Has human evolution been disproved?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well I believe the backing was in the mathematics presented in the original post. Also I am not discrediting evolution altogether, as I currently stand I believe evolution is true for certain species and is a divinely guided process.

If you're actually interested in learning about this topic and how your original post was based on incorrect assumptions, I'd suggest you check out Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins.

I know that's a name that can raise some people's hackles, but he does know his stuff as an evolutionary biologist, and the book's central theme is the answer to the very question you alluded to in the OP.

 

[RedOne77]

You need to read up on what actually Entropy is and what "chaos" would mean in this case. I was very surprised years ago to actually LEARN what Entropy WAS. You should read up about it as well before making comments on something you have no knowledge about.

I wouldn't say I have no knowledge about thermodynamics, albeit a limited one. I use "chaos" to convey disorder and spontaneous reactions, but what specifically did I say that is not correct?

 

[RedOne77]

I've always been amazed at such statements. When you typed the words "because he wants us to ...", you are effectively placing yourself in the position of speaking for God - as if you know His mind and heart.

I place that in juxtaposition with statements like "We are merely humans, and we cannot know God's mind, or his plans for us".

Which is it? Do you speak for God, or is it not possible to know His mind?

I spoke for God in the sense that it was taken from understanding scripture, which at a minimum dictates that it was inspired by God; so obviously if you are a believer such statements will carry weight. If you choose to disregard it as ramblings of ancient Jews that is your choice, but a question was posed about God and faith, so how else do you expect a person of faith to answer if not with their holy texts?

 

[Alceste]

I spoke for God in the sense that it was taken from understanding scripture, which at a minimum dictates that it was inspired by God; so obviously if you are a believer such statements will carry weight. If you choose to disregard it as ramblings of ancient Jews that is your choice, but a question was posed about God and faith, so how else do you expect a person of faith to answer if not with their holy texts?

"How do you know scripture was inspired by God?"
"Scripture says so."

See any problem there? What about here:

"How do you know Clinton didn't inhale, or have sex with Monica Lewinsky?"
"Clinton said so."

 

[LittleNipper]

"How do you know scripture was inspired by God?"
"Scripture says so."

See any problem there? What about here:

"How do you know Clinton didn't inhale, or have sex with Monica Lewinsky?"
"Clinton said so."

JESUS said that scripture is inspired. Now, I know exactly what you are thinking --- JESUS is a product of the Bible. But the fact remains that nearly everyone connected with JESUS died terrible deaths for their faith in what you may choose to believe was someone who never existed. But, I know of no one (at least, one who could also write so poignantly) who'd die for something they made up... Their lives and deaths were real. I believe their accounts are truth.

 

[MSizer]

JESUS said that scripture is inspired. Now, I know exactly what you are thinking --- JESUS is a product of the Bible. But the fact remains that nearly everyone connected with JESUS died terrible deaths for their faith in what you may choose to believe was someone who never existed. But, I know of no one (at least, one who could also write so poignantly) who'd die for something they made up... Their lives and deaths were real. I believe their accounts are truth.

Human sacrifice blossomed in the Mayan theocracy of Central America between the 11th and 16th centuries. To appease a feathered-serpent god, maidens were drowned in sacred wells and other victims either had their hearts cut out, were shot with arrows, or were beheaded. Elsewhere, sacrifice was sporadic. In Peru, pre-Inca tribes killed children in temples called "houses of the moon." In Tibet, Bon shamans performed ritual killings. In Borneo builders of pile houses drove the first pile through the body of a maiden to pacify the earth goddess. In India, Dravidian people offered lives to village goddesses, and followers of Kali sacrificed a male child every Friday evening.

(the above was a cheap cut and paste, but gets the point across)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

JESUS said that scripture is inspired. Now, I know exactly what you are thinking --- JESUS is a product of the Bible. But the fact remains that nearly everyone connected with JESUS died terrible deaths for their faith in what you may choose to believe was someone who never existed.

Maybe he's a product of the Bible, maybe not, but your knowledge of Jesus is certainly a product of the Bible. From your point of view, you're still stuck in a loop.

Anyhow, wasn't it Paul, not Jesus that said scripture is inspired? In either case, you still need to determine which scriptures the speaker refers to when he says "scripture".

But, I know of no one (at least, one who could also write so poignantly) who'd die for something they made up... Their lives and deaths were real. I believe their accounts are truth.

Indeed. And I take it that since you apply this principle consistently, the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev in defense of the Sikh scriptures he compiled has also convinced you of the truth of Sikhism.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I spoke for God in the sense that it was taken from understanding scripture, which at a minimum dictates that it was inspired by God; so obviously if you are a believer such statements will carry weight. If you choose to disregard it as ramblings of ancient Jews that is your choice, but a question was posed about God and faith, so how else do you expect a person of faith to answer if not with their holy texts?

