info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Human evolution is made up
57 views
Skip to first unread message
Alpha Beta
Dec 16, 2017, 2:10:03 PM12/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
JWS
Dec 16, 2017, 2:20:02 PM12/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 1:10:03 PM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
> The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
You have such a hard time with... everything.
> The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
dale
Dec 16, 2017, 2:45:03 PM12/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/16/17 2:05 PM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
>
add epigenetics in
> The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
--
dale - http://www.dalekelly.org
Rolf
Dec 16, 2017, 5:55:04 PM12/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8009fecf-6e7f-4971...@googlegroups.com...
climate, contditions, genetics, and what else? All irrelevant, just a
mathematical excercice? I expect you work out the details, the actual
history of human life on the planet. You know what you're talking about,
don't you? Don't be shy, let's have the facts.
Hurry up, I am curious!
.
RonO
Dec 16, 2017, 10:40:02 PM12/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/16/2017 1:05 PM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
>
It takes quite a while to get to 7 billion if you can't feed those
> The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
>
people. Agriculture was only invented in the last 10,000 years. Before
that humans were hunter gatherers and it took a lot more land to feed a
person. You do the math.
You may want to cross check your bogus creationist sources before you
look so stupid again.
Ron Okimoto
J.LyonLayden
Dec 17, 2017, 1:10:03 AM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:40:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> On 12/16/2017 1:05 PM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> > The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
> >
>
> It takes quite a while to get to 7 billion if you can't feed those
> people. Agriculture was only invented in the last 10,000 years.
Actually, the Natufian culture began some 12,500 years ago and they were agriculturalists. Rice farming probably predates 10,000 as well. And in the Solomon Islands, genetic evidence of taro on stone scrapers shows the plant had been domesticated 28,000 years ago.
> On 12/16/2017 1:05 PM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> > The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
> >
>
> It takes quite a while to get to 7 billion if you can't feed those
> people. Agriculture was only invented in the last 10,000 years.
>Before
> that humans were hunter gatherers and it took a lot more land to feed a
> person. You do the math.
Bob Casanova
Dec 17, 2017, 12:55:03 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 11:15:27 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by JWS
<jld...@skybeam.com>:
>On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 1:10:03 PM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
>
>You have such a hard time with... everything.
That's because it all has to start with rational thought, so
he's left out in the cold wondering who stole all his
pencils.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
appeared in talk.origins, posted by JWS
<jld...@skybeam.com>:
>On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 1:10:03 PM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
>
>You have such a hard time with... everything.
he's left out in the cold wondering who stole all his
pencils.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
Dec 17, 2017, 12:55:03 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 11:05:13 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:
>The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there.
Yeah, evidence is so stupid. It's *much* more "scientific"
to take the word of someone you never met, who made it up.
> It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people.
No, and no one except some idiots trying to set up strawman
arguments ever claimed anyone said it does.
> Do the math.
I have. You don't know how.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:
>The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there.
to take the word of someone you never met, who made it up.
> It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people.
arguments ever claimed anyone said it does.
> Do the math.
I have. You don't know how.
Bob Casanova
Dec 17, 2017, 1:00:02 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 23:53:43 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>:
>
>"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8009fecf-6e7f-4971...@googlegroups.com...
>> The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's
>> unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some
>> stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of
>> years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
>>
>
>Ghee, you really are smart! So it's all a question of math? Environment,
>climate, contditions, genetics, and what else? All irrelevant, just a
>mathematical excercice?
Sounds like he should have a couple of doctorates, doesn't
it? "DrDr AB" has such a nice ring...
> I expect you work out the details, the actual
>history of human life on the planet. You know what you're talking about,
>don't you? Don't be shy, let's have the facts.
>
>Hurry up, I am curious!
I'm not.
in talk.origins, posted by "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>:
>
>"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8009fecf-6e7f-4971...@googlegroups.com...
>> The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's
>> unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some
>> stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of
>> years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
>>
>
>Ghee, you really are smart! So it's all a question of math? Environment,
>climate, contditions, genetics, and what else? All irrelevant, just a
>mathematical excercice?
it? "DrDr AB" has such a nice ring...
> I expect you work out the details, the actual
>history of human life on the planet. You know what you're talking about,
>don't you? Don't be shy, let's have the facts.
>
>Hurry up, I am curious!
Bob Casanova
Dec 17, 2017, 1:00:03 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:08:50 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com>:
>On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:40:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>> On 12/16/2017 1:05 PM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
>> >
>>
>> It takes quite a while to get to 7 billion if you can't feed those
>> people. Agriculture was only invented in the last 10,000 years.
