Today, I read an article entitled: We're All Mutants: The Average Human Has 60 Genetic Mutations. Now, if 60 mutations sounds like a lot realize that scientists were actually expecting to see 100-200 genetic mutations in each generation. The article went on to say that this has forced scientists to revise their estimations on human evolution.
That article got me thinking about the math behind evolution, and whether or not math really supports the theory of human evolution at all. Then I wondered just how many people would it take, based on every ancestor of mine having two different parents, to come up with one me. I used a generation gap of roughly 21 years to make my prediction which gives me an estimate of 96 generations from the year 1975 until the year 1 AD. In order to make one me, there would need to have been 19,807,040,628,566,100,000,000,000,000 people living on planet earth (hint - that's way more than a trillion so anyone who is worried about overpopulation just contemplate that for a moment). We know that there were not that many people living on planet earth during the year 1 a.d. In fact, it is estimated that the world population in 1 AD was roughly 300 million people. 300 million is 19,342,813,113,834,100,000,000,000 less people than would be necessary to make one me IF every ancestor had a unique set of parents. This ignores, of course, natural population reduction that occurs with famines, floods, or plagues. What's interesting is that in 1250 AD, it is estimated there were 400 million people living on planet earth. Math tells me there should have been no fewer than 34.36 billion people as that is the number of ancestors I should have had. In fact, the only year in which there is an estimate of more people on planet earth than I should have had ancestors wandering about is in the year 1500, where there was an estimated population of 500 million people, and I had 4.19 million ancestors walking about.
If every generation inherits 60 mutations, then in that 96 generations from me to my ancestor living in 1 AD there I should be carrying approximately 5,760 genetic mutations from the original ancestor. Given that there are only 20-25,000 genes in the human genome that means that my genes would need to vary by 20-25% from a person living in 1 ad. That's a shocking amount of variation, and just isn't supported in the science. In fact, most humans vary by only about 1 or 2% of genes from one another.
I do not have a degree in science or in math. I have had three classes in biology and six in higher mathematics. This does not make me an expert. I'm sure there are people more qualified than I to explore this topic, but if someone as simple as I can poke such a very large hole in the theory of evolution using a simple mathematical calculation, one has to wonder why it is a theory at all? Why is it being pushed as fact when the "facts" very literally don't add up?
That article got me thinking about the math behind evolution, and whether or not math really supports the theory of human evolution at all. Then I wondered just how many people would it take, based on every ancestor of mine having two different parents, to come up with one me. I used a generation gap of roughly 21 years to make my prediction which gives me an estimate of 96 generations from the year 1975 until the year 1 AD. In order to make one me, there would need to have been 19,807,040,628,566,100,000,000,000,000 people living on planet earth (hint - that's way more than a trillion so anyone who is worried about overpopulation just contemplate that for a moment). We know that there were not that many people living on planet earth during the year 1 a.d. In fact, it is estimated that the world population in 1 AD was roughly 300 million people. 300 million is 19,342,813,113,834,100,000,000,000 less people than would be necessary to make one me IF every ancestor had a unique set of parents. This ignores, of course, natural population reduction that occurs with famines, floods, or plagues. What's interesting is that in 1250 AD, it is estimated there were 400 million people living on planet earth. Math tells me there should have been no fewer than 34.36 billion people as that is the number of ancestors I should have had. In fact, the only year in which there is an estimate of more people on planet earth than I should have had ancestors wandering about is in the year 1500, where there was an estimated population of 500 million people, and I had 4.19 million ancestors walking about.
I do not have a degree in science or in math. I have had three classes in biology and six in higher mathematics. This does not make me an expert. I'm sure there are people more qualified than I to explore this topic, but if someone as simple as I can poke such a very large hole in the theory of evolution using a simple mathematical calculation, one has to wonder why it is a theory at all? Why is it being pushed as fact when the "facts" very literally don't add up?
Thank you for taking the time to read my blog post. I'm just sorry it took me so long to respond, hopefully it'll be worth the wait.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church's official position on this is that it IS possible God used evolution as a vehicle for creating mankind - since God is capable of doing anything there's no need for us to put artificial limits on how He worked to create us - but IF humans evolved, it was through God's careful guidance and is no mere accident as some would assert.
Personally, I think the arguments for evolution ring a little hollow. Yes, we know it takes place on a microcosmic level - you and I don't look identical to our parents, and my son does not look identical to me. This is microevolution at work. Dogs are another example of microevolution - we know that they are variations of the basic wolf template. However, macroevolution is not proven. Macroevolution is the change of one species into a different species. Dogs and wolves are technically not different species since the offspring they produce is able to reproduce. Horses and donkeys are different species, since their offspring is sterile.
To take a look at all of the species that exist and claim that the similarities in structure and genetic composition mean that one evolved from another is kind of like taking a look at paintings all created by the same artist, noticing the same brush strokes, stroke weights, and paints are used in each and saying that one painting evolved from another. It's not a foregone conclusion, not even a really logical conclusion. The more logical conclusion is that these similarities actually point back to a common creator.
Those are my thoughts. :)