Cockroaches and Evolution

[Tour of Duty]

I dont want to start another crazy evolution thread but I was wondering if ****roaches have been around for 300 million years why are they relatively unchanged. Shouldnt 300 years of evolution have made them some sort of super insect?

This isnt an argument for or against evolution just a question I've had for a while.

Any thoughts or explanations?

Thanks

[DjTj]

They're already a super insect. Why would they change?

Animals only evolve if there is some advantage to doing so. So there is no reason that ****roaches would change since they have survived so well just as they are, and there is no guarantee that humans will ever get mutant powers ...

[Stophovr6]

What makes you think ****roaches aren't already a super insect? They seem to be able to live and thrive almost anywhere on earth. I'd say they are doing pretty well.

[Bang]

Evolution works until the creature is adapted to survive and proliferate in it's environment. The ****roach is a prime example.

~Bang

[Cskin]

You don't fix what isn't broken. They'll evolve when they sense the need to do so.

[PeterMP]

I'm not sure they haven't changed. Just because they have been along that long doesn't mean there have been NO changes.

The first thing a quick search showes is there are multiple species so if I speak generally I can say XXX has been around for 300 million years. It is possible that the species that was around 300 million years ago is now extinct, but different species going by the same common name are still here.

[woolley83]

When there is no loonger any motivation for the evolutionary process to continue it will cease. Just as humans no longer have significant danger from large carnivores to eliminate those who are slow, disabled, have bad vision etc. and have not seen any significant evolution since the development of the homo-sapien, so ****roaches have developed to survive so well that their evolutionary process has ceased.

[Tour of Duty]

Well, I guess all the above answer my question.

Thanks.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Carbon dating is a lie

discovery channel is a lie

National Geographic is a lie

Have you seen the movie 10,000 BC? Thats when it all started.

[Stophovr6]

When there is no loonger any motivation for the evolutionary process to continue it will cease. Just as humans no longer have significant danger from large carnivores to eliminate those who are slow, disabled, have bad vision etc. and have not seen any significant evolution since the development of the homo-sapien, so ****roaches have developed to survive so well that their evolutionary process has ceased.

I wouldn't say the evolutionary process has ceased. There's always room for new immunities to new diseases etc. that can take place. But yeah, coakroaches aren't dodo birds. They'll be just fine.

[Zguy28]

Carbon dating is a lie

discovery channel is a lie

National Geographic is a lie

Have you seen the movie 10,000 BC? Thats when it all started.

And it begins.

All, please make note where the slide started.

[talk show host]

When there is no loonger any motivation for the evolutionary process to continue it will cease. Just as humans no longer have significant danger from large carnivores to eliminate those who are slow, disabled, have bad vision etc. and have not seen any significant evolution since the development of the homo-sapien, so ****roaches have developed to survive so well that their evolutionary process has ceased.

how does this work, exactly? you describe evolution as having a

"motivation." according to the theory, what would have "told" billions of ****roaches, all at once, to stop evolving from whatever they used to be, all towards the exact same goal? to me it sounds like yodas description of the force or something. looking around at living creatures today, i dont see any that look like they are "tweeners" - something in the process of changing from one Kind to another. Does evolutionary theory teach that every form of life on this planet has reached (or is close to reaching) its peak form of "perfection?" therefore we see no transitionary creatures?

i think i was reading jurassic park or some other michael crichton book and it pointed out that any evolutionary changes would have been prompted by changes in the environment - and changes in the environment are so "fast" that a species would have to completely adapt within just a few generations.

So if evolution took place slowly, life would not be able to change quickly enough to adapt to the changing environment. that life would die.

On the other hand, if the life evolved very quickly, then it would be something that we could probably observe and test very easily - for example - by slowly making a lake which teemed with life inhospitable. if there were thousands of species in the lake, according to evolution, atleast a couple of them should grow legs, start breathing fresh air and start walking on land, right?

Granted, that last example is very extreme and not to be taken literally, but do you get my point? how does evolutionary theory explain:

1) what prompts the change? for all life to be able to be "governed" by evolution, there should be a variant of some sort of "evolution gene" in all life, right? the life form would have to sense change and the gene would be "activated," right?

