Are Adam and Eve Incompatible with Evolution?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am talking about claims that have been verified. Claims about knowing what is going on in the room or another room while unconscious.
The evidence piles up is what you should be saying.

A person making a claim and then someone else repeating the claim or claiming the first person isn't lying, is not the equivalent of "verifying" a claim.

This is like tarrot card readers making claims about their "abilities" and then customers saying that the readings were accurate. But when actually put to the test, it fails. Every single time.

Show me the proper studies in controlled environments.
Anecdotes are not enough.

What I said stands

It doesn't and I have just explained to you why it doesn't.

All we know is that life can come from other life. Beyond that is hypothesis.

Yes. But this is quite different from what you said earlier, isn't it? You know have omitted the word "only", which completely changes the statement. Now, it no longer rules out the possibility that life in fact can come from non-life.

You talk about a difference between science and religion while at the same time it is you who is pretending to know the answer before the research is done.

No.
The very fact that abiogenesis research is ongoing, shows that nobody is pretending to know the answer. Quite the opposite: ongoing research is an acknowledgement that we do NOT know the answer and that more work needs to be done to find out.

You speak about falsifiable claims when the claim about life coming from chemistry and the laws of physics is not falsifiable.

That's not a claim.
Life IS chemistry and physics. So when trying to find out how life could come about, it would necessarily have to be a study in the field of chemistry and physics.

A chemical process is the most likely candidate.
Chemistry exists and life is chemical. What else would you suggest as the field of inquiry?

Trying to turn chemicals into a living thing could go on for 20000 years with no luck and yet the claim would not be falsified.

Again, the field of study is not the claim.

[qutoe]
The claim is the presumption that life did not come from God.[/quote]

No, there is no such presumption.
The actual presumption is that we only investigate those things that have a shred of evidence.
This is why "god" is not a variable in ANY scientific theory or hypothesis. Why should abiogenesis be any different?

I don't mind going beyond the science at this point because of my faith but you would deny that is what you are doing even when you claim to know the answer even now.

I'm not claiming to know the answer. Your strawmen and misrepresentations notwithstanding...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think it needs to be remembered that science and philosophy ignore the evidences for a God.

There is nothing there to ignore.

Science has no way to address them

Because there is nothing there.

and philosophy is really seems to be just thinking and ignoring evidence.

Agree there. Philosophy is quite useless when applied in such a way.

As Krauss once said: Philosophy is great at coming up with questions. Science is great at answering them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No I don't know why and don't think that "perfect" would apply if that was the case.

You have yet to explain what you mean with "perfect" in terms of "perfect genome".

Genetically, it is pointless.

 

[wellwisher]

Apparently some immunologist has recently published a book arguing that evolution and the Christian belief that all humans descended from Adam and Eve are not incompatible.

Christians point to genetics breakthroughs to show Adam and Eve are not incompatible with evolution

From what I gleaned in the article, the idea is that humans descended from earlier hominids but then God also magically created Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago, and their kids Cain and Abel intermarried with other humans who had evolved naturally. So by 1CE, all living humans had some of traceable lineage back to Adam and Eve.

Personally I think this sounds like a desperate attempt to salvage a literal reading of Genesis. But I'm curious what you think? Especially those of you with more knowledge of evolution, biology, genetics, etc.

A best way to understand Adam and Eve being the first "modern" humans is to think outside the genetic box. For example, if we compare wolves to domesticated dogs, both have canine DNA and both can interbreed. However, these two types of dogs differ significantly by their dispositions; brain's operating systems. Domestic dogs, which descended from wolves, were created as much by human selection as by natural selection; nurture and nature. Wolves were only created by natural selection. Adam and Eve were not only a function of human DNA, but also a function of an external nurture that help them to transcend their consciousness; new type of domesticated human.

Another example is all humans on earth have human DNA. From this DNA we all share human nature which characterizes us as a species. But not all humans live in first world countries and have all the extras choices and advantages that that entails. This is not due to human DNA, but it is due to changes in consciousness induced by cultural training. The first world countries, in turn, lead the rest forward. It is not just about natural selection and DNA.