>
>
>Actually, the Natufian culture began some 12,500 years ago and they were agriculturalists. Rice farming probably predates 10,000 as well. And in the Solomon Islands, genetic evidence of taro on stone scrapers shows the plant had been domesticated 28,000 years ago.
Just a nitpick...
That indicated they harvested taro, not that they cultivated
it. IIRC taro grew wild, and was harvested by
hunter-gatherers long before it was cultivated.
>>Before
>> that humans were hunter gatherers and it took a lot more land to feed a
>> person. You do the math.
>
>
>This is true.
>
>
>>
>> You may want to cross check your bogus creationist sources before you
>> look so stupid again.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com>:
>On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:40:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>> On 12/16/2017 1:05 PM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
>> >
>>
>> It takes quite a while to get to 7 billion if you can't feed those
>> people. Agriculture was only invented in the last 10,000 years.
>
>
>Actually, the Natufian culture began some 12,500 years ago and they were agriculturalists. Rice farming probably predates 10,000 as well. And in the Solomon Islands, genetic evidence of taro on stone scrapers shows the plant had been domesticated 28,000 years ago.
That indicated they harvested taro, not that they cultivated
it. IIRC taro grew wild, and was harvested by
hunter-gatherers long before it was cultivated.
>>Before
>> that humans were hunter gatherers and it took a lot more land to feed a
>> person. You do the math.
>
>
>This is true.
>
>
>>
>> You may want to cross check your bogus creationist sources before you
>> look so stupid again.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
RonO
Dec 17, 2017, 2:00:03 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/17/2017 11:59 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:08:50 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:40:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2017 1:05 PM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>>> The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It takes quite a while to get to 7 billion if you can't feed those
>>> people. Agriculture was only invented in the last 10,000 years.
>>
>>
>> Actually, the Natufian culture began some 12,500 years ago and they were agriculturalists. Rice farming probably predates 10,000 as well. And in the Solomon Islands, genetic evidence of taro on stone scrapers shows the plant had been domesticated 28,000 years ago.
>
> Just a nitpick...
>
> That indicated they harvested taro, not that they cultivated
> it. IIRC taro grew wild, and was harvested by
> hunter-gatherers long before it was cultivated.
Natufian culture began around 12,500 years ago, but they didn't start
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:08:50 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:40:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2017 1:05 PM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>>> The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It takes quite a while to get to 7 billion if you can't feed those
>>> people. Agriculture was only invented in the last 10,000 years.
>>
>>
>> Actually, the Natufian culture began some 12,500 years ago and they were agriculturalists. Rice farming probably predates 10,000 as well. And in the Solomon Islands, genetic evidence of taro on stone scrapers shows the plant had been domesticated 28,000 years ago.
>
> Just a nitpick...
>
> That indicated they harvested taro, not that they cultivated
> it. IIRC taro grew wild, and was harvested by
> hunter-gatherers long before it was cultivated.
agriculture until 10,000 years ago.
https://www.thoughtco.com/natufian-period-hunter-gatherers-171958
https://www.thoughtco.com/pre-pottery-neolithic-farming-before-ceramics-172259
The souces that I found claim that agriculture started around 9,000
years ago for Melanesians.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02862202
https://www.britannica.com/place/Melanesia
https://books.google.com/books?id=wG1TReWeUY0C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Melanesian+ancient+agriculture&source=bl&ots=6-LtaO2V3i&sig=OV-zMYFa8dKrQ-bh21u-LMM2Huw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwii-puM25HYAhUO0mMKHRTsBtEQ6AEIczAR#v=onepage&q=Melanesian%20ancient%20agriculture&f=false
I haven't heard about domestication of plants 28,000 years ago.
Ron Okimoto
J.LyonLayden
Dec 17, 2017, 2:35:05 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> On 12/17/2017 11:59 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:08:50 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
> > <joseph...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:40:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> >>> On 12/16/2017 1:05 PM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> >>>> The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It takes quite a while to get to 7 billion if you can't feed those
> >>> people. Agriculture was only invented in the last 10,000 years.
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually, the Natufian culture began some 12,500 years ago and they were agriculturalists. Rice farming probably predates 10,000 as well. And in the Solomon Islands, genetic evidence of taro on stone scrapers shows the plant had been domesticated 28,000 years ago.
> >
> > Just a nitpick...
> >
> > That indicated they harvested taro, not that they cultivated
> > it. IIRC taro grew wild, and was harvested by
> > hunter-gatherers long before it was cultivated.
>
> Natufian culture began around 12,500 years ago, but they didn't start
> agriculture until 10,000 years ago.