2) is the process "slow" (thousands/millions of years) or is it "fast" (hundreds or less)? in either case, we run into the problems i mentioned above.

3)why do we still have lower primates that, accross the globe, appear to be on the "same page" on the evolutionary scale? If different tribes of primates evolved differently, then atleast SOME of them should appear to be more or less advanced than others, correct? we should have cavemen SOMEWHERE right?

4)At what point did man become "intelligent" in the sense that he is now? if its any more than a few 10,000 of years, then we run into a population problem. there would be ALOT more humans on the planet than we are now. population growth simply doesnt allow for intelligent humans much more than a few 10,000s of years. unless for some reason, man was intelligent, yet to stupid to invent a wheel or fire until the past 10,000 years or so.

***I don't want to turn this into a debate, because the OP clearly stated that this was not to be that sort of thread. i'm merely interested in someone who is very familiar with these aspects of evolutionary theory to provide the answers. thanks!

[One Shot]

how does this work, exactly? you describe evolution as having a

"motivation." according to the theory, what would have "told" billions of ****roaches, all at once, to stop evolving from whatever they used to be, all towards the exact same goal? to me it sounds like yodas description of the force or something. looking around at living creatures today, i dont see any that look like they are "tweeners" - something in the process of changing from one Kind to another. Does evolutionary theory teach that every form of life on this planet has reached (or is close to reaching) its peak form of "perfection?" therefore we see no transitionary creatures?

i think i was reading jurassic park or some other michael crichton book and it pointed out that any evolutionary changes would have been prompted by changes in the environment - and changes in the environment are so "fast" that a species would have to completely adapt within just a few generations.

So if evolution took place slowly, life would not be able to change quickly enough to adapt to the changing environment. that life would die.

On the other hand, if the life evolved very quickly, then it would be something that we could probably observe and test very easily - for example - by slowly making a lake which teemed with life inhospitable. if there were thousands of species in the lake, according to evolution, atleast a couple of them should grow legs, start breathing fresh air and start walking on land, right?

Granted, that last example is very extreme and not to be taken literally, but do you get my point? how does evolutionary theory explain:

1) what prompts the change? for all life to be able to be "governed" by evolution, there should be a variant of some sort of "evolution gene" in all life, right? the life form would have to sense change and the gene would be "activated," right?

2) is the process "slow" (thousands/millions of years) or is it "fast" (hundreds or less)? in either case, we run into the problems i mentioned above.

3)why do we still have lower primates that, accross the globe, appear to be on the "same page" on the evolutionary scale? If different tribes of primates evolved differently, then atleast SOME of them should appear to be more or less advanced than others, correct? we should have cavemen SOMEWHERE right?

4)At what point did man become "intelligent" in the sense that he is now? if its any more than a few 10,000 of years, then we run into a population problem. there would be ALOT more humans on the planet than we are now. population growth simply doesnt allow for intelligent humans much more than a few 10,000s of years. unless for some reason, man was intelligent, yet to stupid to invent a wheel or fire until the past 10,000 years or so.

***I don't want to turn this into a debate, because the OP clearly stated that this was not to be that sort of thread. i'm merely interested in someone who is very familiar with these aspects of evolutionary theory to provide the answers. thanks!

ok...well if you're gonna ask those questions, I'll ask you one as well:

Why the hell would God make a ****roach?

[PeterMP]

1) what prompts the change? for all life to be able to be "governed" by evolution, there should be a variant of some sort of "evolution gene" in all life, right? the life form would have to sense change and the gene would be "activated," right?

Pretty good question.

Different oragnismis d0 it differently for different types of "stress" so there is no single gene, but most organisms have ways of detecting different stresses, when organisms are extremely stressed, their mutation rate goes up, which drives evolution.

Many stresses (e.g. chemicals) cause mutations themselves, but organisms do have mechanisms to induce mutations when dealing with substantial stress.

