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

[1213]

A global layer of flood sediments
A universal genetic bottleneck in all species

I don't think those are reasonable expectations. Because earth is not uniform, global flood would not cause uniform layer.

What do you think the bottleneck should look like?

 

[Apostle John]

Given what you've said before, the association seemed obvious. However, if you're now separating them, then you have an even bigger in that mony of those who support evolution are theists, many of them Christians who regard the bible as important but are not literalist cultists.

You’ve twisted this out of all proportion to what was originally asked.

I explained the exact why in which this works to you in just yesterday, here: Do you think there is a God? If so, why? #220.

But not the how and so the ‘exact why’ is dubious.

 

[ratiocinator]

But not the how and so the ‘exact why’ is dubious.

That was a typo. It should have read "I explained the exact way in which this works..." Of course, if you'd actually bothered to read and take some notice of what I said, you would have realised that I have explained how it works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one knows how evolution works.

Speak for yourself.

They say mutations are random

...with respect to fitness.
Which they are.

and something about the environment ‘drives’ changes by way of survival and reproduction.

The environment determines selection pressures.
It doesn't drive change. It merely determines how changes (from mutations) affect fitness, given the present selection pressures.

It's not rocket science

Not a very exact science.

And yet, companies like Boeing spend millions of dollars on software using genetic algorithms (= the principles of evolution theory) to optimize their systems, because such systems actually do a better job then human engineers.

 

[Apostle John]

No one knows how evolution works. They say mutations are random and something about the environment ‘drives’ changes by way of survival and reproduction. Not a very exact science.

That was a typo. It should have read "I explained the exact way in which this works..." Of course, if you'd actually bothered to read and take some notice of what I said, you would have realised that I have explained how it works.

You haven’t added any explanation as to how it works anywhere, even here Just patter and waffle no exact science:-

Speak for yourself.



...with respect to fitness.
Which they are.



The environment determines selection pressures.
It doesn't drive change. It merely determines how changes (from mutations) affect fitness, given the present selection pressures.

It's not rocket science


And yet, companies like Boeing spend millions of dollars on software using genetic algorithms (= the principles of evolution theory) to optimize their systems, because such systems actually do a better job then human engineers.

How is the level of homosexuality particularly in the humans tie in with ‘fitness’.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You haven’t added any explanation as to how it works anywhere, even here Just patter and waffle no exact science:-

Okay, let's give it a go.

Firstly, every living thing reproduces with variation. While what is produced is largely a copy of what produced it, there are always slight differences between individuals even when they are born from the same thing. No two living things are entirely, 100% identical.

Add to this the fact that there are natural, selective factors that ensure that certain individuals have a slightly (or much) higher chance of surviving and/or producing offspring than others. For example, a pair of rodents - one born with black hair, one born with brown hair - one might be slightly more camouflaged against local predators than another, making it more likely to survive and produce offspring who will also be likely to carry the exact same camouflage.

Now, repeat this lots and lots of times over many, many generations, and eventually an entire population starts to carry these traits. Due to the survival of the slightly more camouflaged rodent, and its success reproducing, eventually the entire population of rodents may end up having more camouflage.

This process is referred to as evolution.

It's a dramatic oversimplification, of course, but you're welcome to ask whatever questions you think are relevant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think those are reasonable expectations.

Those are the exact expectations considering the story.
A flood as described in the story WOULD leave geological evidence behind.
Extreme population reduction of ALL LIVING THINGS as described in the story WOULD create genetic bottlenecks in ALL species.

And the dating of both the geological evidence and the bottlenecks should point to the same period.
But neither exists.

There is no such geological evidence
There are no such universe bottlenecks.

So there isn't even anything to date to see if it points to the same period.

This refutes the story.
There's no way around that.

Because earth is not uniform, global flood would not cause uniform layer.

A flood of that scale would leave geological evidence everywhere. That's just how floods work.

What do you think the bottleneck should look like?

???

A genetic bottleneck is a genetic bottleneck. Not sure what is tripping you up, unless you don't actually know what such a bottleneck is.
It reflects a severe reduction in genetic variation. It reflects a near-extinction event.

If you kill 99% of a population, a genetic bottleneck is the inevitable result.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How is the level of homosexuality particularly in the humans tie in with ‘fitness’.

1. homosexuality is a not an inheritable trait, so it matters not

2. homosexuality is not particularly more frequent in humans then in other species.


You can't seem to get any fact straight. Literally every supposed "objection" you raise or any "point" you try to make about biology (or science in general) is loaded with false assumptions, strawmen, misunderstandings, ignorance,.....

It's almost like you do it on purpose.

 

[Apostle John]

Okay, let's give it a go.

Firstly, every living thing reproduces with variation. While what is produced is largely a copy of what produced it, there are always slight differences between individuals even when are born from the same thing. No two living things are entirely, 100% identical.

Add to this the fact that there are natural, selective factors that ensure that certain individuals have a slightly (or much) higher chance of surviving and/or producing offspring than others. For example, a pair of rodents - one born with black hair, one born with brown hair - one might be slightly more camouflaged against local predators than another, making it more likely to survive and produce offspring who will also be likely carry the exact same camouflage.