Debateable. The discrepancy depends on whether what they were reaping had been domesticated or not. Since they were sedentary, it's hard to imagine what they ate if they didn't at least have horticulture.
> On 12/17/2017 11:59 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:08:50 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by "J.LyonLayden"
> > <joseph...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:40:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> >>> On 12/16/2017 1:05 PM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> >>>> The age of humanity according to evolution is highly exaggerated. It's unscientific to invent a million year old human prehistory based on some stupid skeletons found here and there. It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It takes quite a while to get to 7 billion if you can't feed those
> >>> people. Agriculture was only invented in the last 10,000 years.
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually, the Natufian culture began some 12,500 years ago and they were agriculturalists. Rice farming probably predates 10,000 as well. And in the Solomon Islands, genetic evidence of taro on stone scrapers shows the plant had been domesticated 28,000 years ago.
> >
> > Just a nitpick...
> >
> > That indicated they harvested taro, not that they cultivated
> > it. IIRC taro grew wild, and was harvested by
> > hunter-gatherers long before it was cultivated.
>
> Natufian culture began around 12,500 years ago, but they didn't start
> agriculture until 10,000 years ago.
The Kebaran culture, which may be their predecessor, harvested cereals from a possible date of 18,500 years ago.
>
> https://www.thoughtco.com/natufian-period-hunter-gatherers-171958
> https://www.thoughtco.com/pre-pottery-neolithic-farming-before-ceramics-172259
>
> The souces that I found claim that agriculture started around 9,000
> years ago for Melanesians.
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02862202
> https://www.britannica.com/place/Melanesia
> https://books.google.com/books?id=wG1TReWeUY0C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Melanesian+ancient+agriculture&source=bl&ots=6-LtaO2V3i&sig=OV-zMYFa8dKrQ-bh21u-LMM2Huw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwii-puM25HYAhUO0mMKHRTsBtEQ6AEIczAR#v=onepage&q=Melanesian%20ancient%20agriculture&f=false
>
> I haven't heard about domestication of plants 28,000 years ago.
Here are a few links:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4912093/
https://books.google.com/books?id=kZxZc5t-HsMC&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=domesticated+taro+28,000+years+solomon+islands&source=bl&ots=jKXjUciXPt&sig=NA4C7dGOLaiyF-8AeEX2zY6nITk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-jo3P45HYAhXCMyYKHXOvAywQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=domesticated%20taro%2028%2C000%20years%20solomon%20islands&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=kZxZc5t-HsMC&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=domesticated+taro+28,000&source=bl&ots=jKXjUchWPn&sig=ck9NjeBhNf966BIAb2F69ISiTCI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiuzpLA35HYAhUELSYKHSeICikQ6AEISTAE#v=onepage&q=domesticated%20taro%2028%2C000&f=false
JTEM is my hero
Dec 17, 2017, 4:30:05 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Alpha Beta wrote:
> It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
Very true. And if people online thought about it,
> It doesn't even take millions of years to get from a bunch of people to 7.5 billion people. Do the math.
instead of simply being dogmatic, they might
explain to you that it isn't really about time at
all.
It's about food. The more food you have the higher
the population density you can support.
See, hunter-gathering isn't very efficient. You
can't support a great many people. You need a
lot of land to feed people, if you're a hunter
gatherer society...
"Aquatic Ape" changes the equation some. The sea
will support a higher population density than the
land, for hunter-gatherers.
Think about it. A fisherman is literally a "Hunter
Gatherer," even a modern fisherman...
Still, don't project modern man backwards in time!
Without technology, even the sea couldn't feed a
very large population. You'd just be picking shellfish
up, and any beached fish. Learn to use sticks as
probes and you can easily find/dig up hidden shellfish,
drastically increasing your meals. Figure out how to
use that stick as a spear and you can start spear
fishing for even more meals... figure out how to drive
fish towards shore and, wow, now you're feeding
everyone in one go!
Problem with availability. You'd just be consuming all
the available resources in a given stretch of beach
then moving on. I mean, if this model was true, if it
really happened that way then man would have migrated
out of Africa, "Coastal Dispersal" only to wind up in
the middle east, India & beyond...
Oops.
Okay, so you see the problem here?
Population size is restricted by the availability
of food, and the more primitive the people the
fewer sources, the less efficiency... the less food.
How do you open clams without "Tools"?
And "Fishing" requires way more advancement than
picking up shellfish...
So man's population didn't really grow so much
because a lot of time had passed, the population
grew because the more advanced man because, the
more knowledge he gained, the more advanced his
technology became THE MORE FOOD THERE WAS. And,
ultimately, food dictates population density.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168588373663
0 new messages