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

[1213]

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

Please explain with scriptures why do you think so?

 

[1213]

This is flat out incorrect, as common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.

No it is not. That is just common "scientific" belief. There is no proof that all species evolved as the theory claims.

If the theory would be correct, it should be testable and repeatable. For example we should be able to take rats and make them evolve into miniature whales, as the theory suggests.

 

[1213]

You do not have the DNA of your children.

Exactly, that is why the "bottleneck" argument is wrong.

 

[1213]

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.

Yes, maybe the person was not the Adam, but if the idea of unbroken lineage is true, it would lead to Adam, if it is a logical theory.

 

[1213]

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.

And that is why the argument about the bottleneck was wrong. Adam doesn't need to have all the variation, because variations can come from that process.

 

[1213]

They don't "degenerate" the DNA

Yet you say:

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.

I think that is contradictory.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Genesis 2 gives different order of creation from Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 Man is created before the animals. If you think it does not say that, you will need to explain to me how you arrive at that conclusion.

In Genesis 2, after the creation of the man, God says "It is not right that the man should be alone. I shall make him a helper........." and there follows the creation of the animals, and then eventually a woman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it is not.

It is.

That is just common "scientific" belief.

No. Just like it isn't "common scientific belief" that we can determine if your sibling is your biological sibling or your dad your biological dad, just by comparing DNA samples.

DNA enables us to determine blood ties and thus common ancestry.

So yes, it is very much a genetic fact that humans and chimps, for example, share ancestors.
Just like it is a genetic fact that me and my biological sister share parents.

There is no proof that all species evolved as the theory claims.

There isn't any "proof" of any scientific theory.
But there is loads of supporting evidence. In the case of evolution, there is even overwhelming amount of supporting evidence.
And nothing that contradicts it.

Together, that makes up for a very solid scientific explanatory model. Which is as good as it can possibly get in science.

If the theory would be correct, it should be testable and repeatable.

It is. As every evolution experiment, every agricultural program, every breeding program,... on earth demonstrates every single day.

For example we should be able to take rats and make them evolve into miniature whales, as the theory suggests.

The theory doesn't suggest such at all.
In fact, if you would manage to do that, then evolution theory would actually be falsified.

Count on creationists to misrepresent / miscomprehend evolution theory so hard that the evidence they demand to see for it, would actually show it false instead of confirm it.........


It's amazing how every evolution denier out there doesn't seem to understand even the basics of the basics of the theory they are so hellbend on denying / rejecting / arguing against..............................

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exactly, that is why the "bottleneck" argument is wrong.

That makes zero sense.

And it is further evidence that you have no clue what a genetic bottleneck actually is.
In fact, it even makes me question if you actually understand how reproduction works....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, maybe the person was not the Adam, but if the idea of unbroken lineage is true, it would lead to Adam, if it is a logical theory.

Did you even read the quote??????????????????


It says that they were only 1 individual in a population of THOUSANDS.
It also says that they weren't the first modern humans either.

Literally everything about that article flies in the face of what you are trying to claim that it is saying.

Why do you do this? Why do you try so hard to misrepresent these articles and try in a vain attempt to try and fit them into a biblical framework that doesn't hold up in any sense of the word???

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And that is why the argument about the bottleneck was wrong.

It isn't. But I guess I shouldn't expect any more for you to realize why, considering your obvious willful ignorance on this matter.
I'm sorry, but if you remain so unwilling to actually learn the model that you are so hellbend on arguing against, then all this is just a gigantic waste of both our time.

Go learn what a genetic bottleneck is, how it can be recognized and how reproduction works at the genetic level.
Then come back and try again.

Until then, I see little use in trying to continue this conversation.
It's like talking to a wall.

Watching paint dry at this point seems like a better use of my time.

Adam doesn't need to have all the variation, because variations can come from that process.

Veeeeerrrrryyyyyyy sloooooooowwwwwlllllyyyyyyy

Our current level of genetic variation doesn't fit a context where there was a gigantic bottleneck just a few thousand years ago.
But whatever... as said, this is just a gigantic waste of time until you are actually willing to go through the intellectually honest exercise of actually learning the basics of the subject you insist on arguing against.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yet you say:

I think that is contradictory.

It is not.

Again: learn the subject before making silly arguments. It will help you in making less silly arguments.

At this point, your level of argumentation against the unified field theory of biology, is akin to arguing against gravity with as argument "because hammers float in the space station".
You really are on that level of "stupid". This is not an insult. Just an fyi.

It's okay to be ignorant on a topic. Fortunately, ignorance is easily cured. All it takes is some reading and studying.
But you're not actually willing to put in the effort, I bet?

