Use a larger number if you like. 2 is best for YOU. You HAVE TO REACH 8 billion, so the food, disease, whatever doesn't matter. You MUST reach 8 billion. That is GIVEN.
Doesn't matter what the entities are. Everything is FIXED. I'm sure you won't spend a second getting a math answer. It goes against your belief system, and you have to play pretend and ignore the question. So, I really think your best ploy here is to demean some more. Don't do an honest search. I can't wait for the "answers".

There are roughly 33 doublings from 2 to 8 billion.
Though, last I heard, the lowest number of living humans in our distant history could have been as low as 10.000 people. There are roughly 20 doublings from 10.000 to 8 billion. What's your point?

PS. What is it I need a math instructor for?


Your problem is that I brushed your question aside. You have a little bit of knowledge, and use it like you are a super-expert. You didn't understand the question I posed or the problem it makes for evolution. So I won't pose it again. It's in the vid at the beginning of this thread, but I'm sure you will have some excuse for not watching it. You think "traits" and "characteristics" are the same as "organs" and "bio-systems" and you answered my question with that misconception. You start right out spouting dogma that doesn't come remotely close to answering the question. So how do I deal with that? How do I converse someone with such disdain as you have for me, along with your complete lack of understanding of the question I posed? You did lots of noisy writing, and said nothing. You are point #1 and #2 on my list of why you are indoctrinated:
(1) When the answers you give have nothing to do with the questions I ask and you have no idea.
(2) When your answers are memorized dogma. Stuff that someone who taught you in school who doesn’t know, or a book you read written by a person who has no idea how nature came to be but nonetheless has fooled you into thinking they do. Your changes in the genetic code is fine science, but it becomes dogma when it's memorized material that doesn't fit the question.

Why do you need a math instructor? Because you don't understand the basic population math that I posed. And it gets tiring going over and over the same material.
Last edited by stevebee92653 on Aug 11, 2010 7:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#305  Postby babel » Aug 11, 2010 6:13 am

Again, the number 2 is used for SIMPLICITY, which you have so much trouble with. Use a larger number if you like. 2 is best for YOU. You HAVE TO REACH 8 billion, so the food, disease, whatever doesn't matter. You MUST reach 8 billion. That is GIVEN.
Yes you should reach roughly 6.9 billion today, but you're using the wrong approach to calculate them.
You're calculating the surface of a football field by adding the length of the different blades of grass. :doh:
Milton Jones: "Just bought a broken second hand time machine - plan to fix it, have lots of adventures then go back and not buy it, he he idiots.."
User avatar
babel
 
Posts: 4673
Age: 38
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#306  Postby Rumraket » Aug 11, 2010 7:15 am

SteveBee wrote:Your problem is that I brushed your question aside. You have a little bit of knowledge, and use it like you are a super-expert. You didn't understand the question I posed or the problem it makes for evolution. So I won't pose it again. It's in the vid at the beginning of this thread, but I'm sure you will have some excuse for not watching it. You think "traits" and "characteristics" are the same as "organs" and "bio-systems" and you answered my question with that misconception. You start right out spouting dogma that doesn't come remotely close to answering the question. So how do I deal with that? How do I converse someone with such disdain as you have for me, along with your complete lack of understanding of the question I posed? You did lots of noisy writing, and said nothing. You are point #1 and #2 on my list of why you are indoctrinated:
(1) When the answers you give have nothing to do with the questions I ask and you have no idea.
(2) When your answers are memorized dogma. Stuff that someone who taught you in school who doesn’t know, or a book you read written by a person who has no idea how nature came to be but nonetheless has fooled you into thinking they do.

Wow, what a giant wall of evasion and excuses. Are you going to come up with something substantial SteveBee? In the previous post you claimed you wanted an Intelligent discussion, but it seems you invest every effort to avoid such a discussion when given a chance.
I guess this is now your new approach:

1. Claim the opponent is indoctrinated.
2. Claim their answer, whatever it is, is proof of this.

Needless to say, noone is impressed with your approach to rational discourse. The fact is that you asked how stuff like a heart or teeth developed in conjunction with a developmental signaling pathway, and that I flat out answered that question. But now you are just inventing bullshit by claiming "bio system" means something different entirely AND that I didn't answer your stupid population calculation straight away. Despite the fact that your galactic-scale braindead video directly states that a bio system is stuff like an eye, or a liver or a lung or a heart.

