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

[TagliatelliMonster]

The wife is on chemo and hard hit. I am trying not to transfer and be combative just for being combative and you are one of the nicer posters, so I stopped myself.

I wish you and your wife a lot of strength and courage in these hard times.

I hope she pulls through.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The question was why do bad mutations die out quickly.

And it was clearly answered. "bad" mutations hinder survival and / or reproduction. So they don't spread in the population.
Did you even read the post?

Figures bandied around on here suggest there are 99.999% bad mutations

Those are false figures that YOU "bandied around".
Plenty of people have pointed out your mistake, but I see you are once again doubling down on your ignorance.

Another case of

Looking at those figures they won’t die out quickly by having ‘fewer in each generation’ and would affect ‘survival’ especially in the example of humans. It is a nonsense theory.

The only "nonsense theory" here, is your misrepresentation of it.


FYI: here's another thing that is going to make your head spin, and which anyone with a basic understanding of the actual theory will consider mega obvious... Did you know that a specific mutation in environment A can be extremely beneficial while the exact same mutation in environment B might be horrendously bad?

I bet that by a "bad mutation" you are thinking of things like deformations and alike. Obviously such are bad, but such are bad always.
Can you figure out yourself an example of a change that would be beneficial in environment A while being detrimental to survival in environment B?

A bit of logical thinking will quickly yield a few examples.

 

[Apostle John]

Those are false figures that YOU "bandied around".
Plenty of people have pointed out your mistake, but I see you are once again doubling down on your ignorance.

Another case of

View attachment 76329

If you read the source properly it was only a model anyway with fantasy figures. In reality there is no such thing as beneficial mutations. Along with ‘survival’, ‘fittest’, ‘selection’ ‘speciation’ these are all manmade terminology that are the only things that have evolved in the fairytale of ToE.

 

[ratiocinator]

In reality there is no such thing as beneficial mutations.

The comedy just goes on. Evidence? Reasoning? What could possibly prevent essentially random changes from sometimes making an improvement?

Along with ‘survival’, ‘fittest’, ‘selection’ ‘speciation’ these are all manmade terminology that are the only things that have evolved in the fairytale of ToE.

Now you're just being too silly. I can't take you seriously. Why are you doing a parody of a clueless creationist? Get a grip, even creationists aren't that stupid!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is a nonsense theory.

How would you know? Serious question. What you believe is nonsense to critical thinkers.

You haven’t read the Biblical narrative carefully, clearly have no idea what the earth was like before the flood

There was no global flood, and we have a very good idea what the earth has looked like over the last several billion years. Furthermore, it's irrelevant to an unbeliever what the Bible says.

The Bible infers the earth was reshaped.

Implies, not infers, and moreover, as I said, it's irrelevant to an unbeliever what the Bible says. The earth was reshaped by the moon-forming impact, but the Bible writers knew nothing about that, and that occurred long before the water comprising our oceans was available to flood it. If you're implying that Noah existed before Mt. Everest, well, there some of that nonsense you were talking about.

You have no idea how long it took Noah to build the ark or what help he had.

There was no ark. Nor could any man have had the tools and materials necessary to build such a craft. I told you what it took to build the ark at Ark Encounter, but you probably didn't read it.

The ingathering of the animals was supernatural, again, as described in the Bible.

More nonsense. It's interesting how you turn to magic when you run out of naturalistic responses.

Every living creature here on earth has DNA. You have no idea where that came from

You don't. Others do.

Have Lego pieces ever been observed to self assemble, even ‘mix‘ under their own volition? Try spending some considerable time critically thinking about that.

No. Why do you ask? Do you think that's an apt analogy? If so, yet more nonsense. Lego blocks don't float in water to find one another, have no charge to help orient them for reaction, and couldn't react with one another if they did.

And I suggest you give up the phrase critical thinking until you know what it is. Have you ever heard the phrase stolen valor? It's used in the military to refer to people trying to take credit for things they didn't do and gain respect they didn't earn. You haven't put in the necessary hours to use that term in reference to you own thinking.

