• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Can Theory of Probability be applied to Biology?

joinfree

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2016
1,009
191
88
EU
✟36,708.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
many people ask, ``if a man is descended from monkeys, then why aren't today's monkeys turning into humans?''

I heard the official answer like in a fairy tale: ``a long time ago a small group (separated from a herd of monkeys) found hallucinogenic mushrooms (or fermented berries) in the forest; and start drunk walk on hind legs and began to develop science being drunk.''

According to references to peer-reviewed sources (links are on Wikipedia), all living humanity has a common ancestor in the direct male line (Y-Chromosomal Adam), and a common ancestor in direct female line (Mitochondrial Eve).

But scientists say that most likely these two did not have sex with each other, but lived in different centuries and other people lived next to them. However, if Y-Chromosomal Adam lived long before Mitochondrial Eve, then nevertheless Mitochondrial Eve's grand-grand-grand-grandmother (called ``Eve Original'' by the way) on direct female line has lived at the same time as Adam. Assume now that people and human-producing monkeys lived around Adam and Eve Original. Suppose there were 100 of these kindred relatives. Every man in 2019AC can trace his direct male line to one of these 100 creatures. Then the probability that the entire population of the Earth in 2019 has a common father in the male line tends to zero (1/100)^{7,000,000,000 / 2} = 0. And therefore the number was not the 100, but the 1. Indeed (1/1)^{7,000,000,000 / 2} = 1.

This and much more (Ethics and Morality) in the file:
 

Attachments

  • EvolveLoveFriend.pdf
    162.6 KB · Views: 114
Last edited:

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,234
10,128
✟284,188.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
It is apparent that very few of his words do. I suspect we are dealing with a troll of modest intellect. If he is not a troll, is actually serious, I'd have to downgrade my intellect estimate. I recommend a diet of non-response. You know the old saw: "Feed an intellectual discussion with well researched commentary and thoughtful questions; starve a troll by silence or laughter. "
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,818
7,835
65
Massachusetts
✟390,983.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Science, dude. :)
Just in case anyone cares about the real scientific answer, the expected time (in generations) to Y-Adam is (effective population size)/2, in the approximation of a constant population size. Humans have an effective size of ~15,000 and a generation time of ~29 years, so the expected time to Y-Adam is a little over 200,000 years. That's the mean, though, and the variance is very large.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
many people ask, ``if a man is descended from monkeys, then why aren't today's monkeys turning into humans?''

Adam (man) was made before ANY other creature and BEFORE plants, herbs and Trees. Genesis 2:4-9 This makes it IMPOSSIBLE that Humans could have possibly evolved from creatures which were NOT made until the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21
 
Upvote 0

joinfree

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2016
1,009
191
88
EU
✟36,708.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Just in case anyone cares about the real scientific answer, the expected time (in generations) to Y-Adam is (effective population size)/2, in the approximation of a constant population size. Humans have an effective size of ~15,000 and a generation time of ~29 years, so the expected time to Y-Adam is a little over 200,000 years. That's the mean, though, and the variance is very large.
Due to alternative formulas Adam and Eve lived about 7500 years ago.
Carl Wieland, ``A shrinking date for `Eve''', Journal of Creation {12}(1): 1--3, April 1998,
A shrinking date for 'Eve' - creation.com

Quote:

Evolutionists have guessed at when their mitochondrial Eve lived via the idea of the ‘molecular clock’—i.e., that there is a more or less fixed rate of mutational substitutions per year in any population. How do they know what this rate is—in other words, how is the ‘molecular clock’ calibrated? By using evolutionary assumptions about the timing of events based on their interpretation of the fossil record. For example, if it is believed that humans and baboons, for example, last shared a common ancestor ‘x’ years ago, and if the number of differences between baboon and human mtDNA is y, then the substitution rate per year is y/x. In this way, estimates of when ‘Eve’ lived have varied from as low as 70,000 to 800,000 years ago, more commonly in the range 200-250,000 years.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,471
4,010
47
✟1,117,560.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Due to alternative formulas Adam and Eve lived about 7500 years ago.
Carl Wieland, ``A shrinking date for `Eve''', Journal of Creation {12}(1): 1--3, April 1998,
A shrinking date for 'Eve' - creation.com

