Sunday, 9 February 2014

Missing Links In Our Own Investigative Processes

We seem to have heard about two theories in terms of our origins: Biblical (Biblica, 2011) and evolutionary (Steen, 2001). 

The biblical theory is that we started with Adam and Eve, as we know.

The problems with this theory are obvious and we should not need any explanation to accept that this theory is a joke.

In (Biblica, 2011), we read:

"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

Since it suffices one impossibility for us to prove the implausibility of the whole, we can go for the ribs: Both men and women have the same number of those.

One could argue that Adam had one extra rib, however. This way, his ribs were uneven and then Eve had the same amount he was left with after that one was subtracted. 

In (Biblica, 2011), we also read:

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

We know, from Archaeology, that the plants were on earth when we on it appeared.

The skeptical could now say that perhaps we existed before all that, say in another cycle of earth, and then our race was terminated, but a few individuals survived together with the big animals and so on so forth.

Even though that opposes frontally all evidence that we have (for instance, we have never found a fossilized human body with the age that would be necessary for us to sustain this), it is possible because it would be only a few.

Notwithstanding, all the chances of the skeptical being right are over when we think about plants or flowers not existing before we do. As we know, contemporary evidence is everywhere: Deserts do have plants and flowers at waste and we have absolutely never taken care of those.

We also read, from (Biblica, 2011), the following:

“Cursed are you above all livestock
    and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
    and you will eat dust
    all the days of your life.
 And I will put enmity
    between you and the woman,
    and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
    and you will strike his heel.”

God is almighty. He would not say something to us, not unsay it, and let it be disobeyed. 

There is at least one woman, a very famous one, Luz Del Fuego (Vagalume, 2014), who was super-friends with the snakes.

Still in (Biblica, 2011), we read:

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

The woman’s desire at least a few times goes for someone else, who is not her husband, and that is an obvious reality, so that this is not true either.

God is perfect by definition and would not have been inconsistent in His communications with us. 

Disregarding the religious aspect of this conversation this far, we understand that there is enough scientific evidence to finish with the possibility that this theory be true. For Science, it suffices one exception for us to finish with the all in a theory and if the theory is put forth as a whole, then that suffices to destroy the own theory. 

The evolutionary theory claims that we came from entities that have a lot in common with the monkeys (University of California, 2014).

One of the reasons would be the genetic code. We apparently hold a lot of similarity in terms of genes with the monkeys (National Museum of Natural History, 2010):

There is only about a 1.2 percent genetic difference between modern humans and chimpanzees throughout much of their genetic code.” 

We apparently share at least 96% of genes with the mouse, however (Veeramachaneni et al., p.3, 2004) and it is possible to find studies that point at 96% of sharing between humans and monkeys (Spencer, 2012). 

Considering the historical approach (Brendemuehl, 2014) and the logic involved in the previous inference, that in which we say that we came from the monkeys, we should also believe that we came from the rats (more reinforcement can be found in (Walton, 2002)).

We could not possibly have come from a single species, however, even if we had evolved from the animals.

That because we have a plurality of languages, for instance, and that plurality would be unjustifiable if we had come from fewer species than the number of our languages.

Notice that the animals do not go through any change in their language. Not mattering if we catch a White Bengal in Brazil (say raised there) or in the United States, they both will speak the same language, like the distance will not make them create different sounds or patterns of communication, rather the opposite.

Anderson (2014) seems to think that we have thousands of languages at least.

We recently found out that there is a gene that is responsible for language in human kind (Trivedi, 2001). 

In this case, it can only be that the different capabilities for language, which lead to astonishing thousands of languages, are inherited from our ancestors. 

In this case, we would have to have come from at least thousands of different species because it is an undeniable fact that language has never changed inside of the same animal species. 

This, obviously, if we insist that we have come from the animals.

Bear in mind that, for that to be plausible, we would have to find not one type of monkey-alike creature that generated us, but thousands, as a minimum thing.

That does match our intuition, since we also have different skin colors, eye colors, and so on so forth.

Of course one could argue that we have White Bengals and Sumatrans (different skin patterns and etc.), for instance, and it is all tigers and they all communicate in the same way.

However, that is the point: They all communicate in the same way.

For one reason or another, not mattering how complete our imaginary sequence of monkey-alike creatures is by now, this theory is also implausible. It is just a bit less implausible than the previous one, the biblical theory.

Perhaps not even that is actually true because we do not see any animal being changed into another, especially of a completely different type and a superior one, this during the entire period in which we have been observing them (at least thousands of years). The evolutionary theory might actually be to the same level of joke as the biblical one (rib or dust generates humans).

If we did research as to satisfy the 14th item of PhD topics, perhaps we would end up with a very interesting book, of many pages, describing all possible evolutionary chains. In this case, why not including vegetables as well? We probably had much bigger vegetation back then. 

After organizing this book, we would probably have a lot of insights of the type perhaps we did not evolve, since it looks like the processes are always the same ALSO with the animals and plants. Is it possible that we are the results of the experimentation of an alien race that plays with us and appears in the shape of different gods throughout human history, for instance?

Why such an underlying organization and concomitant disappearance of types of the same size, speaking in proportional terms, for instance?

As another point, it seems that people from the natural sciences could benefit quite a lot from having long discussions with people from Philosophy of Science in order to come up with better, or more plausible, theories. People from Philosophy of Science talk about the Man Friday Fallacy (Man Friday), for instance. A bit of enlargement in the pond where their ideas come from would not hurt. 


Steen, F. F. (2001). Evolutionary Theory. Retrieved February 10 2014 from

Biblica, Inc. (2011). Adam and Eve. Retrieved February 10 2014 from

Vagalume. (2014). Retratos de Nossa Gente. Retrieved February 10 2014 from


University of California. (2014). Prove to me we "Evolved" from Apes! Retrieved February 10 2014 from



National Museum of Natural History. (2010). What does it mean to be human? Retrieved February 10 2014 from



Veeramachaneni, V.,  Makalowski, W., & Galdzicki, M. et al.(2004). Mammalian Overlapping Genes: The Comparative Perspective. Genome Res. V. 14, pp. 280-286.



Spencer, G. (2012). New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level. Retrieved February 10 2014 from



Brendemuehl, C. (2014). On Model Falsification. Retrieved February 10 2014 from



Walton, M. (2002). Mice, men share 99 percent of genes. Retrieved May 15 2014 from



Anderson, S. R. (2014). How Many Languages Are There in the World? Retrieved February 10 2014 from



Trivedi, B. P. (2001). Scientists Identify a Language Gene. Retrieved February 10 2014 from

No comments:

Post a Comment