 

[metis]

Please explain with scriptures why do you think so?

Here's 1:1:
[20]And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens."
[21] So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[22] And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
[23] And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
[24]And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
[25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26]Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."


And here's 2:4:
[18]Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
[19] So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
[20] The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.


Notice, which was created first, man or animals?

BTW, there's many of theologians call "variations" found in the scriptures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it is not true.

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.

And you just confirmed that you either do not even understand the very basics of science or you are a liar. I do not think that you are a liar. You just cannot handle reality and that can make someone look like a liar. Do you want to learn the basics so that you do not repeat this error? The only correct answer to my question at this point in time was "Yes."

So once again, what untruthful claims did I make?

 

[exchemist]

No it is not. That is just common "scientific" belief. There is no proof that all species evolved as the theory claims.

If the theory would be correct, it should be testable and repeatable. For example we should be able to take rats and make them evolve into miniature whales, as the theory suggests.

Oh dear, you've been reading the usual tired crap from creationists. The nonsense about proof is such an old chestnut. Proof is never involved in scientific theories. They are based on evidence, not proof.

The theory of evolution makes predictions that are testable and repeatable. The theory predicts, for example, a progression in fossils through time, as shown in the geological strata in which different sorts should be found. And that is what we observe. Repeatably. (No rabbits in the Cambrian, to take an extreme example.) It also predicts that the DNA of species with what the theory says is a recent common ancestor should be more similar than species with a common ancestor further back in time. And that is exactly what we see, as a rule. Of course there can be occasional surprises, as with any theory. For instance it was only fairly recently that it was shown the hippo and the whale are closely related. Though once you know, of course it makes sense.

Your example of what you think the theory should allow us to do is quite absurd. Do you think that a theory about volcanoes would demand that we can make a volcano in the lab? Nothing in science claims that human beings should be able to convert species at will, any more than that we should be able to make a volcano, a glacier or a star.

But we most certainly can breed animals and plants to enhance certain desired characteristics. Human beings have done this for millennia. In fact that is what gave Darwin his idea that nature can do the same sort of thing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it is not. That is just common "scientific" belief. There is no proof that all species evolved as the theory claims.

If the theory would be correct, it should be testable and repeatable. For example we should be able to take rats and make them evolve into miniature whales, as the theory suggests.

Evolution is a fact of life. It is the backbone of biology. It is testable and repeatable. Your example is silly and not how it is tested.
I just gave an example of how evolution can be tested, just a couple of posts above yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it is not. That is just common "scientific" belief. There is no proof that all species evolved as the theory claims.

If the theory would be correct, it should be testable and repeatable. For example we should be able to take rats and make them evolve into miniature whales, as the theory suggests.

How long does evolution imply that it would take to turn rats into whales? A few days? Weeks? Months? Years?

To be valid a test has to be reasonable. You are talking about changes that took millions of years to occur. The last time I checked you could not slot a multi-million year experiment in the laboratory.

The theory of evolution is testable. You just refuse to learn how to properly test it. For example there are some things that should be possible if creation was true, but would be impossible if evolution was true. Those possible observations would be a way to test it. Do you need more help than that?

 

[1213]

It says that they were only 1 individual in a population of THOUSANDS.

For critical thinker, the next question would be, where did the 1000 come from? All from different parents?

 

[1213]

Genesis 2 gives different order of creation from Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 Man is created before the animals. If you think it does not say that, you will need to explain to me how you arrive at that conclusion.

Here's 1:1:
[20]And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens."
[21] So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[22] And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
[23] And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
[24]And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
[25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26]Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."


And here's 2:4:
[18]Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
[19] So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
[20] The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.


Notice, which was created first, man or animals?

BTW, there's many of theologians call "variations" found in the scriptures.

Thanks for the scriptures, now everyone can see that created and after that human was created. Genesis 2 can be seen as more detailed description of the how man was created. That God forms animals in the garden after creating human, does not mean there could not have been already many animals. God just made more of them for Adam in the Garden. And actually, it may be even possible that God just made images/statues of the animals for Adam to name them. Genesis 2 is not literally speaking of creating animals.

 

[1213]

Oh dear, you've been reading the usual tired crap from creationists. The nonsense about proof is such an old chestnut. Proof is never involved in scientific theories. They are based on evidence, not proof.

If it is not proven, it is not a fact, only a belief.

The theory of evolution makes predictions that are testable and repeatable. The theory predicts, for example, a progression in fossils through time, as shown in the geological strata in which different sorts should be found. ..

Yeah, but because there can be other reasons also for that, it doesn't work for other than those who have strong faith in the theory.