Carlton Supporters Club

Quote from: Thryleon – on January 24, 2025, 08:44:52 pm

Imho there's a population issue with the claim of length of time indigenous people claim to be here.

They should have much larger populations than they do.  The world populations exploded around 1800.  By contrast the population here is so much smaller.

It doesn't quite marry up the way you would expect from a growth rate nor rate of change perspective.

Where do you get your population figures from Thry?

The archaeological evidence indicates a significant increase in the Aboriginal population around 5,000 years ago.

I know most about southeastern Australia so I’ll focus on that.

The Aboriginal population of Victoria in the 1830s is estimated to have been somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000 and that population had been ravaged by smallpox that preceded the colonists spreading out from Sydney.  By the late 19th century, the Aboriginal population had dropped to less than 1,000.

The population can’t exceed the carrying capacity of the environment and that is determined by both the resources in the environment and the technology available to that population.  A population increase in industrial England does not mean that the populations of nomadic African cattle herders, slash and burn Melanesian farmers or Amazonian hunter-gatherers will increase.

It's probably on par with native Canadian populations without having the challenge of overcoming freezing temperatures.

Quote from: Thryleon – on January 25, 2025, 01:08:33 pm

It's probably on par with native Canadian populations without having the challenge of overcoming freezing temperatures.

I think you underestimate the troubles that come with living in Australia.
Everything can kill you.

Might not get the cold, but you'll get the heat. Drought. Fires etc.

However, there is incontrovertible evidence that the Aboriginal people who arrived in Australia around 60,000 years ago and those who saw the First Fleet arrive are one and the same people.  DNA doesn’t lie!

Quote from: DJC – on January 25, 2025, 09:19:59 am

However, there is incontrovertible evidence that the Aboriginal people who arrived in Australia around 60,000 years ago and those who saw the First Fleet arrive are one and the same people.  DNA doesn’t lie!

No disputing that, but I'm not sure if it supports your case or mine.

I questioned 40000 years of apparent nothing, on the figures they made an egress from Africa in starting 72000, getting to Australia 60000 years ago, a 12000 journey, it seems reasonable. Then it's 60000 years of nothing after that.

I'm not questioning the evidence, it's fine, it the gaps full of human collusions and rhetoric defending connected hypothesis that seems rubbery at best.

When a surface is trafficable, travel tends to be in many directions, Australia being a dead-end would never stop a wave of humanity having a bounce. But in 60000 not so much as a stone throw!

looked it up on some statistical websites and found one that showed population change across the globe.  On a conservative level, globally up until 1800 Oceania as a continent were miles behind everyone else, so either they weren't counting properly, there's gaps in statistical analysis for obvious reasons, or population growth here was significantly smaller in indigenous cultures than it was across the globe.  Perhaps it was more of the nomadic hunter gatherer lifestyle that did this rather than settling and building cities, but its a very stark contrast when compared with global figures.

It's probably on par with native Canadian populations without having the challenge of overcoming freezing temperatures.

You can't expect consistent human population growth across the globe.  Even today we have some countries with negative population growth, some with migration providing modest population growth and some with booming birthrates.  India had a population growth rate of around 2.3% for decades in the 20th century.  It's now below 1%.

Quote from: DJC – on January 25, 2025, 09:19:59 am

However, there is incontrovertible evidence that the Aboriginal people who arrived in Australia around 60,000 years ago and those who saw the First Fleet arrive are one and the same people.  DNA doesn’t lie!

No disputing that, but I'm not sure if it supports your case or mine.

I questioned 40000 years of apparent nothing, on the figures you provide they made an egress from Africa starting 72000 years ago, getting to Australia 60000 years ago, a 12000 journey, it seems reasonable. Then it's 60000 years of nothing after that, little mingling, nobody decided they liked it better where they came from, no significant visitors.

We read stories of great Polynesian explorers, crossings of seas hundreds of kilometres wide and open ocean thousands of kilometres, but we are asked to accept almost nothing in 60000 across regions largely trafficable by foot, no boat needed. I suppose someone will claim it was too good here, God's country, so why leave? But that only leads into Thry's population question, if life was so good, where is everybody? They aren't silly questions, they don't disrupt the evidence but they are explained by the received wisdom either.

I'm not questioning the evidence, it's fine, it is the gaps full of human collusions and rhetoric defending connected hypothesis that seems rubbery at best. FWIW, a lot of the Out of Africa hypothesis is rubbery too, not the general premise, I think it's not questionable, just that some seem unable to colour within the lines.

When a surface is trafficable, travel tends to be in many directions, Australia being a dead-end would never stop a wave of humanity having a bounce, but in 60000 not so much as a stone throw!

Look at a map. Look at the direction of travel out of africa.
Where are you expecting people to go?

It's rock solid, apart from the Wallace and Weber Lines that constituted an impenetrable barrier travel to Australia, New Guinea and Oceania for over 50,000 years.

I'm not sure in the previous 60000, based on fossil records, that you could argue Australia was resource limited, probably abundant would be a better description.

Quote from: DJC – on January 25, 2025, 05:41:31 pm

It's rock solid, apart from the Wallace and Weber Lines that constituted an impenetrable barrier travel to Australia, New Guinea and Oceania for over 50,000 years.

Isn't that a confusion of speciation versus geography, unless of course there is an assertion of more than one species in humanity?

The last glacial age isn't speculation, land bridges aren't myths and legends, and Australia based on the fossil record was a relative food bank, the evidence is in those solid rocks.