Your evasions and lies have been noted, once again.

SteveBee wrote:Why do you need a math instructor? Because you don't understand the basic population math that I posed. And it gets tiring going over and over the same material.

It's entirely likely that you are the one who don't grasp the answers you are recieving. Once again, your pathetic approach to discourse is a perfect example of the poisoning the well fallacy.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13078
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#307  Postby GenesForLife » Aug 11, 2010 7:31 am

Your problem is that I brushed your question aside. You have a little bit of knowledge, and use it like you are a super-expert.


The fact that you brushed his question aside on the basis of non-sequiturs, dodgy reasoning and a fundamental misunderstanding on the difference between cause and effect relationships and the attempt to use mathematics to analyze the data thereof, in this case erroneously because the cumulative dataset involves data derived from variable dynamics is not his problem, it's yours. Cricket is played in three very different formats, and absolutely no one computes averages based on both formats. Your fundamental fallacy is to use data from the recent population explosion to compute an average for the whole of human history, regardless of whether the dynamics of that explosion applied or not, therefore, your attempt is a failure.

You didn't understand the question I posed or the problem it makes for evolution. So I won't pose it again. It's in the vid at the beginning of this thread, but I'm sure you will have some excuse for not watching it.


Read the explanation above, also try doing an experiment with bacterial populations, and see if the results are analogous to the bullcrap posted in the video, I already have dealt with microbial growth kinetics in the previous post, and since I've done actual experiments in the lab during my degree to verify the kinetics involved, using methods such as turbidimetry and haemocytometric counting, I can assure you that the equations governing growth are fundamentally different, of course, let me get wikipedia in on the act, now, regarding doubling time, and a very important premise at that.



The doubling time is the period of time required for a quantity to double in size or value. It is applied to population growth, inflation, resource extraction, consumption of goods, compound interest, the volume of malignant tumours, and many other things which tend to grow over time. When the relative growth rate (not the absolute growth rate) is constant, the quantity undergoes exponential growth and has a constant doubling time or period which can be calculated directly from the growth rate.


For your bullcrap about an average doubling time to work, the relative growth rate has to stay constant, the data we have, which I already posted, indicate that it isn't the case, in light of this, and the explanations about the importance of the functions that contribute to the numbers we have, your question is nothing more than a strawman and a non-sequitur, therefore your assertions, and TruthfulCretin's are fucked.


You think "traits" and "characteristics" are the same as "organs" and "bio-systems" and you answered my question with that misconception. You start right out spouting dogma that doesn't come remotely close to answering the question.


More bullcrap, you need to brush up on your developmental biology and the ways cells interact to produce tissues,organs and organisms by cell differentiation, initially starting out with an unspecialized, undifferentiated zygote, cell differentiation itself is driven by cell signalling cascades, which are composed of genes and the proteins they produce, and mutations, by creating functional changes, ranging from quantity to the way proteins interact with the target genes, especially if said proteins are transcription factors, can alter the way cells interact to form tissues and organs.

Let's have a look at few papers and abstracts on this, shall we?



In metazoans, the Notch pathway is one of the crucial pathways that regulate cell fates and tissue formation during development. Moreover, Notch has also been implicated in the regenerative capacity of adult self-renewing tissues. Notch signaling mediates local cell-cell communication via interaction of the Notch receptors with a membrane-bound ligand of the Delta-Serrate-LAG-2 family. Accumulating evidence suggests that aberrant Notch signaling is implicated in a variety of human diseases. In the heart, Notch controls several key processes during cardiac morphogenesis. In particular, Notch plays an important role in the commitment between the mesodermal and neuroectodermal lineages and seems to regulate cardiogenesis in mesodermal precursors.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17418369

That is wrt heart development and formation through cell signalling. The following pathway is much more comprehensive.

Image

The pathway and the description thereof, along with a comprehensive set of resources, can be found here at

http://www.sabiosciences.com/pathway.ph ... Vertebrate

Since all organisms develop from undifferentiated cells which then are consigned to developmental fates through cell signalling cascades, which are a property of the expression of the genome, which itself can be altered by mutations, organogenesis and "bio-systems" are also traits, or phenotypes in a rigorous sense, coded for by either single genes or networks of genes, which can be more plastic to the effects of mutation, it becomes clear that YOU, Steve, have no fucking clue about the subject.