Quote:

Evolutionists have guessed at when their mitochondrial Eve lived via the idea of the ‘molecular clock’—i.e., that there is a more or less fixed rate of mutational substitutions per year in any population. How do they know what this rate is—in other words, how is the ‘molecular clock’ calibrated? By using evolutionary assumptions about the timing of events based on their interpretation of the fossil record. For example, if it is believed that humans and baboons, for example, last shared a common ancestor ‘x’ years ago, and if the number of differences between baboon and human mtDNA is y, then the substitution rate per year is y/x. In this way, estimates of when ‘Eve’ lived have varied from as low as 70,000 to 800,000 years ago, more commonly in the range 200-250,000 years.
Ah, the creationist definition of "assumptions", that is, a conclusion from multiple strains of evidence.

It's dishonest to diminish evidence that way.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

joinfree

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2016
1,009
191
88
EU
✟36,708.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ah, the creationist definition of "assumptions", that is, a conclusion from multiple strains of evidence.

It's dishonest to diminish evidence that way.
According to Thomas Aquinas [Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 3] God is Love and Love is God, God is Absolute Truth and Absolute Truth is God, God is Justice and Justice is God. God is name "God" and name "God" is God. Do you like the Absolute Truth, knowing, that it is God?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
According to Thomas Aquinas [Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 3] God is Love and Love is God, God is Absolute Truth and Absolute Truth is God, God is Justice and Justice is God. God is name "God" and name "God" is God. Do you like the Absolute Truth, knowing, that it is God?
Tsk... Who let Aquinas into the beer store again?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,471
4,010
47
✟1,117,560.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
According to Thomas Aquinas [Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 3] God is Love and Love is God, God is Absolute Truth and Absolute Truth is God, God is Justice and Justice is God. God is name "God" and name "God" is God. Do you like the Absolute Truth, knowing, that it is God?
That's one definition. It's not very useful if you aren't convinced that God exists.

Personally I think truth is very important, but when you falsely accuse people of believing in one thing or another, you are living a lie and that is repugnant.

He is an authority.
Why?

Because you agree with his conclusions?
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker
FACTS:
1. I have a little bit of authority. Tiny-Tiny-Tiny-bit.
2. Thomas has more authority, than I.
Conclusion: Thomas has authority.
jesus_facepalm.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,471
4,010
47
✟1,117,560.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
FACTS:
1. I have a little bit of authority. Tiny-Tiny-Tiny-bit.
2. Thomas has more authority, than I.
Conclusion: Thomas has authority.
But why though?

I've seen no reason to accept you as an authority at all. Plus you haven't described why we should accept Thomas as an authority aside you and many other Christians agreeing with him.

If he's a great philosopher with convincing arguments, you can present them... but just demanding we agree with him of meaningless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

joinfree

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2016
1,009
191
88
EU
✟36,708.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
But why though?

I've seen no reason to accept you as an authority at all. Plus you haven't described why we should accept Thomas as an authority aside you and many other Christians agreeing with him.

If he's a great philosopher with convincing arguments, you can present them... but just demanding we agree with him of meaningless.
Authority is the possibility to trust. You do not trust me at all? Presumption of Guilt then?
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,471
4,010
47
✟1,117,560.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Authority is the possibility to trust. You do not trust me at all? Presumption of Guilt then?
I don't trust you as an authority because you repeat things that are false then seem to even understand why.

Trust is earned, and you've given me no reason to trust Thomas Aquinas. My only knowledge of him is that he's a famous Christian theologian and he has some not very use full, in my opinion, definitions of goodness and morality.
 
Upvote 0