According to science written language was invented about 6000 years ago. This key invention had a very significant impact on the human brain and human consciousness. It created a domesticated affect in the natural humans that were around at that time. Adam was made from the dust of the earth; stone dust from writing on stone tablets. Adam had a connection to this invention. In the beginning was the word and word was God; first written word.

To understand the significance of written language consider going to school with no written language. There are no books and no note taking for review. One has to depend only on spoken language, memory and consensus of memory to reinforce the lessons. Lessons will not last as memory forward integrates and memories change and fade. Humans would return to natural even after major changes in technology and lifestyle.

Science can show that civilization was attempted many times, over several thousand years, before the first successful civilization. These were all aborted since they occurred before written language. Once the founding fathers of these early civilization died, the spoken memories faded as did the skills needed to sustain. Once written language appears about 6000 year ago, the creative ideas, needed to form and sustain civilization, had a means to remain; carved in stone. In tradition, Adam was good at math and science. While his using the new invention of written language, allowed needed technology to stick and perpetuate.

According to the bible the fall from paradise was not due to written language, per se, but due to an application of this revolutionary new invention, that was not intended; write down knowledge of good and evil. Once law or knowledge of good and evil was written down, one could not rely on natural memory to cherry pick, forget and evolve. Rather repressive law, carved in stone, could be made to linger way beyond its usefulness. The result was repression of natural instinct in favor of a new form of adaptation connected to civilization; domesticated human animal. Modern humans have little clue of what natural human is; inner wolf, since it was repressed by written law so long ago. We have choice and will apart from those natural impulses.

In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain was the tiller of soil and Abel was a herder of animals. When Cain kills Abel, this symbolized that farming supersedes migratory herding. Humans altered their natural migratory ways of thousand of years, in favor of the artificial ways of civilization.

 

[Audie]

No.

Well, there's stars, water, land..you know, the big stuff.

 

[Audie]

A best way to understand Adam and Eve being the first "modern" humans is to think outside the genetic box. For example, if we compare wolves to domesticated dogs, both have canine DNA and both can interbreed. However, these two types of dogs differ significantly by their dispositions; brain's operating systems. Domestic dogs, which descended from wolves, were created as much by human selection as by natural selection; nurture and nature. Wolves were only created by natural selection. Adam and Eve were not only a function of human DNA, but also a function of an external nurture that help them to transcend their consciousness; new type of domesticated human.

Another example is all humans on earth have human DNA. From this DNA we all share human nature which characterizes us as a species. But not all humans live in first world countries and have all the extras choices and advantages that that entails. This is not due to human DNA, but it is due to changes in consciousness induced by cultural training. The first world countries, in turn, lead the rest forward. It is not just about natural selection and DNA.

According to science written language was invented about 6000 years ago. This key invention had a very significant impact on the human brain and human consciousness. It created a domesticated affect in the natural humans that were around at that time. Adam was made from the dust of the earth; stone dust from writing on stone tablets. Adam had a connection to this invention. In the beginning was the word and word was God; first written word.

To understand the significance of written language consider going to school with no written language. There are no books and no note taking for review. One has to depend only on spoken language, memory and consensus of memory to reinforce the lessons. Lessons will not last as memory forward integrates and memories change and fade. Humans would return to natural even after major changes in technology and lifestyle.

Science can show that civilization was attempted many times, over several thousand years, before the first successful civilization. These were all aborted since they occurred before written language. Once the founding fathers of these early civilization died, the spoken memories faded as did the skills needed to sustain. Once written language appears about 6000 year ago, the creative ideas, needed to form and sustain civilization, had a means to remain; carved in stone. In tradition, Adam was good at math and science. While his using the new invention of written language, allowed needed technology to stick and perpetuate.

According to the bible the fall from paradise was not due to written language, per se, but due to an application of this revolutionary new invention, that was not intended; write down knowledge of good and evil. Once law or knowledge of good and evil was written down, one could not rely on natural memory to cherry pick, forget and evolve. Rather repressive law, carved in stone, could be made to linger way beyond its usefulness. The result was repression of natural instinct in favor of a new form of adaptation connected to civilization; domesticated human animal. Modern humans have little clue of what natural human is; inner wolf, since it was repressed by written law so long ago. We have choice and will apart from those natural impulses.