 

[Apostle John]

What could possibly prevent essentially random changes from sometimes making an improvement?

Because when DNA and genes don’t have the capacity to think for themselves and mutations (known otherwise as copying errors) are only negative and take information on a downward trend. ToE is simply not true.

 

[Apostle John]

No. Why do you ask? Do you think that's an apt analogy? If so, yet more nonsense. Lego blocks don't float in water to find one another, have no charge to help orient them for reaction, and couldn't react with one another if they did. And I suggest you give up the phrase critical thinking until you know what it is.

Just before you wrote that you claimed others had ideas of where DNA came from, that’s an apt analogy. Small molecules, like Lego, don’t float on water and orientate themselves for reaction, they chemically decompose because of their environment and they cannot think. They are no different to Lego.

 

[ratiocinator]

Because when DNA and genes don’t have the capacity to think for themselves...

Nobody ever said they could, it's not required for the ToE, and it doesn't answer the question.

...and mutations (known otherwise as copying errors) are only negative...

Why? That implies a process that would prevent some essentially random process from making a positive change.

 

[Apostle John]

Nobody ever said they could, it's not required for the ToE, and it doesn't answer the question.


Why? That implies a process that would prevent some essentially random process from making a positive change.

I don’t believe in ToE.

An essentially random process cannot make thousands of positive changes as projected in the evolutionary concept of the tree of life. Don’t forget, species already existed when Darwin came up with that idea (fanciful in my perspective).

 

[ratiocinator]

I don’t believe in ToE.

I think most people get that, so what? You don't seem to know anything about it.

An essentially random process cannot make thousands of positive changes as projected in the evolutionary concept...

Why not? All that is needed is a relatively small proportion amongst lots of neutral and deleterious ones. Random change cannot be directed to produce only negative change, it wouldn't be random if it was.

Don’t forget, species already existed when Darwin came up with that idea...

Err, is there a point you're struggling to make?

 

[Apostle John]

Err, is there a point you're struggling to make?

Well if you want me to enforce it, Darwin could see there were species around when he lived, that was the basis of his idea of tree of life.

I prefer to believe in the Creator and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[an anarchist]

I prefer to believe

And that's perfectly okay, @Apostle John

I think what some of the members debating you here might take issue with is the fact that you are insisting that your Biblical Literalist view is "scientific" and "supported by evidence". This seems to not be the case. There are legitimate reasons why atheists believe what they do, it's because they have scientific evidence.

One thing you may not realize is the level of education many of religious forums members have. I'd wager several of the folk you been debating on the theory of evolution have a thorough college education.

If you dont mind me asking, what level of education do you have? Do you have any secondary education specific to evolution or science in general? It's okay if you don't, I only did high school.

 

[Apostle John]

And that's perfectly okay, @Apostle John

I think what some of the members debating you here might take issue with is the fact that you are insisting that your Biblical Literalist view is "scientific" and "supported by evidence". This seems to not be the case. There are legitimate reasons why atheists believe what they do, it's because they have scientific evidence.

One thing you may not realize is the level of education many of religious forums members have. I'd wager several of the folk you been debating on the theory of evolution have a thorough college education.

If you dont mind me asking, what level of education do you have? Do you have any secondary education specific to evolution or science in general? It's okay if you don't, I only did high school.

“Some of the members debating” me here is an interesting term. I find the scientific evidence they purportedly have is flimsy.

FYI, I have a PhD in organic synthetic chemistry.

 

[an anarchist]

I find the scientific evidence they purportedly have is flimsy.

As opposed to the evidence that supports a young earth?

When I was a young earther Bible Literalist, I figured the best way to argue my position was the "Omphalos Hypothesis". This argues that God created an already evolved and old universe some 6000 years ago. This accounts for all the evidence of an old universe.

