Has human evolution been disproved?

[Snowber]

Just like computers go back to being "1's and 0's", Science itself is derived from math.

Galileo is quoted to have said:

"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe."

Using the concept of math, we should be able to prove or disprove things, even the existence of GOD, using math. Maybe it was not possible at certain times but we are at an era where the mind reigns. Knowledge has become true power. For example, one man who could create a bomb may be able to win against 20 of the strongest men.

Now moving on to how math relates to evolution (specifically human evolution).

I've taken much of this information from here if you are interested in reading more:

Evolution and Math

A reminder before I continue, GOD wants us to use our minds to verify information, a true GOD is not afraid of being debated if they hold the absolute truth:

[17:36] You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.

[24:45] And GOD created every living creature from water. Some of them walk on their bellies, some walk on two legs, and some walk on four. GOD creates whatever He wills. GOD is Omnipotent.

[29:20] Say, "Roam the earth and find out the origin of life." For GOD will thus initiate the creation in the Hereafter. GOD is Omnipotent.

Now let us look at evolution mathematically:

Evolution is possible only within a given species. For example, the navel orange evolved from seeded oranges, not from apples. The laws of probablity preclude the possibility of haphazard evolution between species.
A fish cannot evolve into a bird; a monkey can never evolve into a human.

Now, according to the article, let's go ahead and assume the monkey's gene is 99% similar to a human's gene (many evolutionists believe it is in the 90% range, please correct me if im mistaken).

At 99% similarity we're saying that we still need to "haphazardly rearrange" (or rearrange in a random manner) 300,000,000 nucleotides to turn a monkey into a human being.

See "Nucleotides" here:

Nucleotides

Probability laws state that this is simply impossible.

Human genes contain 3.3 BILLION nucleotides, so 300 million would be about .9-1%.

Now I couldn't finish this better myself so I just took the quote at the bottom:

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing factory."

I guess you could say that humans had a chance to evolve billions of times if you wanted to, but who initiated all those chances?

 

[Riverwolf]

Now, according to the article, let's go ahead and assume the monkey's gene is 99% similar to a human's gene (many evolutionists believe it is in the 90% range, please correct me if im mistaken).

You're mistaken in your words, not your math.

We are only 99% similar to Chimpanzees, as far as I know, and we are not monkeys, and never were monkeys.

Were APES.

At 99% similarity we're saying that we still need to "haphazardly rearrange" (or rearrange in a random manner) 300,000,000 nucleotides to turn a monkey into a human being.

See "Nucleotides" here:

Nucleotides

Probability laws state that this is simply impossible.

Human genes contain 3.3 BILLION nucleotides, so 300 million would be about .9-1%.

Now I couldn't finish this better myself so I just took the quote at the bottom:

I guess you could say that humans had a chance to evolve billions of times if you wanted to, but who initiated all those chances?

That quote is irrelevant, as it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with evolution.

Now, the "improbable odds" argument is flawed, anyway. I can't explain it too well, but here's a video that talks extensively about the flawed use of numbers in a religious debate:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5NPpoM5lIQ[/youtube]

EDIT: Huh, the imbed isn't working, so here's a link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5NPpoM5lIQ

 

[Draka]

A fish cannot evolve into a bird; a monkey can never evolve into a human.

Your words, not your math are going to lose your argument for you.

fish-->amphibian-->reptile-->bird

No a fish doesn't go straight to bird and if that's what you think evolution is then no wonder you just don't get it. However, a species of fish evolving to be able to live both in and out of water gives you an amphibian. A species of amphibian evolving to thrive on land but can't live underwater entirely as well gives you a reptile. Reptiles beget dinosaurs, some dinosaurs evolved wings, some of the smaller ones survived the ELE that killed the dinosaurs and eventually became what is known today as birds. That's the abridged version to try to keep it plain and simple.

As for the monkey thing. No one has ever said we evolved from monkeys. We have the same ancestor as any other ape. That's not a monkey.

Totally disregarding the rest of your post as it seems that these points are more than enough to illustrate that you don't even have the faintest clue what evolution is and how it works, I'd say you better go back to school and learn a little more before trying to come here and argue this again.

 

[Snowber]

Riverwolf,

I admit that was an interesting video but the argument seems more focused towards people who just say that a Boeing 747 is assembled by a tornado in a junkyard or a dictionary is assembled from an explosion in a printing factory, and though these arguments may be made, they cannot be made simply on the basis of someone saying that the chances of GOD existing are 50-50 or any number of gods existing and the chances declining progressively.

Instead the argument I am trying to make is based more on actual numbers which the maker of the video seems to be looking for rather than someone just telling him chances must be 50/50 of a god existing and so forth.

Here we have actual numbers stated to derive the argument that "evolution is like a dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing factory".