2) is the process "slow" (thousands/millions of years) or is it "fast" (hundreds or less)? in either case, we run into the problems i mentioned above.

It is both. There is a constant mutation rate. In many cases, these mutations are even "silent" under the existing conditions (there is no phenotypic advantage under the baseline condition), but there is variation built into the population. When the stress occurs though, what might have been a "silent" difference can become advantagous or disadvantagous.

This would in fact make something that was part of a slow process appear to happen fast.

It is possible even under this slow mutation rate that a mutation will occur that is advantagous even under that baseline condition.

Under stress conditions, though the mutation rate can be sped up as I discussed above.

In terms of speed, it depends on what organism you are talking about and reproduction times. We've easily seen some bacteria species become immune to antibiotics in under 100 years.

3)why do we still have lower primates that, accross the globe, appear to be on the "same page" on the evolutionary scale? If different tribes of primates evolved differently, then atleast SOME of them should appear to be more or less advanced than others, correct? we should have cavemen SOMEWHERE right?

Well, chimps and orangutans are certinaly more advanced than your general spider monkey.

In terms of caveman, it seems that more advanced hominids were to similar to support multiple species at once over longer periods of time and the others (w/ changing conditions undoubtedly) drove them to extincition until you only got homo sapiens.

4)At what point did man become "intelligent" in the sense that he is now? if its any more than a few 10,000 of years, then we run into a population problem. there would be ALOT more humans on the planet than we are now. population growth simply doesnt allow for intelligent humans much more than a few 10,000s of years. unless for some reason, man was intelligent, yet to stupid to invent a wheel or fire until the past 10,000 years or so.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Population growth is a very variable thing. I think the evidence shows that humans were doing pretty well and spreading across much of the world, and then there was a severe contraction in the number of humans, and then a reemergence.

Do you have a link to support your comment?

[Bang]

Lots of stuff

Well for one, they don't all stop with the exact same adaptations, hence the various genus of ****roach. Each branch of the species will adapt to it's own environment or it will cease to exist. Survival of the fittest.

As far as how fast it occurs, I'd say that depends on the organism and the adaptation. For example, bacteria are now evolving themselves to be immune to the vaccines and medicines that we humans created only a few generations ago. That's pretty fast.

But in the case of an animal, the animals in any given environment are there because they are the product of the single cells evolving over a long period of time to try to get to the top of the food chain.

it's a perplexing question as to the missing link, it's one of the biggest ones mankind has been ever trying to answer.

One day we'll either know, or we won't, I guess.

They say red-haired people have a genetic link to Neanderthal man. That would be interesting, considering I have red hair. (With the ever fashionable bone tied in it, of course!)

I also believe that evolution can be coaxed. Humans for example have very complex brains and the ability to reason. However, are our minds identical to a man living 10,000 years ago? If so, why could he only comprehend the flint and spear, why didn't he figure out microprocessors and space flight? The Romans created huge aqueducts, paved roads, all sorts of things, why no radio, or even electricity? The raw elements for both are there.

By continuing to learn and push our limitations, have we not evolved ourselves by educating ourselves and learning about what is around us?

I believe we continue to evolve. We may look the same, but we're not. Modern man is much taller on average than he was just 200 years ago. (And we were even before we started eating and drinking hormone injected meat and milk) Our ingenuity and learning capacity is staggering in comparison to any age in history. Our evolution will continue and is progressing faster and faster. Our minds have invented and our hands have created technology that will carry us beyond what we can't even imagine today.

We have created technology and learned enough about nutrition that our bodies can be brought to the peak of human conditioning.. would one of the first Olympians even make a modern team in any event?

Let's say you could bring Galileo back to life, could even he comprehend what he sees? Or would it drive him insane if you just tried to explain to him how the internet works?

For that matter, what would his body do from the sudden assault of radio waves, cel waves, radar waves, etc? The air is filled with radiations that simply did not exist in his time. What would happen?

Are we humans the same creature as the Roman, the Sumerian, the Cro Magnon? Or are we more?