So how do I deal with that? How do I converse someone with such disdain as you have for me, along with your complete lack of understanding of the question I posed? You did lots of noisy writing, and said nothing. You are point #1 and #2 on my list of why you are indoctrinated:
(1) When the answers you give have nothing to do with the questions I ask and you have no idea.
(2) When your answers are memorized dogma. Stuff that someone who taught you in school who doesn’t know, or a book you read written by a person who has no idea how nature came to be but nonetheless has fooled you into thinking they do.


Nothing more than fuckwittery coupled with generous dollops of Dunning Kruger.

Why do you need a math instructor? Because you don't understand the basic population math that I posed. And it gets tiring going over and over the same material.


Yup, it gets tiring dealing with the same kind of ignorant fuckwittery spewed forth in carnal glee ad infinitum.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
 
Birthday
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#308  Postby stevebee92653 » Aug 11, 2010 7:37 am

GenesForLife wrote:The average is a quantity based on looking at extant data, it doesn't determine the data itself, what part of this do you not understand? Averages are never used to predict what may happen, to the point of scientific reliability at least, averages, at best, are used to highlight what is the most likely outcome in a Bayesian probability distribution is based on observed data, this however can only be done when the function which results in the data is conserved, it isn't the case in population dynamics.

Doubling is true only for the exponential phase, where N (number of individuals) is 2n, where n= number of generations, but even this linear function is oversimplified and suitable only for asexually reproducing organisms like bacteria which divide by binary fission, where doubling takes place and the death rate is negligible, as soon as death rate begins to pick up and nR/t = nD/t (number of living and dead cells wrt time) the population doesn't double, it stays constant (nR/t / nD/t = 1) , if death rate begins to exceed growth rate then nR/t / nD/t < 1

Even in such a simplistic model, the average doubling time is dependent on the constraint of there being no deaths at all and resources being suitable enough, and an average during the exponential phase, or the doubling time, indicates sweet fuck all about the other phases.

In humans of course, there are other factors that come to the fore, firstly, the time available for reproduction (for women are limited to reproduction between puberty and the menopause) , child mortality (wiping out a significant portion of those who could reproduce affects more than one generation) , fertility , which can be dependent on nutrition, for instance, as malnourishment can impose constraints on fertility. The fact that the average is skewed by an explosion where the influence of such constraints was supressed doesn't allow the same average to be applied throughout human history to assert that growth ought to be exponential throughout with a doubling time blah blah blah, as you've glibly done.

In other words, while averages tell someone about the most likely outcome, they don't determine it, you need to get yourself to a population dynamics instructor.


Where did I mention "predictions"? Never. Where do you get that? I am talking about fixed numbers in past history, except for the population experts prediction of an 8 billion population in 2025. Use 6.9 billion now and you will get about the same thing.
To help you along, if you start with two (or 1,000) people, then 200,000 years later you have 8 billion, can you figure out the average population increases per year? I will help you along. The average yearly increase is 40,000; 8 billion divided by 200,000. Do you think wars, disease, all of your factors you mention above, or whatever, will make a lick of difference in the past average? Absolutely not, because those already have been figured in. The ending number of 8 billion reflects all of those factors. If there were less wars, disease, death or whatever factors, the ending number would then have been greater. 10 billion? or 20 billion?....who knows. Got it? The AVERAGE increase yearly has NOTHING to do with the ACTUAL annual increase, which VARIED (past tense) according to the factors already listed over and over. Same with AVERAGE time span between doublings and the ACTUAL time span. I am sure this comment is a waste of time.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#309  Postby GenesForLife » Aug 11, 2010 7:40 am

The point we've all been making is that such an average is not an indicator of reality as such, and is pointless.

