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

[Apostle John]

Depends on the ape. Since humans are apes, apes can reproduce with humans. But different species of apes cannot reproduce offspring with humans.


I've already given you multiple lists of observed speciation.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Most creationists have to admit that, which is why they invented the undefined 'kind'. You really have some serious catching up to do. I'm familiar with creationist dishonesty and botched attempts at science. You are a gaff-prone amateur even in that disgraceful company.

You haven’t shown anything factual that shows the ToE to be correct and it will go on like, just more and more babble to confuse the unwary of what your project is. There’s no such thing as a species according to you, it’s actually quite laughable how you’ve collectively engineered ToE.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You haven’t shown anything factual

I've linked you to multiple sources, scientific papers and analyses.

What do you want me to actually do?

that shows the ToE to be correct and it will go on like, just more and more babble to confuse the unwary of what your project is. There’s no such thing as a species according to you,

What? Now you're just making stuff up. Where has anyone said there's not such thing as species?

it’s actually quite laughable how you’ve collectively engineered ToE.

So far, this conversation has gone like this:

You ask for something.
We provide it.
You ignore what we've provided and ask for something else.
We provide that.
You deny we provided anything and ask for something else.
We provide that.
You pretend you won.

This is beneath us. Stop wasting our time.

 

[ratiocinator]

You haven’t shown anything factual that shows the ToE to be correct...

Another baseless assertion and bearing false witness. I can't help you not being able to understand what you're looking at, but you have been given far, far more evidence from myself and other people for evolution than you have provided to counter it. You haven't provided anything to counter it except rather childish flat contradiction like this.

There’s no such thing as a species according to you...

That appears to be a straightforward barefaced lie.

...it’s actually quite laughable how you’ve collectively engineered ToE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not for the following. I’ll ask it again:
I’d have to see evidence of the percentage of mutations you’ve been told are ‘beneficial mutations’ as opposed to those having neutral/negative effects before I can see if that is a reason that you believe in ToE.

I doubt anything will be given but remember, you are the proponents of evidence.

And once again you need to justify this demand..

If you can be honest with yourself you will admit that you are only looking for excuses. You are not looking for answers.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It was opinion, no evidence when you are the proponents of evidence. It’s sad when you’re found out for what you are.

An opinion of what? I asked you what doctrine you are referring to and you said "false."

Which would be like if I asked you what your favourite colour is and you said "refrigerator."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lucy is what I call fabricated evidence.

So you seriously think that all of the scientists have fabricated over 300 different Australopithecus afarensis specimens? Based on ... what, exactly?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree with that. And I think we have lot of geological evidence for it:
1. Gas oil and coal fields.

It takes millions of years to have such originate. So that's not what we expect from a single flood.

2. Marine fossils on high mountain areas.

The dating doesn't match + those are the result of eons ago, when those high mountain tops weren't yet mountain tops and instead the bottom of ancient seas.

3. Modern continents.

Floods don't make continents move like that

4. Vast sediment formations

Dating doesn't match

5. Orogenic mountains

I don't even know what you mean by that

Please explain what do you mean with that in practice.

This isn't exactly ambiguous... and further proof that you don't actually know what a genetic bottleneck is. There's no 2 ways to understand it. It's a very specific thing. Here's an illustration

The top = before the near-extinction event (in this cae: the flood). Lots of genetic variation, illustrated by various colors
The middle = "the great dying". Something happens which kills the vast majority of the population. Only a couple survive
The bottom = after the near-extinction event. The genetic variation that was lost, is now no longer present.

If for example there was one pair of bears in the ark and rest of them drowned, what would reduction of genetic variation mean in that case?

Is that a serious question?

There is as good as no genetic variation left if you have a population of just 2.


Also, as a sidenote, a single breeding pair is biologically a population that is doomed to extinction. The lack of genetic variation makes this population not viable.
The next generations have no other choice but to engage in extreme inbreeding, which is not sustainable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

…and that was only because I had heard of the term beneficial mutation.

Wait...........

So you just spend page after page after page trying to argue against the unified field theory of friggin' biology... and the extent of knowledge you have concerning mutation amounts to "having heard of the term"????????????

That would be extremely hilarious if it wasn't so depressing.

 

[metis]

IMO, it's truly a shame, and sometimes a sham, that some use their religious views as blinders to the reality that life forms evolve over time, as do land formations.

 

[Apostle John]

Wait...........

So you just spend page after page after page trying to argue against the unified field theory of friggin' biology... and the extent of knowledge you have concerning mutation amounts to "having heard of the term"????????????

That would be extremely hilarious if it wasn't so depressing.

No, when I was finally given evidence asked for I spent 2 seconds exposing the nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

0.001%, as guessed by the the source above is very relevant showing your beliefs to be absolutely absurd.

Let's run with that number and see what it means in reality.

Humans have a mutation rate of about 50 per new born.
Meaning: every newborn human comes with 50 mutations on average.

There are 7 billion humans.
That accounts for 350 billion mutations on average
0.001% is beneficial.

