Has evolution facts destroyed Adam?

[Pegg]

That's not entirely correct, actually it's not correct at all unless the Genesis account refers to Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. All living men are descended from one common ancestor; all living females are descended from one common ancestor. However, both of those ancestors did not live at the same time in the same place. All Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam means is that we are descended in one unbroken line from those two people, but there were other humans alive at the time. They simply did not have lines of descent that survived.

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Y-chromosomal Adam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they still state that we have all come from only one of each though...and that is what Genesis states

I dont believe that their timeline is accurate when they say that thousands of years separate the two. But the point stands that we are all traced to the same mitochondrial and y chromosome of the one man and woman.

 

[Musty]

When some ppl say" god created Adam with nuts own hand"..
Some questions arise:

1. How old was Adam when born?
2. Does this literal interpretation means god has hands?
3. My understanding, please correct if I am wrong here. But Adam was created before eve? Why man before a woman? What does evolution say about this.. Was the first human being ever created was a man or woman.. I guess we don't know, correct.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

There are some questions which can't be answered because they ask about things which aren't real or alternatively may be real but we lack the means to sufficiently test them.

In the case of Adam (And Eve) I'd put these in the 'not real' category.

 

[Iti oj]

I think that you can't have both, so either one story is correct or the other is. To me, it seems obvious that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical.

thats what a catholic priest told me

 

[fantome profane]

they still state that we have all come from only one of each though...and that is what Genesis states

I dont believe that their timeline is accurate when they say that thousands of years separate the two. But the point stands that we are all traced to the same mitochondrial and y chromosome of the one man and woman.

Oh that is fun!

First you tout the science as supporting your beliefs and then you casually dismiss it when it doesn't.

Why even mention mitochondrial eve or Y chromosome adam when you obviously don't understand the science.

And be honest, you really don't care about the science do you Pegg?

 

[McBell]

Many scientists reject the ToE outright, or seriously question it's supposed mechanisms, such as so-called "natural selection". So, IMO, the answer is a resounding No!

your bold faced lies are getting boring.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Many scientists reject the ToE outright, or seriously question it's supposed mechanisms, such as so-called "natural selection". So, IMO, the answer is a resounding No!

And those scientists generally don't work in any field related to evolution.

99,9% of all the scientists in the relevant fields believe in evolution. There are more scientists in the relevant fields named Steve than there are scientists in those fields that reject evolution.

 

[Jainarayan]

they still state that we have all come from only one of each though...and that is what Genesis states

I dont believe that their timeline is accurate when they say that thousands of years separate the two. But the point stands that we are all traced to the same mitochondrial and y chromosome of the one man and woman.

I love it when people on the internet purport to know more than professional geneticists or other scientists when testable and provable science contradicts unprovable folk tales from oral traditions thousands of years removed from the present. If you read the articles and references they state that there were more than two people alive at the time. Reread the articles.

 

[rusra02]

Many scientists reject the ToE outright, or seriously question it's supposed mechanisms, such as so-called "natural selection". So, IMO, the answer is a resounding No!

your bold faced lies are getting boring.

If i'M lying, it should be easy to prove. Making baseless accusations reveals your character, and the portrait is not flattering.

 

[rusra02]

And those scientists generally don't work in any field related to evolution.

99,9% of all the scientists in the relevant fields believe in evolution. There are more scientists in the relevant fields named Steve than there are scientists in those fields that reject evolution.

And your information comes from where?

 

[loverOfTruth]

Hi All

As a sikh I don't believe in Adam, there is only one reference of Adam in sikh scriptures but only as a reference point. But I know a lot of other religions have the belief that god created Adam with its own hand and that he was the first human being ever.

This belief certainly doesn't go with evolution and the evidence is so strong for evolution that u simply can't reject it. Where does this leave the beliefs and how do they contradict with evolution?

I read a lot and watched some debates regarding this and everytime evolution comes on top. Keep religious beliefs aside, do u think that science has destroyed
So called image of Adam ?

Really ?

As Hamza Andreas Tzortzis points out in his response to The God Delusion :
"The odds against assembling the human genome spontaneously are incalculable. The probability of assembling the genome is between 4-180 to 4-110,000 and 4-360 to 4-110,000. These numbers give some feel for the unlikelihood of the species Homo sapiens. And if anyone were to accept evolution by chance, they would have to believe in a miracle as these numbers are so high! Therefore evolution itself would prove the existence of God!"
From: A Response to The God Delusion

==========================

"Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal is a well known expert with an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book ‘Evolution’, he responded:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...... As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

...

"Evolutionists can only postulate transition fossils, but with no certainty, and no evidence. Misleading reconstructions are assembled on the basis of fragments. There is no string of transitional fossils for any single assumed macroevolutionary event. Moreover ‘living fossils’ are all around us. 3.4 billion year old algae and bacterial fossils are identical to present forms. 500 million year old (myo) crustaceans, 450 myo scorpions, 450 myo crabs, 350 myo ferns, and countless other fossils are all identical to present forms. Species were created in stages by an omnipotent creator, and introduced at the perfect time when Allah had optimized the conditions for them. Every created organism established the correct balance for the next creation over long periods of time within a delicate ecosystem."

From: Evolution vs Islam
This article offers a very detailed analysis refuting evolution.

==========================

"These claims, totally contradicting all the rules of genetics, biophysics, and biochemistry are as scientific as fairy-tales of frogs turning into princes!"

From: THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

So to answer your question, no Evolution hasn't destroyed Adam one bit - just deceived some people into believing so.
Peace.

 

[Jainarayan]

The human genome did not pop out of thin air. It is the culmination of almost 4 billion years or random genetic changes. Evolution has no plan or goal. Homo Sapiens exists because of those very chances. To suggest otherwise is to slyly insert ID or Creationism.

 

[F0uad]

Before religion is going to discuss evolution, people first have to make up there mind what evolution really is and tell us what ''verifiable evidence'' they have for human evolution in possession before making this claim.

 

[loverOfTruth]

The human genome did not pop out of thin air. It is the culmination of almost 4 billion years or random genetic changes. Evolution has no plan or goal. Homo Sapiens exists because of those very chances. To suggest otherwise is to slyly insert ID or Creationism.

And the self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago popped out of thin air ?

By the way, I thought my response from the first quote till the end was OPENLY refuting Evolution and supporting Creationism/ID - no hidden/secret activity there.

 

[Ouroboros]

the mapping of the human genome is in agreement with the genesis account that all humans have descended from one man and one woman.

Yes, and that that man and woman lived about 50-70,000 years apart, and that they came from many men and women before them too. Basically, the genetic Adam and Eve are bottlenecks in our lineage, nothing else, and not the origin as in the first ones. But I'm sure you knew this.

 

[Ouroboros]

As Hamza Andreas Tzortzis points out in his response to The God Delusion :
"The odds against assembling the human genome spontaneously are incalculable.

Uhm... Evolution does not--repeat does not--claim that the human genome was spontaneously assembled. Perhaps that's why it's so hard to make people understand how evolution works when these misconceptions still float around out there.

 

[Ouroboros]

And the self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago popped out of thin air ?

Crystals are examples of self-replicating systems based only on non-organic molecules. There are some examples of fat "bubble" replicating themselves too (but I can't find the article right now). So did it pop out of thin air? No. It was there all along. The potential for organic life, replication, mutation, and even the emergence of mind, was there in Reality from the beginning, unfolded in the very fabric of nature.

 

[allright]

Hi All

As a sikh I don't believe in Adam, there is only one reference of Adam in sikh scriptures but only as a reference point. But I know a lot of other religions have the belief that god created Adam with its own hand and that he was the first human being ever.

This belief certainly doesn't go with evolution and the evidence is so strong for evolution that u simply can't reject it. Where does this leave the beliefs and how do they contradict with evolution?

I read a lot and watched some debates regarding this and everytime evolution comes on top. Keep religious beliefs aside, do u think that science has destroyed
So called image of Adam ?

God didnt need evolution to create the angels, why does he have to use evolution to create a human.

As John the Baptist said "God can raise up children of Abraham from these stones"

The whole Old and New Testaments are God performing miracles which violate the
laws of science

 

[Ouroboros]

Before religion is going to discuss evolution, people first have to make up there mind what evolution really is and tell us what ''verifiable evidence'' they have for human evolution in possession before making this claim.

The evidence for Human evolution at Smithsonian: Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[Ouroboros]

God didnt need evolution to create the angels, why does he have to use evolution to create a human.

How do you know he didn't? Maybe God did use evolution to create angels too. How can you be so certain?

As John the Baptist said "God can raise up children of Abraham from these stones"

Stones are inorganic material, so why can't organic material come from inorganic material when it obviously does and obviously the Bible says it's possible for God to do? What kind of magic pixie dust is there in human bodies that are not real particles, atoms, molecules, and physical elements (excluding mind here, just think of body and soul)? What about animals? What is making them animated? Does God create each and every human and animal baby outside of the natural order of physical existence (excluding any spirit or such)? If you cut your arm, what does your blood consist of? Spirit goo or physical matter?

The whole Old and New Testaments are God performing miracles which violate the
laws of science

So then why is the miracle of Evolution beyond God's potential and power?

To me it sure sounds like God can't create Nature with the potential of Evolution. It's above his pay grade. It's not a miracle if he'd done that. He created Nature, but only to the degree of the understanding and intelligence of the believers, beyond that, that's too hard for him to do. What a weak God that is.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Crystals are examples of self-replicating systems based only on non-organic molecules. There are some examples of fat "bubble" replicating themselves too (but I can't find the article right now). So did it pop out of thin air? No. It was there all along. The potential for organic life, replication, mutation, and even the emergence of mind, was there in Reality from the beginning, unfolded in the very fabric of nature.

Nonsense without any evidence.