~Bang

[woolley83]

Not being an evolutionary scientist, I cannot opine with any credibility on the dynamics of evolution or what the true answers to any questions so governed would be, I can only give my opinion of how I think evolution works based on my rudimentary knowledge.

With that disclaimer out of the way, it is my understanding that evolution is a process of nature, and not a process governed by the workings of a specific species or organism. Therefore it is not something within an organism's genetic structure or DNA necessarily that drives its evolution but rather a natural response to conditions that exist within nature. It is not that the internal makeup of homo-sapiens began to change in response to natural forces, but rather that natural forces eliminated the weaker elements of homo-sapiens through predatory and elemental impacts (killing for food, lack of survival instincts, inability to fend for oneself, etc.) As a result of these forces over time, only the "fittest" forms of that species was able to survive and procreate resulting in the evolved being that is superior to its predecessors.

Specifically:

1) There is not an evolution gene that becomes activated. It is a slow process governed by the interactivities in nature between predators and prey, natural forces, development of technologies (in the most primitive of senses).

2) The process is extremely slow, and does take place over millions of years. It is true that species that are unable to adapt quickly to rapidly changing forces will be eliminated, such is it that certain species are extinct (for arguably different reasons)

3) In essence I believe that the "lower" primates are not necessarily on the same evolutionary page. They are different species that are evolving and have evolved in in their own way over the course of time. Though humans share much of the same genetic makup as orangutans, we did not follow the same evolutionary path (we were not once orangutans) because we are not of the same species (so to speak) therefore we only see a snapshot of each species' evolutionary process.

4) As I understand it, man became "intelligent" over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, with exponential growth over time. Therefore, the more intelligent were better able to survive and outlived the less intelligent humans. The reason the less intelligent didn't continue is that they were eliminated by the forces that they could not conquer through evolution (natural forces, predators, limits on resources, etc.)

Again, I am not an evolutionary scientist, this is only a remedial explanation of my basic understanding. I am sure that a little bit of research online can reveal a great deal of differing information regarding all of these questions and topics.

[talk show host]

Peter, Bang, and woolley, thank you for your comments. As I'm sure you all realize, I don't beleive in evolution. However, I do appreciate understanding different theories and i really appreciate your non-confrontational, clear, and informative answers in explaining aspects of the theory

I am particularly interested in a few points. Peter, you spoke alot of mutation. Its my understanding that mutation is almost always BAD for an organism. it doesnt help the organism evolve or improve, its destructive. there are a few exceptions, but not many. i find the idea that mutation is the driving force behind evolution to be far-fetched. adaptation on the other hand, i have a better grasp of and appreciation for. adaptation is observed everywhere. so, as a whole, does evolution teach that creatures ADAPT up to a certain point (within the same "kind" of life), before some dramatic positive MUTATION in which the creature becomes something else?

also, in answer to the question about human population, i seem to remember seeing something somewhere which did a reverse J curve (if memory serves me) and it took into account several factors, including the fact that population growth has really boomed recently and up until the past hundred years or so, was about half of what it is now. in the end, it led to having only a handful of humans about 4500 years ago.

now certainly, wars, diseases, and other catastrophies could dramatically affect that number to stetch back many thousands of years past that. specifically, i think i remember a point being made that if the chart were followed dogmatically, there would only have been a few thousand people on the entire earth when the first pyramids were built - which doesnt seem rational. however, no logical model was shown that would have humans existing MILLIONS of years in the past. If this isnt something anyone is familiar with, its no big deal. i was just wondering if evolutionary theory had an explaination for the rapid population growth of humans over the past few thousand years.