In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain was the tiller of soil and Abel was a herder of animals. When Cain kills Abel, this symbolized that farming supersedes migratory herding. Humans altered their natural migratory ways of thousand of years, in favor of the artificial ways of civilization.

That sounds like a way bigger stretch.

 

[Brian2]

Again, I did not say anything about day being 24 hours, but it does say the “light” (daylight) being “day” and “darkness” being “night” in verse 4, follow by “evening and morning” making up a single “day” - “the first day” - in the same verse (5).



Then it would follow by 5 more, repeating the same “And there was evening and there was morning...” in successive days.

For you to say it isn’t a day, is you just twisting the verse to mean any unknown day.

As I keep telling you, the Hebrew yom isn’t an unknown period of time, because this part “And there was evening and there was morning...” always provide the context as to what yom mean: and in these cases, yom is equated as a “day”.

To try change what it mean, is you being dishonest with your interpretations.

The silly thing when it Genesis being direct with wordings, you take metaphorically. You don’t know how to read your own bible.

Although, I don’t agree with Genesis 1 being science or being history, at least I understand what Genesis 1 without dishonestly twisting what these verses say.

You do the exact opposite, you believe that god created everything but you don’t know how to read and understand these verses. That’s because you have twisted what the verses out of proportions.

They are 6 creation days.
And do you say that the days are consecutive,,,,,,,,,,,,no gaps between them?

 

[Brian2]

What is a "perfect genome"?

Your statement here reveals deep ignorance on how genetics work and what exactly the problem is with incest.

Hint: the problem is lack of genetic variation. If you have a population of 100 billion clones, you'ld have the same problem. No matter how "perfect" the genome is (whatever "perfect" means here)

I don't know much about genetics but I know that Adam and Eve could be very different in their genomes and that their children would not all be the same genetically.
And if there were no errors in the genomes there would be none to pass on.

 

[Audie]

I don't know much about genetics but I know that Adam and Eve could be very different in their genomes and that their children would not all be the same genetically.
And if there were no errors in the genomes there would be none to pass on.

Since you know next to zero about genetics it may be best not to be explaining it to others.
Even if your " perfect" actually is somehow real-

Your " and if" is incorrect, you just made that up.

 

[Brian2]

No, Brian, you just don’t understand science, period!

And if you cannot understand the science, how do you expect to understand the evidence that debunked your verses?

The thing is, Brian, there are already evidence there that disagree with what Genesis claimed, but you refuse to “what is”.

Although this verse is about not judging others, unless you want to be judged yourself, I think this teaching would still apply to you, when Jesus said this:

​

You don’t have wisdom to judge what the scientific evidence are, and you don’t have wisdom to judge what Genesis 1 mean or to see where the verses are wrong, scientifically, because you have log that in your own eye.

You would have to be more precise in what you are saying I don't understand.

 

[Brian2]

You are assumimg the anecdotes reflect actual events.
I say that the evidence that they do is absent.

Dont put your fault onto me.

Your double negatives and garbled prose
cannot be directly addressed.

Are you admitting you are wrong about
knowing life can only come from preexisting life,
or denying it?

What I am saying is that the only truth about where life can come from is "from pre existing life".
Given this, it is interesting that people want to believe the hypothesis, that the first life came from dead chemicals.

 

[Brian2]

Ah so you assume by means of a miracle, then, rather than naturally. Well if that were the case then no doubt God could also stop any defects from appearing, so all bets would be off, no science would be applicable and we could all stop researching anything.

I would assume an initial human made without physical defects. Or more importantly I am saying that this possibility would help eliminate problems due to inbreeding for a while.

 

[Audie]

What I am saying is that the only truth about where life can come from is "from pre existing life".
Given this, it is interesting that people want to believe the hypothesis, that the first life came from dead chemicals.

We know what you are saying, including the inevitable creationist thing about " dead chemicals".
As distinct from, you know, live ones.

We are also familiar with creationist notions about their possession of " the only truth".

The so called law of biogenesis is based off pasteurs work shoeing old rags dod not generate mice.
All he did was show that under the exact conditions of his experiments he failed to produce mice

Now, its unarguable that there are no known examples of life spontaneously arising from other than pre existing life.

We get that. You can stop pointing it out.

" no known example" is absolutely NOT proof
of impossible.

