Evolution vs. Creation: Are we overpopulating?

[JerryL]

Isn’t the aim of evolution improvement?

You are antroprmorphisizing, evoltuion has no aims at all.

If it wasn’t then the species would die off.

Species die off all the time. Most of the species that ever lived have died off.

How can over population benefit this improvement in poor countries. When malnutrition leads to diseases, deformities and the obvious starvation. Deformities can be passed on genetically, just like everything else. Therefore, overpopulation leads to negative evolution. By the way, I’m from the age of reason, obvious is obvious not senseless.

An argument based on the false assumption that all evolved traits must inherently be useful in all condtions. This is simplt not true.

 

[CMIYC]

There isn't an 'aim' to evolution. There isn't a target to hit or goal to reach. edit - I like Cynics comment. The 'aim' is to survive.

Negative Evolution? Are you saying they are de-evolving? I think you are making this up as you go along.

Then there is no point to evolution.

The reason we die and don’t go for ever is a natures way of protecting itself from such things, as passing imperfection on. Each cell can only clone it self so many times before it starts becoming imperfect. If intelligence can be passed on genetically, why not deformed bones. Your not making sense to me.

 

[Fade]

Then there is no point to evolution.

The reason we die and don’t go for ever is a natures way of protecting itself from such things, as passing imperfection on. Each cell can only clone it self so many times before it starts becoming imperfect. If intelligence can be passed on genetically, why not deformed bones. Your not making sense to me.

If the deformation is genetic it can be passed on. However being deformed from malnutrition isn't genetic and so isn't likely to be passed on. If you lost an arm in a car accident and then have children, how many arms do you think they are going to be born with?

 

[JerryL]

Then there is no point to evolution.

Nope. None at all.

The reason we die and don’t go for ever is a natures way of protecting itself from such things, as passing imperfection on. Each cell can only clone it self so many times before it starts becoming imperfect. If intelligence can be passed on genetically, why not deformed bones.

Nope. We die because we evolved that way. I suspect it's likely that the benifits of rapid population change and crowding controls which death offer outweigh the negatives... much like how our bodies benifit from individual cells dying, our species benifits from individual creatures dying.

 

[Ryan2065]

Also, I remember someone refuting that mathematical calculation you mentioned on another thread.

Thats nice... I actually don't remember anyone refuting that calculation (Because when it was first mentioned I didn't believe it. So I did it myself and saw that it was true.)

Regardless please post the evidance against the calculation here. The only evidance I can think of for the calculation is that overpopulation tends to occur in certain areas and not world wide. I would agree that in certain areas humans are over populated, but I would not agree with any statement that says that we are overpopulated world wide.

 

[CMIYC]

If the deformation is genetic it can be passed on. However being deformed from malnutrition isn't genetic and so isn't likely to be passed on. If you lost an arm in a car accident and then have children, how many arms do you think they are going to be born with?

Not what I had in mind. I’m not talking about loss of limbs through accidents. I’m talking about deformities while still in fetus stage and malnutrition as a contributor. Not exactly same as losing your arm or leg, is it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Isn’t the aim of evolution improvement?

No. :banghead3

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then there is no point to evolution.

Yes. :banghead3

 

[Mark1615]

"The evolutionary scientists who believe that man existed for over a million years have an almost insurmountable problem. Using the assumption of forty-three years for an average human generation, the population growth over a million years would produce 23,256 consecutive generations. We calculate the expected population by starting with one couple one million years ago and use the same assumptions of a forty-three-year generation and 2.5 children per family...The evolutionary theory of a million years of growth would produce trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of people that should be alive today on our planet. To put this in perspective, this number is vastly greater than the total number of atoms in our vast universe. If mankind had lived on earth for a million years, we would all be standing on enormously high mountains of bones from the trillions of skeletons of those who had died in past generations. However, despite the tremendous archeological and scientific investigation in the last two centuries, the scientists have not found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolutionary scientists." Grant R. Jeffry, The Signature of God

 

[Ryan2065]