[FanboyOf91]

Peter, Bang, and woolley, thank you for your comments. As I'm sure you all realize, I don't beleive in evolution. However, I do appreciate understanding different theories and i really appreciate your non-confrontational, clear, and informative answers in explaining aspects of the theory

I am particularly interested in a few points. Peter, you spoke alot of mutation. Its my understanding that mutation is almost always BAD for an organism. it doesnt help the organism evolve or improve, its destructive. there are a few exceptions, but not many. i find the idea that mutation is the driving force behind evolution to be far-fetched. adaptation on the other hand, i have a better grasp of and appreciation for. adaptation is observed everywhere. so, as a whole, does evolution teach that creatures ADAPT up to a certain point (within the same "kind" of life), before some dramatic positive MUTATION in which the creature becomes something else?

also, in answer to the question about human population, i seem to remember seeing something somewhere which did a reverse J curve (if memory serves me) and it took into account several factors, including the fact that population growth has really boomed recently and up until the past hundred years or so, was about half of what it is now. in the end, it led to having only a handful of humans about 4500 years ago.

now certainly, wars, diseases, and other catastrophies could dramatically affect that number to stetch back many thousands of years past that. specifically, i think i remember a point being made that if the chart were followed dogmatically, there would only have been a few thousand people on the entire earth when the first pyramids were built - which doesnt seem rational. however, no logical model was shown that would have humans existing MILLIONS of years in the past. If this isnt something anyone is familiar with, its no big deal. i was just wondering if evolutionary theory had an explaination for the rapid population growth of humans over the past few thousand years.

If I recall correctly, scientists (?) have speculated that at the end of the last ice age there were only a few thousand humans left. (If I recall correctly) There were a lot more than a few thousand right around the pyramids time.

As for the explosion in human population, that's attributable to the development of agriculture, fire (and thus, metal weapons to kill off our competition), and language (basis of reasoning and sophisticated social order).

[DCSaints_fan]

how does this work, exactly? you describe evolution as having a

"motivation." according to the theory, what would have "told" billions of ****roaches, all at once, to stop evolving from whatever they used to be, all towards the exact same goal? to me it sounds like yodas description of the force or something. looking around at living creatures today, i dont see any that look like they are "tweeners" - something in the process of changing from one Kind to another. Does evolutionary theory teach that every form of life on this planet has reached (or is close to reaching) its peak form of "perfection?" therefore we see no transitionary creatures?

This is why people need to be careful in anthromorphizing Evolution as some sort of impersonal "force" that has "goals". It isn't. I'm actually kind of opposed to all phrases of the form "Evolution <verb>". "Kind" is not a term that biologists use, it was invented by creationists who admit that speciation is possible but that new "kinds" never arise. (The simplisitc "dogs always give birth to dogs, never to cats" theory)

i think i was reading jurassic park or some other michael crichton book and it pointed out that any evolutionary changes would have been prompted by changes in the environment - and changes in the environment are so "fast" that a species would have to completely adapt within just a few generations.

Crichton is a fiction writer so I'd wouldn't take what he says very seriously. If you want to read some popular explanations of evolutioanry theory, Dawkins and Gould are your best bets.

So if evolution took place slowly, life would not be able to change quickly enough to adapt to the changing environment. that life would die.

On the other hand, if the life evolved very quickly, then it would be something that we could probably observe and test very easily - for example - by slowly making a lake which teemed with life inhospitable. if there were thousands of species in the lake, according to evolution, atleast a couple of them should grow legs, start breathing fresh air and start walking on land, right?

Would E. coli inventing a way to metabolize citrate meet your criteria?

Keep in mind that evolution isn't really a predictive theory, so it doesn't have an exact answer to your example. I'd imagine what would happen in the instance of the lake becoming inhospitable is that if the species there could not "evolve defenses" against the inhospitality, then other organisms (outside the lake), would move in. Catastrophes may cause extincions, but they open up new 'niches' for surviving species to fill. Even if its something simple like the humble bacteria.

While it may not be predictive, the theory of evolution does however, have something to say about what you will find in the fossil record, assuming you can locate the fossils(fossilization is rare), a "retrodictive" theory, if you will. As to your example, it takes a long time for novel features to present themselves. What happened historically is that animals which could survive on land emerged not because of some catastrophe that occured in the oceans, but because there was "niche" that was available to them that they could take advantage of.