"Want to believe" has nothing to do with science.
Its anathema to science, and is btw typical of religious thought.

If you have a prob with whoever these wantrs are, go find one and have it out with them.

Or, if you have a prob with basic research
In organic chemistry or any other area, dont mix it up with what you think dimwit dweebs might
want.

 

[Brian2]

That’s depending on each individual person.

The problems with anecdotes are that people have the potentials to be truthful or dishonest, accurate or inaccurate, rational or irrational, educated or uneducated, biased or unbiased, etc.

If there are evidence, then you would have to compare them against each person’s anecdote, to find out which of the above would apply to person and the person’s anecdote.

The thing is, by themselves - as in if there are no evidence - then the anecdotes are claims that we have no ways who is telling the truth. Especially if the anecdotes fall under the supernatural or paranormal, then it is more likely these people are either lying or are irrational, or being delusional or seeking attentions or any other possibilities.

This is why anecdotes are sometimes unreliable and cannot be trusted.

I don't see why it is more likely that the people are lying or are irrational or being delusional or seeking attention etc. I am talking about stories that have been verified.
World's largest near death experiences study | University of Southampton

 

[Audie]

I would assume an initial human made without physical defects. Or more importantly I am saying that this possibility would help eliminate problems due to inbreeding for a while.

That is only one source of genetic problems

 

[Brian2]

Do you not know how Downs occurs?

" perfection" is a weird thing to try to apply to genetics.

"Perfect" would simply mean 'no accumulated faults'.
I looked up something on Downs Syndrome and cannot see how it would be more prevalent in Adam and Eve.

 

[Audie]

"Perfect" would simply mean 'no accumulated faults'.
I looked up something on Downs Syndrome and cannot see how it would be more prevalent in Adam and Eve.

I said zero about it being " more prevalent"

IF you understood what you read you would
understand that its a replication error, and know why the dna of the parents has zero to do
with whether it occurs.

 

[gnostic]

They are 6 creation days.
And do you say that the days are consecutive,,,,,,,,,,,,no gaps between them?

Genesis isn’t a science treatise, nor a historical treatise.

It is verse-based literature, where the author or authors have no real understanding about nature, so they wrote Genesis creation as they are.

Although, one can interpret what Genesis 1 say as literal or as an allegory (hence symbolic or metaphoric), but you are not doing that.

You are trying to rewrite Genesis to suit your own agenda, twisting the passages to what it isn’t saying.

Look, Brian, I may no longer believe the Bible like I used to believe in them, but I am not the one trying to remake Genesis to some things they are not saying.

Genesis says what it say, about what it say about the creation, good or bad, right or wrong, I may agree with it or I may not - what I am not going to do is to change what shouldn’t be changed.

So since it is written the way it is, then that’s how Genesis is.

So if that how it is written, then it is six consecutive days.

To say otherwise, then you are not dealing with the way the you believe it to be, hence you’re not being honest with bible, nor you are being honest with yourself. .

 

[Brian2]

No, that's what Genesis 2 say:

No, Genesis 2 has God there as the pre existing life, passing it to Adam.

Dusts are waste, dead particles, hence non-living matters.

But since this verse seem take the place on the ground, perhaps the "dust" can be interpreted as "soil".

But even then soil are made of inorganic minerals from rocks, and there are 3 main types of soils: clay, silt and sandy soil.

These rock minerals are made of silicon, and there are many different types of minerals, more specifically silica or silicates, like quartz, feldspar or mica.

Sandy soil are more grainy, silt less granular and clay are more finely-grained. These minerals exist, because of rock being weathered, that break down rocks, into smaller pieces, possibly as the results of rain, running streams, ice (eg glaciers), winds, etc.

And these soil by themselves don't have organic materials unless some organisms (eg bacteria, plants, fungi, animals, etc) have died and decomposed, and with animals, possibly from urine, feces, skin shedding, scales or hair falling off, etc.

But, Genesis 2:7 doesn't say soil, just dust.

It is not my claim that dust transformed into man (Adam), but Genesis 2:7.

Do you believe that God made Adam from "dust of the ground"?

What I believe is that God formed the body of man mainly from evolution and yes the body comes from the ground, the elements and returns there when we die.

 

[Brian2]

No.

Science agrees with much of the creation story imo.