Now, repeat this lots and lots of times over many, many generations, and eventually an entire population starts to carry these traits. Due to the survival of the slightly more camouflaged rodent, and its success reproducing, eventually the entire population of rodents may end up having more camouflage.

This process is referred to as evolution.

It's a dramatic oversimplification, of course, but you're welcome to ask whatever questions you think are relevant.

This is more patter. Predators aren’t picky as to what colour prey they eat and ‘camouflage’ isn't a factor in many, many species.

 

[ratiocinator]

How is the level of homosexuality particularly in the humans tie in with ‘fitness’.

I do love the way you run away and change the subject when you've been comprehensively shown to be wrong. You have entertainment value and you're a fine object lesson in how bat-**** crazy creationists can be.

I see @TagliatelliMonster has answered the specifics.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is more patter. Predators aren’t picky as to what colour prey they eat and ‘camouflage’ isn't a factor in many, many species.

I gave you one, specific example. Obviously camouflage wouldn't be a selective factor in different situations. It could be other things.

Do you understand the point of giving specific examples? Do you understand that just because someone gives an example of a thing doesn't mean that example applies to literally all instances of that thing?

"For example, a murder could be when a person stabs another person to death."
"This is more patter. Murderers aren't picky as to what weapon they use and knives aren't available in many, many situations."

 

[ratiocinator]

Predators aren’t picky as to what colour prey they eat and ‘camouflage’ isn't a factor in many, many species.

It was an example. Individuals can be 'fitter' in all sorts of different ways (faster, better at climbing, quieter when hunting, more tolerant of heat or cold, etc, etc. etc.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do love the way you run away and change the subject when you've been comprehensively shown to be wrong. You have entertainment value and you're a fine object lesson in how bat-**** crazy creationists can be.

I see @TagliatelliMonster has answered the specifics.

Well, I am glad you are entertained. I mean I enjoy bat-**** cracy humans regardless if they are believers or not. But that is subjective in both case, so that is really not science.

 

[Apostle John]

1. homosexuality is a not an inheritable trait, so it matters not

2. homosexuality is not particularly more frequent in humans then in other species.


You can't seem to get any fact straight. Literally every supposed "objection" you raise or any "point" you try to make about biology (or science in general) is loaded with false assumptions, strawmen, misunderstandings, ignorance,.....

It's almost like you do it on purpose.

It’s a trait nonetheless and does question ‘fitness’ in populations, evolutionists debate it’s existence in terms of genetics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's a dramatic oversimplification, of course, but you're welcome to ask whatever questions you think are relevant.

That invitation implies the dude is interested in learning.
I fear that may be a very optimistic assumption.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That invitation implies the dude is interested in learning.
I fear that may be a very optimistic assumption.

I should probably have qualified it with "But please avoid non-relevant questions".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is more patter. Predators aren’t picky as to what colour prey they eat and ‘camouflage’ isn't a factor in many, many species.

How can you not get such a simplistic example?
How can you not get that an individual that has better camouflage against the background environment is less likely to become the lunch of a predator then one that is less camouflaged?

Again: it's almost like you are doing this on purpose.

Consider you are a Ukranian sniper looking for Russians to kill.
In your field of view, there is a russian hidden somewhere with excellent camouflage.
There is another wearing a bright orange jumpsuit.

Which one will die first?

 

[Apostle John]

I do love the way you run away and change the subject when you've been comprehensively shown to be wrong. You have entertainment value and you're a fine object lesson in how bat-**** crazy creationists can be.

I see @TagliatelliMonster has answered the specifics.

It was an example. Individuals can be 'fitter' in all sorts of different ways (faster, better at climbing, quieter when hunting, more tolerant of heat or cold, etc, etc. etc.)

You haven’t shown anything about me being wrong let alone comprehensively. Your further examples are nonsense, that’s not how things work in nature. Homosexuality cannot be explained by evolution and by reason should be. The scientists that have tried make no sense, it’s all back fitted, made to fit. All dubious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s a trait nonetheless

But not a relevant one to evolution as it isn't inheritable.
So.... yeah.... not really sure what point you think you are making.
Except, off course, to grasp at a perceived opportunity to imply some homophobia, like a good little fundamentalist.

and does question ‘fitness’ in populations

No, it doesn't.

, evolutionists debate it’s existence in terms of genetics.

Sure. Point remains. If it's not inheritable, then it's irrelevant in a topic concerning evolution.
Plenty of things have a genetic basis while not being inheritable, or otherwise have any impact on overall fitness.

As usual, you are spewing your ignorance all over the board. And doing it in such a way that it seems only geared at ignoring and / or dodging the obvious.

 

[Apostle John]

How can you not get such a simplistic example?
How can you not get that an individual that has better camouflage against the background environment is less likely to become the lunch of a predator then one that is less camouflaged?

Again: it's almost like you are doing this on purpose.

Consider you are a Ukranian sniper looking for Russians to kill.
In your field of view, there is a russian hidden somewhere with excellent camouflage.
There is another wearing a bright orange jumpsuit.

Which one will die first?

Just think sensibly. Quarry doesn’t just materialise through evolution then realise they have a predator and so change by an unknown process in order to be camouflaged.