Mathematics can estimate the date of Adam and Eve

[Kruelgor]

I don't know the formula, but a math wizad should be able to start with the current population of 6.7 billion and work backwards to estimate the date of the very first man and woman. You would have to factor in variables such as the average life expectancy per era, average family size, etc...

I think this might very well disprove the theory of evolution. According to some math, the first two humans would not have been much longer than 5,000 to 6,000 years ago, which interestingly enough it is currently the year 5771 on the Jewish calendar.

This website shows some examples of what I'm talking about as far as the math is concerned: http://www.creationpie.com/W/ORIGINS.NV/model-02.php

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

So you got a graph which supposedly disproves evolution from a creationism website. Bravo.

 

[vbraun]

Mathematics is not some universal truth. Especially when some humans pick some model that looks like it fits some data reasonably well. And even then, correlation does not imply causation or something similar fits.

Anyway, Mathematics is a purely abstract topic with very little real world connection outside of being useful here or there. So if you can find a mathematical model that fits some data, woohoo, it doesn't mean anything unless you have further and very convincing reasoning to go along with it. Fitting data is not enough. Math can only say stuff about math, which is not reality.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I like the way it says it takes into account war, famine, disease, etc. then doesn't do that at all.

 

[Truronian]

Good news Kruelgor! I'm a mathematician.

Unfortunately it is terribly bad practice to extrapolate from graphs, particularly those without prescribed functions.

 

[Kruelgor]

I like the way it says it takes into account war, famine, disease, etc. then doesn't do that at all.

That's what "average life expectancy" is.

Good news Kruelgor! I'm a mathematician.

Unfortunately it is terribly bad practice to extrapolate from graphs, particularly those without prescribed functions.

Nice. What's your estimate?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

But it doesn't take that into account either. Life expectancy has gone up a lot recently.

It assumes the rate of doubling is constant. Not a very good assumption.

EDIT: I'm a mathematician as well.

 

[Truronian]

OK, I just read the link. Its pretty amusing... it assumes that global population doubles every 150 years, even though recent population figures show this to be complete rubbish.

 

[Kruelgor]

But it doesn't take that into account either. Life expectancy has gone up a lot recently.

It assumes the rate of doubling is constant. Not a very good assumption.

EDIT: I'm a mathematician as well.

It is true that average life expectancy has increased in recent decades until very recently, and do you know why it has increased? It's not because people are living longer. It's because of the reduction in the infant mortality rate. Don't be fooled into thinking people are living longer, because they are not.

 

[Gustave5436]

Nice. What's your estimate?

Somewhere around 180kya is the accepted figure amongst anthropologists for the advent of anatomically modern humans.

 

[Kruelgor]

Somewhere around 180kya is the accepted figure amongst anthropologists for the advent of anatomically modern humans.

I'm not interested in what an "anthropologist" might say, I'm more interested in what a mathematician would come up with because that's the most logical approach. Leave the theories to the anthropologists, leave the true calculating to the mathematicians. Numbers are numbers.

 

[amadeus]

It is true that average life expectancy has increased in recent decades until very recently, and do you know why it has increased? It's not because people are living longer. It's because of the reduction in the infant mortality rate. Don't be fooled into thinking people are living longer, because they are not.

Yeah, I suppose before dialysis machines, chemotherapy, blood thinners, defibrillators and insulin everybody all lived the same amount of time we typically do. Wow.

Wow.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I'm not interested in what an "anthropologist" might say, I'm more interested in what a mathematician would come up with because that's the most logical approach. Leave the theories to the anthropologists, leave the true calculating to the mathematicians. Numbers are numbers.

Grossly oversimplified mathematical model is grossly oversimplified mathematical model.

 

[Truronian]

I'm not interested in what an "anthropologist" might say, I'm more interested in what a mathematician would come up with because that's the most logical approach. Leave the theories to the anthropologists, leave the true calculating to the mathematicians. Numbers are numbers.

And as a mathematician, I told you:

- The model is wrong.
- Even if the model fitted recent data, one couldn't extrapolate from it and expect accuracy.

Of course, we can use maths to carbon date human remains that originate from more than 4000 years ago, but I doubt that would fit well with your preconceptions.

 

[Fetus4188]

No numbers are not numbers. Numbers in this sense represent data, fact. If you use false data you get false results.

 

[Kruelgor]

Yeah, I suppose before dialysis machines, chemotherapy, blood thinners, defibrillators and insulin everybody all lived the same amount of time we typically do. Wow.

Wow.

Of course those things slightly increases average life expectancy, but it's insignifcant when compared to the effect from the reduced infant mortality rate. Meaning, it's this reduction which has played the biggest factor in the increased life expectancy.

 

[Leifmk]

I'm not interested in what an "anthropologist" might say, I'm more interested in what a mathematician would come up with because that's the most logical approach.

Hi, I have a graduate degree in mathematics and I did my thesis on dynamic population-model systems. While I'm a dozen years rusty I can tell you that your idea is complete rubbish.

 

[Tee Kay]

I think this might very well disprove the theory of evolution. According to some math, the first two humans would not have been much longer than 5,000 to 6,000 years ago, which interestingly enough it is currently the year 5771 on the Jewish calendar.

Ah ha! But I have a graph that goes back 5 million years! Therefore you are wrong!



[/thread]

 

[amadeus]

And a full 4.8 million years before they appeared to boot.

 

[Kruelgor]

And as a mathematician, I told you:

- The model is wrong.
- Even if the model fitted recent data, one couldn't extrapolate from it and expect accuracy.

Of course, we can use maths to carbon date human remains that originate from more than 4000 years ago, but I doubt that would fit well with your preconceptions.

I'm not talking any specific model. The website was just an example. No matter what the model is, there should be some average timeframe on when the first two humans appeared. Some mathematicians may come up with 8,000 bc, while others may come up with 4,000 bc, but the point here is that according to the theorists, first man was hundreds of thousands of years ago which seems highly unlikely when we look at the math.

Carbon dating is a theory with a strong case against it. Math is more reliable than any theory.