Moreover, the ending point itself is just one data point in the range being considered for evaluation, even if the ending number is fixed, the average rate of increase computed from this value alone has no bearing on how the rates actually varied in getting to this point, and thus its probability of being an accurate representative of reality is very low, there is a reason that the use of averages has been superseded by standard deviations et cetera, for you to calculate the average growth rate you'll have to take rates at all points through the progression, not just the most recent point.
Last edited by GenesForLife on Aug 11, 2010 7:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
 
Birthday
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#310  Postby babel » Aug 11, 2010 7:44 am

stevebee92653 wrote:I am sure this comment is a waste of time.
Quite right. You still make the same mistake.
Milton Jones: "Just bought a broken second hand time machine - plan to fix it, have lots of adventures then go back and not buy it, he he idiots.."
User avatar
babel
 
Posts: 4673
Age: 38
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#311  Postby GenesForLife » Aug 11, 2010 7:47 am

babel wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:I am sure this comment is a waste of time.
Quite right. You still make the same mistake.


The mistake is to acknowledge that it isn't an accurate portrayal of reality, but still assert that it causes problems for evolution or that it has some significance.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
 
Birthday
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#312  Postby Rumraket » Aug 11, 2010 8:14 am

I am sure this comment is a waste of time.

Well, yes. That's usually the case when you just make shit up.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13078
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#313  Postby Varangian » Aug 11, 2010 9:32 am

Anyone who has played the board game "Civilization" will know that the game mechanics reflect reality far better than Stevebee's assertations...
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7293
Age: 54
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#314  Postby jparada » Aug 12, 2010 8:46 pm

Arcanyn wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:For eddie and the gang: on indoctrination
(6) You refer me to another site, book, or video, made by someone who you worship and who you think knows all of the answers. They don't. And if you believe they are somehow super-intelligent and know all, far more than you do, you are indoctrinated. You have fallen, just like I did. If you think their stuff is so great, learn it and discuss the information with me yourself. I have read mountains of pro-evolution peer reviewed papers, pro-evolution books. I have viewed many pro-evolution shows on Discovery, PBS, and the Science Channel. I have viewed many of he "big" pro-evolution YouTube vids (CDK007, potholer54, on and on). Many of these items are reviewed, posted and playable, and reprinted on this blog. So please, don't rely on the thinking of others. Don't refer me to a Google "look up", or a YouTube video, or a book or paper that requires no effort on your part. If you do you have caved in to your indoctrination.

on population
To repeat again: The starting population is fixed at two by me FOR SIMPLICITY's sake because that is the minimum number needed, one m AND f. Make it more if you like, but 2 is the minimum of course. A larger number than 2 makes things worse; the average time for doublings will INCREASE quickly from 4671 years. The total time span for the existence of homo sapiens is fixed and given as 200,000 years; fixed by evolution science and the fossil record. The population at the end of the 200,000 year fixed span is 8 billion, fixed because that is what it be will in 2025. So the AVERAGE length of time between doublings is also fixed. The ACTUAL time span for doublings is NOT fixed, and will be all over the place depending on conditions already listed, but the ACTUAL must AVERAGE out at 4671 years for there to be a population of 8 billion in 2025 from 2 people 200,000 years ago. Want to do MORE than 200,000 years ago?
Just for the fun of playing with numbers, let's pretend that there were 1,000 homo sapiens 200,000 years ago and see what that would look like. To reach a population of 8 billion in 2025, the population would have to double only twenty-three times in 200,000 years. Which means the population doubling would occur every 8,695 years, just about longer than the entire history of modern man. So year one, 198,000 BCE, there would be 1,000 people. 8,695 years later, there would be 2,000 people. 17, 390 years later the population would be 4,000. Astounding. Possible? I would seem not since human generations are about 20 years in length and average doubling since 1800 is 75 years. It would seem that any population that could be so easily wiped out to coincide with these figures would never have survived. But, of course we did.


Question for you. If you were to lock 1000 people in a room with no food, and then count the population of the room after 500 years, how many people would you expect there to be?

8000, because population doubles every 150 years and there would be 3 doublings in that span of time..... :eh:
User avatar
jparada
 
Posts: 269

Colombia (co)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#315  Postby CADman2300 » Aug 13, 2010 12:04 am

To keep things rolling right along on this thread here's a comment posted by one of Stevie's supporters on this article.
http://evillusion.wordpress.com/nova-11 ... ourt-case/
Hope your having a good year thus far too steve :)

Haha, i hope he doesn’t refer to a book now.