Please take a look at the following quote:

In this computer age, we have mathematical laws that tell us whether a certain event is probable or not. If we throw five numbered cubes up in the air and let them fall into a guided straight line, the probability laws tell us the number of possible combinations we can get: 1x2x3x4x5=120 combinations.
Thus, the probability of obtaining any combination is 1 in 120, or 1/120, or 0.0086.
This probability diminishes fast when we increase the number of cubes.
If we increase them by one, the number of combinations becomes 1x2x3x4x5x6=720, and the robability of getting any combination diminishes to 1/720, 0.0014.
Mathematicians, who are very exacting scientists, have agreed that the probability diminishes to "Zero" when we increase the number of cubes to 84. If we work with 84 cubes, the probability diminishes
to 209x10 (raised to the power of) -50, or



0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000209

Using this same method we are able to make the argument that the "chances" of humans evolving from ANOTHER species is nil.

We may have very well come from a more primitive form of a human being, but not another creature altogether.

Thank you for the video, I am glad that we have a open thought forums like these to discuss these types of matters.

 

[Riverwolf]

We may have very well come from a more primitive form of a human being, but not another creature altogether.

And we DID.

We evolved from a species called homo heidelbergensis: a more primitive species of human. This species split into the Homo Sapiens (us) and Homo neanderthalis, which is now extinct. ()

Nobody is saying we evolved from another creature altogether. Species are just distinguished by the ability to interbreed, nothing more.

Keep in mind: the word "homo" literally means "man." So, I assume (any biologists correct me if I'm wrong), any species with "homo" as its genus is, in fact, human.

You're welcome for the video. I do recommend watching his others, as well. They're very enlightening. (Though, naturally, far from perfect.)

 

[Snowber]

Your words, not your math are going to lose your argument for you.

fish-->amphibian-->reptile-->bird

No a fish doesn't go straight to bird and if that's what you think evolution is then no wonder you just don't get it. However, a species of fish evolving to be able to live both in and out of water gives you an amphibian. A species of amphibian evolving to thrive on land but can't live underwater entirely as well gives you a reptile. Reptiles beget dinosaurs, some dinosaurs evolved wings, some of the smaller ones survived the ELE that killed the dinosaurs and eventually became what is known today as birds. That's the abridged version to try to keep it plain and simple.

As for the monkey thing. No one has ever said we evolved from monkeys. We have the same ancestor as any other ape. That's not a monkey.

Totally disregarding the rest of your post as it seems that these points are more than enough to illustrate that you don't even have the faintest clue what evolution is and how it works, I'd say you better go back to school and learn a little more before trying to come here and argue this again.

Indeed my wording may be incorrect and I thank everyone for pointing that out as it has inspired me to do more research on the subject of evolution. I think whether the argument comes from someone less knowledgeable or more knowledgeable does not change the fact that the numbers are significant in disproving human evolution from Apes or any other creatures (I am not speaking on behalf of other creatures which may very well have evolved just as a navel orange "evolves" from an orange).

Had all my faith in GOD's existence relied simply on whether evolution was true or not I wouldn't have much faith at all, but GOD does give us many more signs mathematically and "scientifically" which increases the faith of those who do submit.

Again I apologize for using wording that may have offended anyone. What I am looking for here is an argument against why the numbers would not be significant in disproving human evolution and I have enough of an open mind to accept the truth when I see it. cheers!

 

[RedOne77]

Snowber,

I assume you are Christian? If so, from one Christian to another (or even if you aren't), those arguments are flawed. By saying that because we differ from Chimpanzees by 300,000,000 nucleotides doesn't necessarily mean that we couldn't have had a common ancestor. In the ToE mutations (changes in the nucleotides by random mistakes from generation to generation) are selected for because they increase the fitness of the organism, and most mutations are neutral (don't affect having offspring) anyway.

 

[RedOne77]

And we DID.
Keep in mind: the word "homo" literally means "man." So, I assume (any biologists correct me if I'm wrong), any species with "homo" as its genus is, in fact, human.

No, "human" refers to homo sapien. Like homo habilis wouldn't be considered "human". The only other possible "human" would be Neanderthal, but it is all depends on how you classify them; homo sapien neanderthalensis (sub species of us), or homo neanderthalensis.

Edit: Based on mtDNA I believe Neanderthals to be separate species than us, so I would not consider them "human" in a technical sense.

 

[Snowber]

Snowber,

I assume you are Christian? If so, from one Christian to another (or even if you aren't), those arguments are flawed. By saying that because we differ from Chimpanzees by 300,000,000 nucleotides doesn't necessarily mean that we couldn't have had a common ancestor. In the ToE mutations (changes in the nucleotides by random mistakes from generation to generation) are selected for because they increase the fitness of the organism, and most mutations are neutral (don't affect having offspring) anyway.

RedOne77,

I am actually a Muslim who does not follow Hadith or Sunnah but the Quran alone.

I believe evolution is and will be an important test for humans. If a person, no matter what faith, believes GOD created the human being then a theory such as evolution would be the catalyst to separate those who offer lip service of belief from those who truly submit and/or believe.

I am not saying you should ignorantly believe in GOD and disregard evolution because you've decided to believe in a god but if a scripture or scriptures has evidence to support the existence of GOD, or even what many would consider proof, then it follows the equation:

If A is true and A says B, then B must be true.

Though the discussion of how certain scriptures may be proven is another subject entirely though I do not think we should be discussing in evolution vs creationism forums, it plays a key role in verifying that scriptures were not the result of humans making up laws.