That's 3.500.000 (three million five hundred thousand) beneficial mutations which exist in the current generation of humans alone.

Doesn't seem that rare now, does it?

Even if you have a population of just 10000 individuals, with a mutation rate of say 20...
Both of which are very conservative estimates. A population of that size would be considered an "endangered species".
Then still we have 2 beneficial mutations PER GENERATION.


You didn't run the math, did you?
You gave that 0.001% number and thought you had a point, didn't you?

 

[ratiocinator]

No, when I was finally given evidence asked for I spent 2 seconds exposing the nonsense mindlessly contradicting it.

FIFY.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In your example what 0.001% of so called ‘beneficial mutations’ have been seen in humans and what’s happened to the 0.999% of other mutations and how does any of it show macroevolution.

Your math really, really sucks.

The "other" mutations that aren't the 0.001% don't amount to 0.999% but to 99.999%

Having said that, most of them go unnoticed as they have no effect on fitness.
Those that are harmful are weeded out rather quickly as the individuals that carry them tend to not survive / reproduce.
Harmful mutations don't spread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You know an ape cannot mate with a human to produce anything right?

Humans ARE apes, so every time a human breeds with another human, then an ape is mating with a human.
Also a mammal etc.


Having said that - nobody here said that species that have diverged millions of years ago should still be able to reproduce.
So as usual, you think you are making a point but in reality you are just exposing your vast ignorance once more.

 

[Apostle John]

Let's run with that number and see what it means in reality.

Humans have a mutation rate of about 50 per new born.
Meaning: every newborn human comes with 50 mutations on average.

There are 7 billion humans.
That accounts for 350 billion mutations on average
0.001% is beneficial.

That's 3.500.000 (three million five hundred thousand) beneficial mutations which exist in the current generation of humans alone.

Doesn't seem that rare now, does it?

Even if you have a population of just 10000 individuals, with a mutation rate of say 20...
Both of which are very conservative estimates. A population of that size would be considered an "endangered species".
Then still we have 2 beneficial mutations PER GENERATION.


You didn't run the math, did you?
You gave that 0.001% number and thought you had a point, didn't you?

Don’t you see the nonsense. You’ve given arbitrary names to mutations and say, because you think there is a small minority of positive ones, they drive the fantasy tree of life. Even repeating the example of humans when they haven’t evolved into anything else. what’s your point.

 

[Apostle John]

So you seriously think that all of the scientists have fabricated over 300 different Australopithecus afarensis specimens? Based on ... what, exactly?

Full skeletons (not like Lucy, only 40%) or just another bunch of deformed bones that could be put together as fabricated ‘evidence’.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, when I was finally given evidence asked for I spent 2 seconds exposing the nonsense.

2 seconds is idd all you spend.

Maybe you should multiple that by a few million and actually learn what the theory actually says for once.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Don’t you see the nonsense. You’ve given arbitrary names to mutations and say, because you think there is a small minority of positive ones, they drive the fantasy tree of life.

It's not arbitrary. Beneficial mutations are defined as beneficial if they provide an increase to the probability of surviving and reproducing.

They then drive evolution because mutations that make an individual more likely to survive and reproduce are therefore more likely be survive and be reproduced. It's that simple.

Even repeating the example of humans when they haven’t evolved into anything else. what’s your point.

What do you mean "evolved into anything else"?

Evolution happens WITHIN the taxa. Evolution doesn't result in humans producing "something other than humans". It results in humans producing variations of humans, which is something we directly observe. Obviously you admit that there is a lot of variation among humans, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don’t you see the nonsense.

The problem isn't that *I* don't see the nonsense....

You just got own by the very figures you yourself gave.

You’ve given arbitrary names to mutations and say

Not arbitrary. Factual.
Humans aren't clones of their parents.
Mutation rate is a real, observable thing.
Every newborn has mutations.
Every. Single. One.

, because you think there is a small minority of positive ones, they drive the fantasy tree of life. Even repeating the example of humans when they haven’t evolved into anything else. what’s your point.

A "small minority of positive ones", is all the evolutionary process needs.
You'ld know this if you would actually take the time to learn about it.

When Boeing uses genetic algorithms to optimize sub-systems in their aircraft, they get better results then when the brightest human engineers do it. And those algorithms work in the exact same way.

But whatever...
Continue sticking your head in the sand.

 

[Apostle John]

It's not arbitrary. Beneficial mutations are defined as beneficial if they provide an increase to the probability of surviving and reproducing.

They then drive evolution because mutations that make an individual more likely to survive and reproduce are therefore more likely be survive and be reproduced. It's that simple.


What do you mean "evolved into anything else"?

Evolution happens WITHIN the taxa. Evolution doesn't result in humans producing "something other than humans". It results in humans producing variations of humans, which is something we directly observe. Obviously you admit that there is a lot of variation among humans, right?

You have arrived at that conclusion by looking at changes in genes retrospectively. You haven’t proved your tree of life or disproved creation in the slightest.