Anyways, Extra Extra Read All About It, Tiktaalic Transition Called Into Serious Doubt

Tiktaalik Blown “Out of the Water” by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/ti ... .html#more

Stevie responded with his usual kudos to someone who didn't realize that the article he sighted was produced by the Discovery Institute and was of questionable merit.
That’s a great one. thanks! Already added to my tiktaalik stuff. I hope you are having a great one too…..

But there was hope. A handsome dude named Unicron had the sense to give Radhacharan Das a good-ol up-yours.
Hey Rad, if you’re going to point to an article that tries and fails to discredit Tiktaalik, sighting it will likely be a lose-lose situation. If you don’t sight your source, it becomes easy to dismiss as made-up. If you’re confident enough to sight it and it turns out to be from the very same group that tried to pitch ID in the KvD trial, you’re screwed even more.
If that court case proved anything, it’s that no amount of confidence in your claims is worth a damn if you don’t have the evidence and extensive scientific testing to back it up. The Discovery Institute learned this the hard way and got what they deserved.

All of this is nothing new when it comes to the stevebee buzzing around and being a pain in the butt to debate with. His idea of an intelligent person is anyone who agrees with him, but this is often the case with anyone who likes to rip on evolution for no reason, personal or otherwise.
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#316  Postby Made of Stars » Aug 17, 2010 2:52 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:...your choice is not to discuss...

Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy in the morning...
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9791
Age: 50
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#317  Postby Shrunk » Aug 17, 2010 3:18 pm

CADman2300 wrote:To keep things rolling right along on this thread here's a comment posted by one of Stevie's supporters on this article.
http://evillusion.wordpress.com/nova-11 ... ourt-case/
Hope your having a good year thus far too steve :)

Haha, i hope he doesn’t refer to a book now.

Anyways, Extra Extra Read All About It, Tiktaalic Transition Called Into Serious Doubt

Tiktaalik Blown “Out of the Water” by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/ti ... .html#more

Stevie responded with his usual kudos to someone who didn't realize that the article he sighted was produced by the Discovery Institute and was of questionable merit.
That’s a great one. thanks! Already added to my tiktaalik stuff. I hope you are having a great one too…..

But there was hope. A handsome dude named Unicron had the sense to give Radhacharan Das a good-ol up-yours.
Hey Rad, if you’re going to point to an article that tries and fails to discredit Tiktaalik, sighting it will likely be a lose-lose situation. If you don’t sight your source, it becomes easy to dismiss as made-up. If you’re confident enough to sight it and it turns out to be from the very same group that tried to pitch ID in the KvD trial, you’re screwed even more.
If that court case proved anything, it’s that no amount of confidence in your claims is worth a damn if you don’t have the evidence and extensive scientific testing to back it up. The Discovery Institute learned this the hard way and got what they deserved.

All of this is nothing new when it comes to the stevebee buzzing around and being a pain in the butt to debate with. His idea of an intelligent person is anyone who agrees with him, but this is often the case with anyone who likes to rip on evolution for no reason, personal or otherwise.


And, just for the sake of completeness, here's a very clear and simple explanation, courtesy of PZ Myers, of why the DI article is a worthless pile of shit:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... _himse.php

The broader question is why the DI, which claims to be promoting Intelligent Design, which they in turn claim is not creationism, should have a problem with Tiktaalik being a transitional form. Supposedly, ID does not depend on repudiating common descent, right? The faith heads just can't keep from tipping their hand.
Last edited by Shrunk on Aug 17, 2010 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#318  Postby Shrunk » Aug 17, 2010 3:20 pm

BTW, has anyone noticed that Steve's supporters on his blog sound suspiciously familiar? :ask:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#319  Postby ADParker » Aug 18, 2010 8:03 am

Shrunk wrote:The faith heads just can't keep from tipping their hand.

Speaking of tipping one's hand:

stevebee92653: The Population Paradox
Of course my population stuff is an evo-issue. It involves the God of Evolution, which we all know is time. Didn’t you know that?
:lol: Thank you Kent Hovind! :roll:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 47
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#320  Postby CADman2300 » Aug 18, 2010 11:33 am

This just in:
Stevie just updated his blog with an add-on article to his "population paradox" BS. Here's the link.
http://evillusion.wordpress.com/the-pop ... finitions/
I haven't read though it yet but since I know it's from him, it's bound to be a headache inducer.
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest