How does the story of Adam and Eve compatible with science?

[exchemist]

Where it is said man is created before animals? I don't think Bible tells so, if you read it accurately.

Come on, stop playing games. You explain to me why, in your view, it does not say man was created, and then the animals were created so he would not be alone.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I can understand the idea how it would happen.

Then why make such ignorant statements concerning "the first human", if you supposedly understand that it happens gradually and that there is no "first" in gradualism?

The problem is, there is no good reason to believe all species developed in that way

Yes there is.
And that reason is simply how DNA works in context of reproduction. You inherit it from your parents for 99.9999% and then add 0.0001% "new stuff" through mutations.
Those mutations in turn are inherited by your off spring, which also adds 0.0001% "new stuff" through their mutations. And so on.

So each generation is 0.0001% different from the previous one and that difference accumulates over generations.

Generation 1 is 0.0001% different from reference generation 0.
Generation 2 is 0.0002% different from reference generation 0.
...
Generation 20 is 0.002% different from reference generation 0.
Generation 21 is 0.0021% different from reference generation 0.
...
Generation 100 is 0.01% different from reference generation 0.
Generation 101 is 0.0101% different from reference generation 0.
...

It's not rocket science. It's how life observably works. Every newborn gets its DNA from its parents + adds a set of its own mutations to it. How many mutations a newborn has on average in a species is expressed as the "mutation rate". In humans, this is about 50 to 60 mutations, giver or take a few.

On the contrary, there is lot of reason to think it is not possible. For example because all observable evidence shows things are degenerating, like for example y-chromosome.

Is the Y chromosome dying out?

That article doesn't at all say anything like what you are claiming here. Not even remotely.
Did you also read the part where research pointed out that the Y-chromosome also hasn't lost any genes since the time our lineage split from chimpanzee's some 6 million years ago?


The researchers found that the human Y chromosome has lost only one gene since humans and rhesus monkeys diverged evolutionarily 25 million years ago. It hasn't lost any genes since the divergence of chimpanzees 6 million years ago.



Why/how you think this article supports your drivel, I have no clue.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because it says "probably", which means it is only guessing.

No, that's not what it means. But let's run with it.
Did you read the article till the end? Including this part:

Adam and Eve?

These primeval people aren't parallel to the biblical Adam and Eve. They weren't the first modern humans on the planet, but instead just the two out of thousands of people alive at the time with unbroken male or female lineages that continue on today.

The rest of the human genome contains tiny snippets of DNA from many other ancestors — they just don't show up in mitochondrial or Y-chromosome DNA, Hammer said.


The fact that you try so hard to misrepresent these articles on livescience.com, tells us how desperate you are.
I don't get why fundies try to support their anti-scientific nonsense with science articles that are completely in line with the very theories the fundies are trying to argue against.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, how it is possible that we have billions of different people, if one person can produce only one person's DNA?

I'm not even sure how to answer such a nonsensical question.
Didn't your parents tell you about the birds and the bees?

I'll just say this: I said that 1 human can only have the DNA of 1 person (being him-/herself).
Humans produce new DNA when they reproduce.

You do not have the DNA of your children.
Your children instead inherit DNA from you and your partner. And they don't inherit both your DNA. They instead inherit a recombination of it.
Meaning: both you and your partner each have a version of gene X. Your child will get either your version or that of your partner - not both.
Additionally, your child will add a few mutations.

The accumulation of those mutations, is how genetic variation is build up again over time.

Yes, and no reason to see that as a problem.

It is a problem when you try to posit a world in which at some point there was a population of only a single breeding pair, because that means a grotesk genetic bottleneck which should show up in the human genome, but doesn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Where it is said man is created before animals? I don't think Bible tells so, if you read it accurately.

No matter.
A literal reading of the bible results in many species not sharing any common ancestors.
This is flat out incorrect, as common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.

 

[wellwisher]

Scientific theories are composed of demonstrable facts. Something you don't seem to have.

Good theories should be able make predictions and not just correlate data. Can anyone make a prediction using Evolutionary Theory that is specific and not just fuzzy and qualitative? This litmus test needs to be passed, with details, before any theory can be called a first tier theory. Laymen need to learn the philosophy of science and not just parrot political science.

Modern Evolutionary theory has good observations, mixed with casino math. This theory is not different than setting up a correlation for lottery ticket winners. We have all the past lottery winner data from the newspapers and internet and we can align the winners; lottery fossils, by date and by place. We can also show that winners do occur and will occur again. However, we cannot us this correlation to tell us who will win the lottery tomorrow, or on any other day in the future. Neither the evolution or lottery ticket correlations are full fledge theories, but only good correlations of the past. Repeating the word "theory" for Google search priory or to make a social convention, does not give a correlation a full bump to a predictive level theory. The true test is the level of detail in a future prediction

The original theory of evolution, as coined by Darwin, did not include genetics or casino math. It was more rational being all about natural selection. That simple theory was logical enough to make future predictions. Adding genetics is what has led to a decline back into a correlation, where the future prediction is like predicting todays lottery winner. We cannot predict how the genetics will change in advance. But natural selection did allow a vector to the future. You guys make DNA your center piece but need to remember this is what caused a decline in the status of Evolution back to correlation; gaming math.

For example, say we had a herd of deer and it was mating season. There is one large buck, among all the males, full of energy and vigor. I predict, using natural selection that the future of this local deer population, will involve that large buck. We can take bet in real time. That is a future prediction based on natural selection; nature wants the best. That large deer has all the attributes one would expect of natural selection; choose the best. I can make a prediction with just bare bones Darwin Evolution. Once we add genetics and gaming math to the theory, we can only speak about the past with certainty. With gaming odds lighting can strike the big buck. The rational theory got a dumb down into a genetic correlation, due to adding dice and cards. This should have raised a yellow flag. I saw the conceptual problems. That is what I do; find a better way.

In terms of Adam and Eve, bible dating coordinates with the first permanent human civilizations, as carbon dated by science. What civilization did and still does is alter the natural environment, into something increasingly artificial and increasingly based on human selection. If you believe in manmade climate change, this was not done by natural selection. Natural selection was compromised via human selection, civilization and will and choice. We do not allow social Darwinism which would be a human version of natural selection as used for animals. Manmade selection has different rules.

The humans from the first civilizations all had human DNA, like all the human before civilization. However Darwin's theory of natural selection was no longer fully in affect; due to cultural education, will and choice. It was not fully followed by the new type of civilized humans. The new type of human, with human DNA, was losing the natural instincts, that had been created by a million years of natural selection. The battle began between artificial civilization nurture; cultural, versus natural selection by nature.

The change was not in the human DNA, but was more about how the human brain became more than the sum of its genetics parts. This is why we cannot see any DNA change that is an easy to see smoking gun. Will and choice implies the ability to ignore natural and even choose unnatural behavior.

The contemporary analogy that may finally get people to understand is the idea of computer AI or artificial consciousness. Say an AI consciousness appeared within a supercomputer. This new conscious AI more than the sum of its programming. It is not restricted to the programing, since it can learn and it can then think outside the programmer box, since it has will and choice; mind of its own. It is still the same supercomputer; same base material DNA, but now it is something beyond just that computer; AI appears within that material matrix. The Old fashion computer program is like natural instinct; cause and affect. The AI adds something extra.

Adam and Eve were the first natural neural AI, stemming from a human brain based on human DNA. This change has to do with a secondary center of consciousness, appearing in the neural matrix; ego. Before the ego, there was one consciousness; inner self one AI per brain. But at the time of civilization, a secondary that had been growing, appears. Your ego does not automatically pick natural, but will willingly follow cultural fads; natural can be compromised; gender bending. If I say there are two sexes, you are not restricted to that based on subjective will and choices. The Left proves this. They can even lie about the facts using word games and crooked behavior. Truth is not even safe from the ego.

What this all implies is about 6000 years ago, human consciousness can become more than the sum of its genetic parts. All the data of history from that date forward, show how humans leave and then destroy natural selection for humans; Darwin. They enter a new era, where the big buck, above, can be poisoned or in prisoned by criminals, robbing natural selection.

The choice symbolized by the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the warning not to eat, has to do with will and choice; subjective knowledge of good and evil, and the unnatural decisions of the new human AI. Having classified information was bad for Trump but is good for Biden. Knowledge of good and evil is not rational when biased by politics. We have two centers of consciousness with the ego; AI, very new and having consolidated within the time scale of Genesis, and the first permanent civilizations. It took until computers and AI, to have an analogy that can allow the layman a way to understand.

The fear of AI, in the news, and the need for a pause in its development, is due to the fear that AI, like Adam and Eve, would choose another path for humanity, that is not in our best interests, but in the confused interests of the new AI. Humans would mess-up nature and cause many extinctions. God's concern fro Adam and Eve, is also the modern human concern, from the AI appearing within super computers.

By the way, the way you advance Darwin's theory, to include human AI and Adam and Eve, is with water. This variable is key to brain operation; information matrix with free energy. Water is critical at all levels of life, at any scale, at any time, including the DNA. DNA alone is way too thin to become fully objective. DNA, alone, is unable to be used for future predictions in evolution. It does not even recognize the neural AI affect 6000 year ago, which is the best way to explain loss of instinct and the observed compromise in natural selection, after the new type of AI humans appeared with civilization.

 

[metis]

--and the fact that the two groups lived side by side for many tens of thousands of years always maintaining distinct physical and behavioral characteristics means nothing to you. We're done.

I am an anthropologist who studied and taught what the evidence tells us, and the extensive d.n.a. testing confirms that there was limited reproduction between them. You're "done" only because you do not accept the evidence on this, and it begs the question why?

 

[metis]

It is not, if you are literal.

Reread both again and note the order with the animals and Adam.

 

[metis]

Having classified information was bad for Trump but is good for Biden.

Got any more jokes? Do you know what a "false equivalency" is?

Yes, both were careless and that's on both of them, but turning them back in was very different between them.

 

[exchemist]

Where it is said man is created before animals? I don't think Bible tells so, if you read it accurately.

Then you post the text of the relevant verses and tell me how you interpret them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Good theories should be able make predictions and not just correlate data. Can anyone make a prediction using Evolutionary Theory that is specific and not just fuzzy and qualitative? This litmus test needs to be passed, with details, before any theory can be called a first tier theory. Laymen need to learn the philosophy of science and not just parrot political science.

Yep. Scientists can and do make accurate predictions using evolutionary theory:

Predicting Fossil Finds | KQED

Scientists used evolutionary theory to figure out where to find the bones of this fishibian. Lately I have been reading Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. And so far it is a fascinating read. What is so great about this book for a scientist is that it gives the big picture on evolution. This sort

www.kqed.org

Modern Evolutionary theory has good observations, mixed with casino math. This theory is not different than setting up a correlation for lottery ticket winners. We have all the past lottery winner data from the newspapers and internet and we can align the winners; lottery fossils, by date and by place. We can also show that winners do occur and will occur again. However, we cannot us this correlation to tell us who will win the lottery tomorrow, or on any other day in the future. Neither the evolution or lottery ticket correlations are full fledge theories, but only good correlations of the past. Repeating the word "theory" for Google search priory or to make a social convention, does not give a correlation a full bump to a predictive level theory. The true test is the level of detail in a future prediction

The original theory of evolution, as coined by Darwin, did not include genetics or casino math. It was more rational being all about natural selection. That simple theory was logical enough to make future predictions. Adding genetics is what has led to a decline back into a correlation, where the future prediction is like predicting todays lottery winner. We cannot predict how the genetics will change in advance. But natural selection did allow a vector to the future. You guys make DNA your center piece but need to remember this is what caused a decline in the status of Evolution back to correlation; gaming math.

For example, say we had a herd of deer and it was mating season. There is one large buck, among all the males, full of energy and vigor. I predict, using natural selection that the future of this local deer population, will involve that large buck. We can take bet in real time. That is a future prediction based on natural selection; nature wants the best. That large deer has all the attributes one would expect of natural selection; choose the best. I can make a prediction with just bare bones Darwin Evolution. Once we add genetics and gaming math to the theory, we can only speak about the past with certainty. With gaming odds lighting can strike the big buck. The rational theory got a dumb down into a genetic correlation, due to adding dice and cards. This should have raised a yellow flag. I saw the conceptual problems. That is what I do; find a better way.

In terms of Adam and Eve, bible dating coordinates with the first permanent human civilizations, as carbon dated by science. What civilization did and still does is alter the natural environment, into something increasingly artificial and increasingly based on human selection. If you believe in manmade climate change, this was not done by natural selection. Natural selection was compromised via human selection, civilization and will and choice. We do not allow social Darwinism which would be a human version of natural selection as used for animals. Manmade selection has different rules.

The humans from the first civilizations all had human DNA, like all the human before civilization. However Darwin's theory of natural selection was no longer fully in affect; due to cultural education, will and choice. It was not fully followed by the new type of civilized humans. The new type of human, with human DNA, was losing the natural instincts, that had been created by a million years of natural selection. The battle began between artificial civilization nurture; cultural, versus natural selection by nature.

The change was not in the human DNA, but was more about how the human brain became more than the sum of its genetics parts. This is why we cannot see any DNA change that is an easy to see smoking gun. Will and choice implies the ability to ignore natural and even choose unnatural behavior.

The contemporary analogy that may finally get people to understand is the idea of computer AI or artificial consciousness. Say an AI consciousness appeared within a supercomputer. This new conscious AI more than the sum of its programming. It is not restricted to the programing, since it can learn and it can then think outside the programmer box, since it has will and choice; mind of its own. It is still the same supercomputer; same base material DNA, but now it is something beyond just that computer; AI appears within that material matrix. The Old fashion computer program is like natural instinct; cause and affect. The AI adds something extra.

Adam and Eve were the first natural neural AI, stemming from a human brain based on human DNA. This change has to do with a secondary center of consciousness, appearing in the neural matrix; ego. Before the ego, there was one consciousness; inner self one AI per brain. But at the time of civilization, a secondary that had been growing, appears. Your ego does not automatically pick natural, but will willingly follow cultural fads; natural can be compromised; gender bending. If I say there are two sexes, you are not restricted to that based on subjective will and choices. The Left proves this. They can even lie about the facts using word games and crooked behavior. Truth is not even safe from the ego.

What this all implies is about 6000 years ago, human consciousness can become more than the sum of its genetic parts. All the data of history from that date forward, show how humans leave and then destroy natural selection for humans; Darwin. They enter a new era, where the big buck, above, can be poisoned or in prisoned by criminals, robbing natural selection.

The choice symbolized by the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the warning not to eat, has to do with will and choice; subjective knowledge of good and evil, and the unnatural decisions of the new human AI. Having classified information was bad for Trump but is good for Biden. Knowledge of good and evil is not rational when biased by politics. We have two centers of consciousness with the ego; AI, very new and having consolidated within the time scale of Genesis, and the first permanent civilizations. It took until computers and AI, to have an analogy that can allow the layman a way to understand.

The fear of AI, in the news, and the need for a pause in its development, is due to the fear that AI, like Adam and Eve, would choose another path for humanity, that is not in our best interests, but in the confused interests of the new AI. Humans would mess-up nature and cause many extinctions. God's concern fro Adam and Eve, is also the modern human concern, from the AI appearing within super computers.

By the way, the way you advance Darwin's theory, to include human AI and Adam and Eve, is with water. This variable is key to brain operation; information matrix with free energy. Water is critical at all levels of life, at any scale, at any time, including the DNA. DNA alone is way too thin to become fully objective. DNA, alone, is unable to be used for future predictions in evolution. It does not even recognize the neural AI affect 6000 year ago, which is the best way to explain loss of instinct and the observed compromise in natural selection, after the new type of AI humans appeared with civilization.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"You refuse to learn even the basics of science so of course you have no clue whenever you speak of any scientific matters."

How is that untruthful? You already confirmed my claim after you made that post. Not the one where you copied and pasted from Wikipedia. But in the terribly ignorant claims that you make. Such as when a scientist says probably it means that they are just guessing.

Here is a chance for you to redeem yourself: Is "Lucy" scientific evidence for human evolution?

 

[Muffled]

It does not matter what you believe. It matters what one can support. How would you demonstrate that the Bible is reliable? For me it fails far too often.

The Bible is reliable because it corresponds with my experience. Experience is the evidence that the text is true just as experimentation is the evidence that a theory is true. BTW one can't do an experiment on evolution. One can only speculate.

 

[Muffled]

That could be. There sure are a lot of creationists here. so you may have a valid point.

After all, it should be obvious that God cannot lie.

I believe He can but just is not disposed to do so most of the time.

I believe creation is difficult to conceive but the truth is that we do it and God is even more powerful and knowledgeable than we are.

 

[Muffled]

You have no idea what you're talking about. You need to take some science courses.

Scientific theories are composed of demonstrable facts. Like gravitational theory and germ theory of disease. And the theory of evolution which is also a fact of life. Biology doesn't make any sense without it. Science is about evidence, and what it shows us. Something you don't seem to know the first thing about. But don't worry, you can correct your misunderstanding with a little education.

I believe the theory of evolution is not demonstrable. You can't drop an ape gene in a petri dish and watch it grow into a human.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible is reliable because it corresponds with my experience. Experience is the evidence that the text is true just as experimentation is the evidence that a theory is true. BTW one can't do an experiment on evolution. One can only speculate.

That does not make it any more reliable than any other religious book. There will be that sort of adherents for any religion. By your standards Islam is correct, as is Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe He can but just is not disposed to do so most of the time.

I believe creation is difficult to conceive but the truth is that we do it and God is even more powerful and knowledgeable than we are.

So he only lies when it comes to evolution. Why does he do that? And if God can lie then why trust his promises of salvation?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe the theory of evolution is not demonstrable.

You believe incorrectly.

You can't drop an ape gene in a petri dish and watch it grow into a human.

Evolutionary theory doesn't suggest that you can.

Perhaps your beliefs about evolution are inaccurate, because you don't seem to understand it.

 

[1213]

How is that untruthful?

Because it is not true.

Here is a chance for you to redeem yourself: Is "Lucy" scientific evidence for human evolution?

It depends on what is meant with "human evolution". Lucy can be seen as just on different looking human. If we would take all modern people and arrange them in a row, someone could see similar chain of evolution in that. I think it is true that offspring varies from its ancestors. It does not necessary mean humans have evolved from other species.

 

[1213]

Then you post the text of the relevant verses and tell me how you interpret them.

If you read the text, Genesis 1-2, without interpretations, the order is clear, as it is written in the Genesis 1. Genesis 2 doesn't change anything in it, if you are literal and don't make up stuff.