"The evolutionary scientists who believe that man existed for over a million years have an almost insurmountable problem. Using the assumption of forty-three years for an average human generation, the population growth over a million years would produce 23,256 consecutive generations. We calculate the expected population by starting with one couple one million years ago and use the same assumptions of a forty-three-year generation and 2.5 children per family...The evolutionary theory of a million years of growth would produce trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of people that should be alive today on our planet. To put this in perspective, this number is vastly greater than the total number of atoms in our vast universe. If mankind had lived on earth for a million years, we would all be standing on enormously high mountains of bones from the trillions of skeletons of those who had died in past generations. However, despite the tremendous archeological and scientific investigation in the last two centuries, the scientists have not found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolutionary scientists." Grant R. Jeffry, The Signature of God

Im sorry, but I am currently a Senior math major and I must say, if this Grant R. Jeffry has a degree in math from anywhere it should be taken away. This does not take into effect anyone dieing. One person dieing, depending on how early in the generations he died, could x out a trillion people just from that one person dieing. Take into count wars, famine, disease, and all the other fun stuff that kills people, you would NOT come to any number that was "trillions x trillions x trillions". Sorry, this is completely wrong and not worth anyones time.

 

[Sunstone]

Jeffry's simplistic "model" makes the assumption that all 2.5 offspring per couple survive to reproduce. This would not be the case in a state of nature.

 

[Ryan2065]

"The evolutionary scientists who believe that man existed for over a million years have an almost insurmountable problem. Using the assumption of forty-three years for an average human generation, the population growth over a million years would produce 23,256 consecutive generations. We calculate the expected population by starting with one couple one million years ago and use the same assumptions of a forty-three-year generation and 2.5 children per family...The evolutionary theory of a million years of growth would produce trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of people that should be alive today on our planet. To put this in perspective, this number is vastly greater than the total number of atoms in our vast universe. If mankind had lived on earth for a million years, we would all be standing on enormously high mountains of bones from the trillions of skeletons of those who had died in past generations. However, despite the tremendous archeological and scientific investigation in the last two centuries, the scientists have not found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolutionary scientists." Grant R. Jeffry, The Signature of God

By this model, if humans have only been around for 6000 years the current world population should be...

70,000,000,000,000

The current population is...

6,547,867,706

Either the math is off or we are missing alot of humans! =)

 

[Mark1615]

I understand, but I still tend to believe someone who has taken the time to research it and published a book. Sorry.

 

[JerryL]

I understand, but I still tend to believe someone who has taken the time to research it and published a book. Sorry.

So then you believe all those books on old-Earth and evolution? Cool, it's good to have another convert.

 

[Ryan2065]

I understand, but I still tend to believe someone who has taken the time to research it and published a book. Sorry.

Oh really? Here is an interesting book that proves evolution...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...bs_b_2_1/104-9458448-4467146?v=glance&s=books

Well I was going to post a book here that was against evolution and say something to the effect of "by your standards we would accept both" but actually I searched through the first 10 books on amazon.com when I typed in "creationism" and the top 10 books were against creationism and for evolution showing how creationism was wrong. Very interesting! If you believe what is in a book, I think you should believe evolution!

 

[Mark1615]

I knew that's what people would say who tried to twist my words. Not that I need to explain myself, but it sounds like you tend to agree with me in regards to trusting books. I have a feeling that if anyone sat down and took the time to read and study the Bible with an open mind, he or she would be quite interested.
BTW, I have done this with other religious works.

 

[JerryL]

I knew that's what people would say who tried to twist my words. Not that I need to explain myself, but it sounds like you tend to agree with me in regards to trusting books.

Actually, no I do not agree with you in regards to trusting books. I'm merely usng your asserted trust of books to convince you that you are wrong.

I have a feeling that if anyone sat down and took the time to read and study the Bible with an open mind, he or she would be quite interested.
BTW, I have done this with other religious works.

I've read it from one end to the other (quite a task I assure you). I did it as a Christian with questions that confused me looking to understand the belief and answer the questions. It didn't work.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Using the assumption of forty-three years for an average human generation, the population growth over a million

The average generation is the time between one birth and the birth of the next generation. today around 25 years. it has nothing to do with life span.
in earlier time it has been as low as 14 years and may be shorter.
These figures would make the calculation offered even more untenable.


Terry
_______________________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[Mark1615]

JerryL, you say that you were once a Christian. Did you know God? If you did, then why did you reject Him? If you didn't know Him, then you weren't really a Christian.

 

[JerryL]

JerryL, you say that you were once a Christian. Did you know God? If you did, then why did you reject Him? If you didn't know Him, then you weren't really a Christian.

That interacts with the topic how?