A good answer, RedOne. I'm not trying to trap you, I'm honestly trying to get you to consider the two positions taken by believers. These two positions are in direct opposition to each other.

On one hand, when an innocent child dies a horrible death, the answer from a theist is "It's all according to God's plan, and as mere humans, we can't know God's mind".

Later that day, that same theist will make a claim (as you have), effectively saying that "... God wants us to ...".

You cannot have it both ways. Either you know what God wants, and you have a basis to tell other mortal human beings what God expects and plans for, or you can't (and don't) know God's mind, because He operates on a far higher plane.

Surely you can see the dichotomy in those two positions. Which is it?

If you would like, we can start a separate thread to discuss this.

 

[tumbleweed41]

JESUS said that scripture is inspired. Now, I know exactly what you are thinking --- JESUS is a product of the Bible. But the fact remains that nearly everyone connected with JESUS died terrible deaths for their faith in what you may choose to believe was someone who never existed. But, I know of no one (at least, one who could also write so poignantly) who'd die for something they made up... Their lives and deaths were real. I believe their accounts are truth.

How do you know the disciples and apostles who were associated with Jesus died for their beliefs?

Oh yeah, it says so in the Bible.....
(And Catholic tradition)

 

[johnhanks]

JESUS said that scripture is inspired. Now, I know exactly what you are thinking --- JESUS is a product of the Bible. But the fact remains that nearly everyone connected with JESUS died terrible deaths for their faith in what you may choose to believe was someone who never existed. But, I know of no one (at least, one who could also write so poignantly) who'd die for something they made up... Their lives and deaths were real. I believe their accounts are truth.

The willingness of people to die for their beliefs is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the substance of those beliefs. 'Something they made up' is a straw-man here: I doubt any of the non-theists in this debate would claim that the alleged apostles etc had literally made up the figure of Jesus; if he and they existed, they may well have genuinely believed in his divinity (or at least in his holiness), just like the followers of contemporary cult leaders. Does the name Jim Jones ring any bells?

 

[S-word]

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

Galileo is quoted to have said:



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:



Now let us look at evolution mathematically:



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:



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?

I believe that the best model for the origin of the universe, according to the data that has so far been accumulated by the mind of man, is the theory of the Big Bang.

All that this universe is, was once contained in a singularity which was infinitely dense, infinitely hot and infinitesimally small, and it was spatially separated by the animating principle that pervades all that is, which animating principle, has neither mass or electric charge, but carries angular and linear momentum.

Until a better theory comes along, I will continue to believe that the singularity of origin has become all that has ever existed, all that now exists, and all that will ever exist. That which was in the beginning, has become "Who I Am" who is a physical enclosure of all the spirits of my ancestors human and pre-human. "Who I Am," is connected to the singularity of origin by an eternal genetic thread of life. "Who I Am," was in the beginning and has never experienced death, and there is no reason for me to believe that "Who I Am," can ever die.

If I, who am the mind/spirit that develops in this body that is "Who I Am," through the experiences and information that is taken in through the senses of this body, remain true to and one with and an extention of, "Who I Am," then I will continue to live in him long after this physical corruptible body of matter has returned to the animated universal elements from which it was formed. A facsimile of "I," the mind/spirt that has developed in the enclosure of my ancestral spirits, will have been imprinted upon the eternal and divine animating principle that pervades all that was, all that is, and all that ever will be.

I believe also, that mankind who is the Lord of creatures, and currently the Most High in the creation and the temporary tabernacle/tent of the height to which the evolving mind of the singularity of origin has attained, is not the end of the evolutionary process, and that a new species will evolve from the body of Mankind, and that new species, which will be the "Son of Man" will be one with his origin and will and has already visited his dead past. I believe that he is the first and the last, the beginning and end, the Alpha and Omega, The Father and the Son, who are the one being that exists over the vast expanse of time within this period of universal activity. This universal body, in which the Godhead that evolves is the "Son of Man," will descended into the Great Abyss, into that seemingly bottomless pit, "The Black hole," where all that was, is ,and will be, is condensed into the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity, which will be resurrected to continue in the eternal process of growth/evolution.

 

[Gabethewiking]

I believe that the best model for the origin of the universe, according to the data that has so far been accumulated by the mind of man, is the theory of the Big Bang.

All that this universe is, was once contained in a singularity which was infinitely dense, infinitely hot and infinitesimally small, and it was spatially separated by the animating principle that pervades all that is, which animating principle, has neither mass or electric charge, but carries angular and linear momentum.