Thank you for your replies again, I may very well be wrong in my thinking, or maybe creationism and evolution do not contradict and we just haven't figured it out yet.

 

[Dware]

Evolution debates are really pointless. People believe what they want to believe. 3 people can look at the same "evidence" and come up with 3 different conclusions. If you have an atheist outlook on life you see evolution everywhere. If you have a Creation outlook on life you see God everywhere. In my experience atheists are usually angry little nerds.

 

[RedOne77]

RedOne77,

I am actually a Muslim who does not follow Hadith or Sunnah but the Quran alone.

I understand, and I am pleased to meet you. Islam has many things that I wish Christianity would also portray. Such as the word Muslim means to submit, and you submit yourself to God. While similar doctrine can be found in Christianity (Jesus said you can either be slaves to sin or God not both), I feel that it has been pushed to the back burner and I wish it were more prevalent and chief regarding Christian faith. But things like that are a little off topic in an evolution forum as you said latter on

I believe evolution is and will be an important test for humans. If a person, no matter what faith, believes GOD created the human being then a theory such as evolution would be the catalyst to separate those who offer lip service of belief from those who truly submit and/or believe.

While I do not believe in evolution (kind of, there are different meanings to the word and I accept some of them as fact), there are many people of faith who accept evolution and retain their faith. Yes, evolution can very well be the catalyst that shows cultural believers from true believers, but just bear in mind that it isn't a full-proof system.

I am not saying you should ignorantly believe in GOD and disregard evolution because you've decided to believe in a god but if a scripture or scriptures has evidence to support the existence of GOD, or even what many would consider proof, then it follows the equation:

If A is true and A says B, then B must be true.

I agree, but sometimes we must rely on faith. While God can and does reveal Himself to His believers, we can't abandon the enigma of faith.

Though the discussion of how certain scriptures may be proven is another subject entirely though I do not think we should be discussing in evolution vs creationism forums, it plays a key role in verifying that scriptures were not the result of humans making up laws.

While this is an evolution creation forum, because religion does play a major role in the debate, I don't think people will mind if you have civil discussions on religion and faith in the right thread. At least that has been my experience on other forums, but I'm new to this place too, so I'm not 100% sure.

 

[Snowber]

Evolution debates are really pointless. People believe what they want to believe. 3 people can look at the same "evidence" and come up with 3 different conclusions. If you have an atheist outlook on life you see evolution everywhere. If you have a Creation outlook on life you see God everywhere. In my experience atheists are usually angry little nerds.

I admit that with many topics, not only evolution, as long as people are willing only to see through their own lenses it is difficult to reach any conclusion. At the same time I do believe if someone is knowledgeable enough (this excludes myself of course) to the point they have enough information on all subjects involved to prove a point, then they can.

 

[Dware]

Yea, i have never heard of anyone ever changing their minds about politics or religion by debating.

I have seen alot of nerd-rage but no changed minds.

 

[Snowber]

Yea, i have never heard of anyone ever changing their minds about politics or religion by debating.

I have seen alot of nerd-rage but no changed minds.

I've always thought that, in the end, people will always have to study something themselves. When I had to leave the traditional mindset of my family I had to willingly read about things that contradict everything I grew up with but that had enough evidence it was hard for me to deny it

 

[Dware]

To each his own mate.

Im a Christian but i honestly never cared what people believed, after all i wasnt always a christian. Its a free country.

Only time i will get angry is if someone calls me derogratory names for being a Christian.

It almost never happens in real life but you do see it on forums, alot of angry people cruise forums.

When i was younger i would debate stuff, but than i figured out it doesnt matter, each person in this world has their own preset beliefs.

 

[Smoke]

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing factory."

Please show your work.

 

[Snowber]

Please show your work.

If it makes you feel better ignore the dictionary remark and read only the mathematical argument

 

[Sunstone]

Just a thought, but the relationship between math and its terrain is more subtle than the OP would suggest.

Another thought: As every mathematician knows (or at least as my older brother, who is a mathematician, knows ), probabilities are legitimately calculated based on research into the actual incidence of events; not calculated base on speculation, as seems to have been done in the OP. When you rely on speculation to calculate things, you tend to come up with absurdities -- like that group of "geniuses" who came to the conclusion that bumblebees simply could not fly based on speculative mathematics. The OP seems to employ speculations to come to the conclusion that evolution didn't happen. I submit the OP is yet another speculative work of "genius".

Again, as my brother likes to remind me, the probability of something happening that has happened is 1. So, I must conclude that the probability of humans having evolved is 1, since many independent lines of evidence provide overwhelming support to the notion that humans evolved.

 

[Sunstone]

Please show your work.

The OP is at best based on speculative mathematics. Such mathematics in the past have been used to show that hummingbirds and bumblebees cannot fly. If anyone wants to believe that evolution did not happen based on speculative mathematics, I have some investments for their money that I'm sure will interest them.

On the other hand, any hard-nosed mathematician would tell you that the probability of something happening that has already happened is 1.

 

[fantome profane]

It is true that mathematics proves that humans did not evolve because mathematics proves that humans do not exist.

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination. – Douglas Adams, -Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy