brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at
Wed Sep 4 13:36:16 EST 2002

"John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote:
>"Life [is] fragile"

No it isn't.

>for the 900 million

For someone who below touts that his figures come straight from the
UN, you'd think that you would have gotten this figure correct,
considering how many times I've shown you it is wrong.

> dumber-than-rocks

That is YOU, not them.

> niggers

The only person I've ever know worthy of that appelation is YOU.

> in Africa,

Well at least you got the continent right.

>who've watched White men drive by in Rolls Royces but still haven't figured
>out how to build their first wheel.  That didn't keep the African population
>from exploding seven fold, or 2.6% per year, did it?

That is its current rate of growth.  That is not its historical rate
of growth.  After all, playing your statistical games, we find that
there could have only been 1 person in Africa 800 years ago.  Since
know that there was more, the growth rate hasn't been 2.6% per year
over that entire period.

>There are a number of countries around the world who aren't at all
>"advanced" who experienced greater than 5.8% per year increases in their
>natural population growth [sans immigration].  At that rate, 2 people would
>be 6 billion in only 645 years.  At the rate of growth of the United Arab
>Emirates, it would take only 556 years.

Therefore we know that this growth rate is not historically valid.

Anyone with common sense (i.e. not YOU), would be able to identify
several reasons why the growth rate is not historically valid.  Anyone
who has had any serious study of history could tell you several more,
and could even find data that shows what the growth rate actually was
in historical times.

>Your claim that these are "arbitrary population figures"

The arbitrariness is your assumption that current population growth
has any historical significance.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list