Until a better theory comes along, I will continue to believe that the singularity of origin has become all that has ever existed, all that now exists, and all that will ever exist. That which was in the beginning, has become "Who I Am" who is a physical enclosure of all the spirits of my ancestors human and pre-human. "Who I Am," is connected to the singularity of origin by an eternal genetic thread of life. "Who I Am," was in the beginning and has never experienced death, and there is no reason for me to believe that "Who I Am," can ever die.

If I, who am the mind/spirit that develops in this body that is "Who I Am," through the experiences and information that is taken in through the senses of this body, remain true to and one with and an extention of, "Who I Am," then I will continue to live in him long after this physical corruptible body of matter has returned to the animated universal elements from which it was formed. A facsimile of "I," the mind/spirt that has developed in the enclosure of my ancestral spirits, will have been imprinted upon the eternal and divine animating principle that pervades all that was, all that is, and all that ever will be.

I believe also, that mankind who is the Lord of creatures, and currently the Most High in the creation and the temporary tabernacle/tent of the height to which the evolving mind of the singularity of origin has attained, is not the end of the evolutionary process, and that a new species will evolve from the body of Mankind, and that new species, which will be the "Son of Man" will be one with his origin and will and has already visited his dead past. I believe that he is the first and the last, the beginning and end, the Alpha and Omega, The Father and the Son, who are the one being that exists over the vast expanse of time within this period of universal activity. This universal body, in which the Godhead that evolves is the "Son of Man," will descended into the Great Abyss, into that seemingly bottomless pit, "The Black hole," where all that was, is ,and will be, is condensed into the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity, which will be resurrected to continue in the eternal process of growth/evolution.

Why do you consider us "most high"?
The KKK used the same logic when they killed blacks, it was obvious they where "superior" to the blacks as they where, well, black, and the KKK was White.. So.. Obviously.. .My point is, no evidence provided, so what do you base your opinion that we (now all Humans but I suspect, if you lived 200 years ago you would exclude some humans) are superior? (I am white, therefore using "we").

 

[painted wolf]

Snowber- Do you know how mutations happen? Many kinds of mutations can change several nucleotides/nucleotide sequences at a time. Duplications for example.
The background rate of mutation in humans is a minimum of 2.5x10 to the -8... muliply that 300 million and it isn't that improbable.

wa:do

 

[S-word]

Why do you consider us "most high"?
The KKK used the same logic when they killed blacks, it was obvious they where "superior" to the blacks as they where, well, black, and the KKK was White.. So.. Obviously.. .My point is, no evidence provided, so what do you base your opinion that we (now all Humans but I suspect, if you lived 200 years ago you would exclude some humans) are superior? (I am white, therefore using "we").

We human being, whether Black, white , brown, yellow or brindle, are the most high in the evolution of the animal world, and WE have gained dominion over all animal life forms that preceeded US, and WE, mankind are currently the Most High in the creation.

 

[painted wolf]

We human being, whether Black, white , brown, yellow or brindle, are the most high in the evolution of the animal world, and WE have gained dominion over all animal life forms that preceeded US, and WE, mankind are currently the Most High in the creation.

Tell that to the bacteria and viruses... They use us as their playthings.

wa:do

 

[S-word]

Tell that to the bacteria and viruses... They use us as their playthings.

wa:do

Ahh! So you classify ‘saprophytes,; which are living organisms such as fungus or bacterium, and viruses, which are microscopic pathogens that have the ability to replicate only inside a living cell, as belonging to the animal kingdom, and you believe also, that these are more complex and higher that WE, in the evolutionary process from which mankind came into being, do You?

Matey, if they, which are part and parcel of the life within the body of mankind are forever evolving, then this should prove to you that the living body in which you, the mind/spirit is developing, is still in the process of evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ahh! So you classify ‘saprophytes,; which are living organisms such as fungus or bacterium, and viruses, which are microscopic pathogens that have the ability to replicate only inside a living cell, as belonging to the animal kingdom, and you believe also, that these are more complex and higher that WE, in the evolutionary process from which mankind came into being, do You?

No, because there is no "high" or "low" in the evolution process. Every species that is alive today, complex or otherwise, have all evolved to reach this point. There is no "more" or "less" evolved, therefore it is meaningless to label one species as "higher" than another. The only way in which humans are superior is our intelligence, or more specifically our social awareness that allows us access to the use of language, symbolism and deeper levels of communication. This is the only feature that distinguishes us in any substantial way from any other species. But put a human being alongside a shark, lion or bear and suddenly the idea of humans having dominion over all of nature feels somewhat misguided.

