If man evolved? (page 37)

lost

Torn apart

we are thinking along the same lines.

Look at immigration, as an example.

A few families from a different race move into an area. They breed, say 6 kids each, those kids at 18 start breeding, 6 kids each, the numbers soon grow.

I have asked this question here, and I am going to ask it again. Lets see a show of hands.

How many of you on here, actually have qualifications in this field ?

Uni, degree's, experience of working in 'the field' ?

How many of you here actually have any experience of farming, animal husbandry, breeding stock (any animal ) ?

How many of you have any experience in environmental sustainability, bio-diversity and eco-systems ?

Anyone ?

Or are you all home schooled getting your information from book's/internet, other people's research, thoughts, ideas, theories, ?

Lost you are looking at it all wrong. There was no medicine or hygiene or care like we have today. The average life expectancy was like 35. They could not have had 6 kids each. Your questions you posed are also ignorant. I'll point out that many people have an adequate and correct understanding of the environment, biology, and ecology with spending time in the field. We have offered you honest and credible help here. You don't even have a desire to read the books we suggest. Ignorance is bliss eh?

lost

Comatose

what era are we talking about that all people everywhere only lived to be 35 ?

why couldn't a family have 6 kids ?

some families have 13 kids !!

If 4 families each have 13 kids, that is a lot of kids. then they have kids. Before you know it you have a community.

why is asking people if they actually have any actual experience of these subjects or are just book learnt ignorant ?

ignorance is actually (experts) pretending to know something about a subject when one has no experience of such, in life.

there is a big difference with someone who learns everything from a book, and one who learns from hands on experience.

where do you get the idea I don't even have the desire to read the books suggested ?? bit judgemental that. Just cos I don't rush out immediately and buy the books and spend many hours over many days studying ???

i studied plenty when I was younger, I have a life time of living and learning and observing nature and animals.

I do have things to do which take time, i can't sit down from morning till night studying evolution. Is it the most important thing in the world at the moment in my life, no it's not, I'm not bothered.

I didn't come on here asking for 'help' to understand evolution, sorry, it's tornaparts thread, discussion on her thoughts.

Comatose

You have done zero research and all you do is throw out opinions and then cast doubt on others because they are not digging in the dirt in Africa to find bones. Read this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2016759/Life-expectancy-Grandparents-rare-breed-30-000-years-ago.html

Anthropologist Rachel Caspari said that by examining Neanderthal dental records, her team established that 130,000 years ago, 'no-one survived past 30', which was the age at which they would have become grandparents.

Caedes

Lost,

Yes, I went to University, have a degree and extensive experience.

I'm not sure how the qualifications of anyone here are relevant however since you don't accept the qualifications of the actual scientists whose work we have suggested you read.

jgnat

Yes, families had lots of kids. And most of them died before adulthood. Many women died in childbirth. Child mortality has dropped significantly in our lifetime. I looked at census data from this part of the world from 1911, and we were short a lot of girls and women. Life was very, very hard. There was no social safety net, no penicillin, no hospitals.

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/reducing-child-mortality-a-moral-and-environmental-imperative/

*lost*, it is unfair to challenge the posters here as unlearned on the subjects that they speak. I read, I learn, and I weigh the evidence just like everyone else. I am sufficiently satisfied that the life expectancy even 100 years ago was much shorter than it is today. It shows up in my family tree, too. Sure, we have some who lived in to their eighties, but they also lost siblings in infancy. A great uncle three times removed died from sepsis from cut thumb, unheard of today. An entire branch of the family tree is silent, lost in the Irish potato famine.

Comatose

By the way, I googled "Neanderthal average age". It took five seconds. I found the article read it and posted it for you in about 6 minutes. The answers are easily available to anyone who cares enough to know.

cofty

I still can't see a connection between the thread title and a question about historical population stats.

The reasons for slow growth for many centuries are obvious - which raises a question for theistic evolution about god passively observing 250,000 years of misery

Satanus

More and more, it is recognized that the earliest humans were as smart from their beginning, as they are today. They didn't need to learn to be smart. What they did need to learn was all the other things that make civilzation successful. The tough conditions and lack of accumulated, useful knowledge were their handicaps. Seems, they were faced w a hand to mouth, day to day existence as the staus quo for thousands of yrs. If they don't know any better, they don't do any better - kind of like many people today. Its our nature, as it was theirs.

S

jgnat

Here's another analogy against exponential growth. At the beginning of Christianity, there were 3,000 converts in a single day (Acts 2). They continued in prayer and fellowship, and more were added to their number daily. At that rate of growth, Christians should have overrun the local religions within a few generations. They didn't.

What happened?

If man evolved?

Share this