Granted, that last example is very extreme and not to be taken literally, but do you get my point? how does evolutionary theory explain:

1) what prompts the change? for all life to be able to be "governed" by evolution,

What prompts change is mutation and selection.

there should be a variant of some sort of "evolution gene" in all life, right? the life form would have to sense change and the gene would be "activated," right

Evolution operates at the population level, not the individual level. There is no "evolution gene". There are variations within an animal population. Individuals who possess traits which give them a higher chance of survival produce offspring and statistically those traits will spread across the population.

2) is the process "slow" (thousands/millions of years) or is it "fast" (hundreds or less)? in either case, we run into the problems i mentioned above.

Depends entirely on the rate of reproduction, the rate of mutation, and the selection pressure. Generally slow for complex organisms like animals, relatively fast for simpler organisms like bacteria.

3)why do we still have lower primates that, accross the globe, appear to be on the "same page" on the evolutionary scale? If different tribes of primates evolved differently, then atleast SOME of them should appear to be more or less advanced than others, correct? we should have cavemen SOMEWHERE right?

No, the other primates our ancestors competed with were all wiped out.

We didn't compete (much) with the ancestors of chimps, gorilas, orangutans, etc. They all lived in the dense forest, we took to the plains. So they've been unaffected until recently, and several of them are on the brink of extinciton (mountain gorillas, for example)

4)At what point did man become "intelligent" in the sense that he is now?

My view is that intelligence is a really a spectrum, not an all or nothing thing. We are 'smarter' than chimps and gorillas. Chimps and gorillas are 'smarter' than macaques, who are smarter than sloths. So there really isn't any time when you can say we 'became intelligent'

if its any more than a few 10,000 of years, then we run into a population problem. there would be ALOT more humans on the planet than we are now. population growth simply doesnt allow for intelligent humans much more than a few 10,000s of years. unless for some reason, man was intelligent, yet to stupid to invent a wheel or fire until the past 10,000 years or so.

Viable populations for animals can be only a few hundred in some circumstances, theres no reason why they have to number in the millions. Populaitons can go up and down, and can grow exponetially since a single typical human female can produce 10+ offspring in her lifetime, I see no reason why our current population would be too small.

The wheel and fire are not necessities for survival. Convenient, yes, but not neccessary. The other apes do just fine without them.

[PeterMP]

I am particularly interested in a few points. Peter, you spoke alot of mutation. Its my understanding that mutation is almost always BAD for an organism. it doesnt help the organism evolve or improve, its destructive. there are a few exceptions, but not many. i find the idea that mutation is the driving force behind evolution to be far-fetched. adaptation on the other hand, i have a better grasp of and appreciation for. adaptation is observed everywhere. so, as a whole, does evolution teach that creatures ADAPT up to a certain point (within the same "kind" of life), before some dramatic positive MUTATION in which the creature becomes something else?

First, let's be clear about what we talking about. A mutation is a change in the DNA sequence. This can include and insertion or deletion of bases, but most commonly a change in bases from one base to another (remember the move GATTACA (the DNA bases are G, C, A, and T so a change in a base for example would be a position that was a G being changed to a C).

Most mutations are in fact neutral (under any given condition). They have no effect. Insertions and deletions are more likely to have an effect than a simple base change.

Of those that aren't neutral, they are much more likely to be negative than positive (hence the desire to limit them under conditions that aren't stressful). However, all you need is one postive for evolution to occur, and if the population is already being stressed to the point that there are serious issues, then the disadvantage of the risk of getting a negative mutation is greatly reduced. Positive mutations do occur. We have seen them.

I'm not sure what you mean by adaption.

All evolution happens through changes in the DNA, which requries mutations (ignoring epigenetics, which would require you have at least a BS in biology and really understand genetics, and it isn't applicable for many organisms).

Specific traits can become more concentrated based on selection (e.g. If you have stripped and spotted goats, and the spotted goats are easier for the predators to see so they are eaten more quickly than you'll end up with a population of stripped goats), but that isn't really evolution, and you haven't introduced new traits.