 

[S-word]

No, because there is no "high" or "low" in the evolution process. Every species that is alive today, complex or otherwise, have all evolved to reach this point. There is no "more" or "less" evolved, therefore it is meaningless to label one species as "higher" than another. The only way in which humans are superior is our intelligence, or more specifically our social awareness that allows us access to the use of language, symbolism and deeper levels of communication. This is the only feature that distinguishes us in any substantial way from any other species. But put a human being alongside a shark, lion or bear and suddenly the idea of humans having dominion over all of nature feels somewhat misguided.

And you believe that all the sharks, lions and bears on this earth put together, could ever gain dominion over mankind who is the Most High in the creation, do you?

But you know, somehow, I just can't agree with you, I know that WE, if we have a mind to do so, could annihalate all the sharks, lions and bears on this planet. But you seem to think that man has not gained dominion over the animal kingdom which preceded him in the creation.

You seem to think that the species that had evolved on earth prior to the species that has developed an intellect, which intellect is able to comprehend the mind that is "He," who is the mind/spirit, who is developing in the human body, are higer in the evolutionary process than mankind who is Lord of creatures and the Most High in the creation. Well you just continue to live in your dream world old mate.

And when the new species that will come from mankind is born upon the earth, you can do as the godhead of the old upright walking repliles did, he who ruled the earth for over three million years, and say something like he said, "I refuse to bow before a creation that is inferior to myself, I am his senior in the creation, before he,"The Son of Man" was created, I was already created," (It is "I" and not he, who is the Most High in the creation.)

 

[Walkntune]

And you believe that all the sharks, lions and bears on this earth put together, could ever gain dominion over mankind who is the Most High in the creation, do you?

But you know, somehow, I just can't agree with you, I know that WE, if we have a mind to do so, could annihalate all the sharks, lions and bears on this planet. But you seem to think that man has not gained dominion over the animal kingdom which preceded him in the creation.

You seem to think that the species that had evolved on earth prior to the species that has developed an intellect, which intellect is able to comprehend the mind that is "He," the mind/spirit, who is developing in the human body, are higer in the evolutionary process than mankind who is Lord of creatures and the Most High in the creation. Well you just continue to live in your dream world old mate.

Well one difference is animals evolve to adapt to its environment and humans make our environment evolve to us!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And you believe that all the sharks, lions and bears on this earth put together, could ever gain dominion over mankind who is the Most High in the creation, do you?

No, because we have the intelligence to contain them.

But that's all we have. Intelligence. We are inferior to those animals in practically every other way. The fact is that it is our intelligence, and our intelligence alone, that separates us and has allowed us to gain what you would call "dominion" over the earth. In truth, we're really no different to them - we just have one distinct advantage that happens to account for a lot. I mean, do you think mankind just appeared on earth and instantly the animal world bowed down before us? Hell no. We were living hand-to-mouth, running scared of any predators on the plains for thousands of years before modern technology and society made them less and less of a threat.

But you know, somehow, I just can't agree with you, I know that WE, if we have a mind to do so, could annihalate all the sharks, lions and bears on this planet. But you seem to think that man has not gained dominion over the animal kingdom which preceded him in the creation.

Depends how you define "dominion". In the sense that we have a kind of "controlling share", if you like, of nature and the largest ability to exert control over it - then sure, we do. Does that mean that we are somehow inherently superior to them? No, it does not. We are just as evolved as they are, and we are just as much a part of the animal kingdom as they are. Why does our intelligence alone make us inherently superior over all other forms of life than, say, a shark's ability to track blood? Or a bear's physical strength? Or a bat's sense of direction?

I mean, consider the following: cockroaches and cats. Because of human society, cockroaches have thrived by feeding on our unused resources and taking homes within the labyrinthine constructs we have put together. They outnumber us, can outlive us and are perfectly adapted for living as a result of humans. Cats have become domesticated by humans, and as a result most cats live entirely from human's efforts to sustain them, and have come to rely on us for just about every facet of their lives - and what do they give us in return? Practically nothing. In many ways, cockroaches and cats could be considered a far more successful species than humans are, since both have developed to a point where they can live and thrive without any real effort or threats thanks to human society.

You seem to think that the species that had evolved on earth prior to the species that has developed an intellect, which intellect is able to comprehend the mind that is "He," the mind/spirit, who is developing in the human body, are higer in the evolutionary process than mankind who is Lord of creatures and the Most High in the creation. Well you just continue to live in your dream world old mate.

No, I don't. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that there is no such thing as "higher" or "lower" in terms of evolution, and that everything that is alive today is just as "evolved" as anything else. You seem to have this strange idea that just because other forms of life aren't as intelligent or evolved "before" us (even though, as I have stated, that is a fallacious statement to make) makes us somehow superior. It does not. We are living things just as much as any other living thing is. There is no inherent superiority in being a human - we just happen to be the most intelligent species on the planet (thus far).