You believe that Yahweh created the earth in six literal days about 6000 years ago (right?).

So, if you believe in the literal Genesis narrative, then the Omphalos Hypothesis is the reasonable line of thinking, imo. You believe that the stars are light-years away, right? Yet they were visible from earth within days. This alone should convice you of this hypothesis I think.

Evolution is real, Adam and Eve were just created already evolved. That line of thinking is compatible with science, imo. Skeptics label the Omphalos Hypothesis "Last Thursdayism" but I don't think the counter argument holds much credence, for a literal bible believing Christian that is.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you read the source properly it was only a model anyway with fantasy figures. In reality there is no such thing as beneficial mutations. Along with ‘survival’, ‘fittest’, ‘selection’ ‘speciation’ these are all manmade terminology that are the only things that have evolved in the fairytale of ToE.

After reading more about Richard Feynman, I am realizing it (meaning theories like "quantum physics") is really a lot of, if not all, fantastical mental meanderings. (or perhaps more succinctly put, imaginings.) And, as the saying goes, there's no proof.

 

[YoursTrue]

As opposed to the evidence that supports a young earth?

When I was a young earther Bible Literalist, I figured the best way to argue my position was the "Omphalos Hypothesis". This argues that God created an already evolved and old universe some 6000 years ago. This accounts for all the evidence of an old universe.

You believe that Yahweh created the earth in six literal days about 6000 years ago (right?).

So, if you believe in the literal Genesis narrative, then the Omphalos Hypothesis is the reasonable line of thinking, imo. You believe that the stars are light-years away, right? Yet they were visible from earth within days. This alone should convice you of this hypothesis I think.

Evolution is real, Adam and Eve were just created already evolved. That line of thinking is compatible with science, imo. Skeptics label the Omphalos Hypothesis "Last Thursdayism" but I don't think the counter argument holds much credence, for a literal bible believing Christian that is.

The problem with the new earth interpretation is in part that the 7th Day has not been said (written) to have ended yet. Many people overlook this fact, aside from the fact that insects and plant growth and propagation could not possibly, in any case, have been effective in a 24 hour day. The idea that each day was 24 hours is preposterous. Aside from being wrong.

 

[ratiocinator]

Darwin could see there were species around when he lived, that was the basis of his idea of tree of life.

Yes. He looked at the evidence and constructed his theory from it, which has since been confirmed by endless more evidence including the entirely subsequent field of genetics.

I prefer to believe in the Creator and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It's not an either/or, there are plenty of people who believe both. Also, I don't see how your preferences (or anybody else's) have anything to do with what is actually true.

 

[1213]

Science doesn't consult the Bible. What do you mean by water "under it"? If you mean that the continent was floating, that is incorrect. T

I mean, there was vast cavities filled with water. It could have supported earth above it, if the water could not have escaped.

Interestingly some claim there is still such water reservoirs.

Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth

Scans of Earth's deep interior reveal a vast water reservoir beneath Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

www.livescience.com

 

[1213]

This is a misunderstanding on your part. When we speak of ancestral species we do not mean that the later species all came from a single pair of individuals. We are talking of entire sub-populations of organisms here. The ancestor is the ancestral population from which the later species is descended.

So, at some point there appeared multiple bears at the same time? Or should I bear in mind that we can't define any species accurately and clearly?

As for the notion of vast quantities of water under the continents, you have to be invoking miracles all over the place to believe this, because there is no such quantity of water today, nor any plausible means by which it could have disappeared.

What say you about this:

Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth

Scans of Earth's deep interior reveal a vast water reservoir beneath Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

www.livescience.com

And yes, the continents have moved considerably, as an abundance of geological evidence demonstrates. See for example the "modern evidence" section of this article: Continental drift - Wikipedia

It is fascinating how you can believe they have moved.

 

[1213]

What bizarre 'reasoning' did you use to come up with this nonsense?

Is this "family tree" fictional, was there not for example Ursus minimus?