Adaption sounds like Lamarck's theory to me, which is false.

also, in answer to the question about human population, i seem to remember seeing something somewhere which did a reverse J curve (if memory serves me) and it took into account several factors, including the fact that population growth has really boomed recently and up until the past hundred years or so, was about half of what it is now. in the end, it led to having only a handful of humans about 4500 years ago.

now certainly, wars, diseases, and other catastrophies could dramatically affect that number to stetch back many thousands of years past that. specifically, i think i remember a point being made that if the chart were followed dogmatically, there would only have been a few thousand people on the entire earth when the first pyramids were built - which doesnt seem rational. however, no logical model was shown that would have humans existing MILLIONS of years in the past. If this isnt something anyone is familiar with, its no big deal. i was just wondering if evolutionary theory had an explaination for the rapid population growth of humans over the past few thousand years.

I really don't know about the J curve stuff.

In terms of population growth, it can all be tied to intelligence and improvements in technology.

Better technology means more food, fewer predators, and fewer dieseases.

As time passed technology got better, population increased.

Doesn't seem that hard to understand.

[DCSaints_fan]

also, in answer to the question about human population, i seem to remember seeing something somewhere which did a reverse J curve (if memory serves me) and it took into account several factors, including the fact that population growth has really boomed recently and up until the past hundred years or so, was about half of what it is now. in the end, it led to having only a handful of humans about 4500 years ago.

now certainly, wars, diseases, and other catastrophies could dramatically affect that number to stetch back many thousands of years past that. specifically, i think i remember a point being made that if the chart were followed dogmatically, there would only have been a few thousand people on the entire earth when the first pyramids were built - which doesnt seem rational. however, no logical model was shown that would have humans existing MILLIONS of years in the past. If this isnt something anyone is familiar with, its no big deal. i was just wondering if evolutionary theory had an explaination for the rapid population growth of humans over the past few thousand years.

Sounds like you answered your own question. You can't use the current population and current growth rate to extrapolate what the population was in the past. If memory serves me right there are only few thousand (maybe less than that) buffalo in North America. Not knowing anything else about the buffalo, would it be reasonble to assume that the buffalo couldn't have been as widespread in the 19th century, because there are only a few thousand left now and the previous generations *had* to be less numerous?

[Corcaigh]

As I'm sure you all realize, I don't beleive in evolution.

Is this because you see it as contradicting your faith, or is there something else?

[PeterMP]

Is this because you see it as contradicting your faith, or is there something else?

Seems to be the normal combination: religion, and he doesn't understand it. He does at least ask decent questions.

[techboy]

Carbon dating is a lie

discovery channel is a lie

National Geographic is a lie

Good so far.

Have you seen the movie 10,000 BC? Thats when it all started.

This is a lie too. The Earth is only 6,000 years old, so that should be 4000 BC. I think you've bought into that lying liar, Carbon Dating, without realizing it.

Please report to the nearest re-education center for a tune-up.

[Corcaigh]

also, in answer to the question about human population, i seem to remember seeing something somewhere which did a reverse J curve (if memory serves me) and it took into account several factors, including the fact that population growth has really boomed recently and up until the past hundred years or so, was about half of what it is now. in the end, it led to having only a handful of humans about 4500 years ago.

Exponential growth is sometime referred to as a J curve. You often see it in population studies where there are a few variables, but I wouldn't think that such a simple model would accurately reflect the emergence of modern human society.

As human civilization developed, it's ability to support larger and larger populations increased dramatically. The population you can support if you have a nomadic, hunter-gatherer lifestyle is miniscule compared to one where you have efficient agriculture, irrigation, sanitation, trade, exploration etc. It doesn't make sense to apply a simple model of population growth to what happened on Earth in the last 10,000 years.

Extrapolating backwards to deduce that human population was almost zero five thousand years ago looks exactly like a young earth creationist trying to manipulate 'science' to make their case, when the model is overly simplistic and contrary to all the facts.

This kind of behavior unfortunately is not rare. A few months ago KB/CW posted in good faith about a dinosaur bone being dated to a few thousand years ago. He found this information on a creationist web site. The case involved deliberate fraud and misrepresentation but the creationist site was happy to promote it because it supported their point of view.

:2cents: