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

[nPeace]

I don't care for your semantic drivel.

The article also says this:

but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don’t. Natural selection is NOT random!


"Genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction". What determines what aids survival and reproduction? Where do these selection pressures come from? It's those pressures that steer evolution. And no, not in a predetermined way, which is what that article is referring to.

As usual, your link shows you completely missed the point about the role of the environment at large in the selection process.

Now who is it spewing semantic drivel.
What does random and directed have in common?

 

[nPeace]

In my experience, most god believers are also capable of rational reasoning.



View attachment 75703

Either that, or your double standard is showing.



Who are those paleontologists?



I'm sure you can find a few quacks.

I see you used my gif. It must have grown on you... or you grew fond of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see you used my gif. It must have grown on you... or you grew fond of it.

It applies more to you than to him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now who is it spewing semantic drivel.
What does random and directed have in common?

Your question reveals that you still didn't get the point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see you used my gif. It must have grown on you... or you grew fond of it.

That gif has been in my meme folder for years which I grabbed off of google. Get over yourself.

I note you didn't bother to actually reply to the points raised, or bothered to name a few of these supposed paleontologists that apparently don't agree that the environment controls the selection pressures and therefor the environment steers evolution in a certain direction.

 

[1213]

What is that belief based on?

It is based on what is said in the story and in common history. I don't think there would have been any good reason to make up or copy the story in relative young time period.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is based on what is said in the story and in common history. I don't think there would have been any good reason to make up or copy the story in relative young time period.

You could say that about literally every creation myth.

99.9999% of which you consider to be the same hocus pocus as I consider the bible one to be.

 

[Colt]

 

[Muffled]

The problem is that you probably do not have proper understanding of the concept of evidence. Odds are very high that you do not know how to tell the difference between reliable and unreliable evidence or how to test your evidence.

I really don't care one iota about your unrealistic need for evidence. It shows that you mind is not capable of handling the truth.

 

[Muffled]

If you are a Christian you should know that Jesus often used all sorts of literary tools. I do not see him confirming the myths of Adam and Eve or Noah and his magic boat. The fact that life is the product of evolution does not refute the Christian God. It only refutes those that insist on a literal Genesis. But then if you treated all of the Bible that way you would be a Flat Earther since the Bible only describes the Earth as flat in word and deed. Does a spherical Earth refute Christianity? Does the heliocentric Earth refute Christianity? If not then evolution should not either.

No one has been arguing against Christianity, just an overly literal interpretation of some of the books of the Bible.

I believe you are saying that Adam and Eve is a myth because it does not agree with your flawed view of evolution. The real myth is evolution. What God says about Adam and Eve is truth and agrees with science at least as far as we know it. Some things like eternal life are more in the future although science is making breakthroughs in that area also.

 

[Muffled]

View attachment 75808

I believe you can explain scientifically how one gets a person out of a rib and why one could not do it visa versa ie start with Eve.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe you are saying that Adam and Eve is a myth because it does not agree with your flawed view of evolution. The real myth is evolution. What God says about Adam and Eve is truth and agrees with science at least as far as we know it. Some things like eternal life are more in the future although science is making breakthroughs in that area also.

Evolution is a demonstrable fact of reality.

Adam and Eve is a story in an old book. You claim that it's "truth" and that it "agrees with science at least as far as we know it." What science are you referring to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you are saying that Adam and Eve is a myth because it does not agree with your flawed view of evolution. The real myth is evolution. What God says about Adam and Eve is truth and agrees with science at least as far as we know it. Some things like eternal life are more in the future although science is making breakthroughs in that area also.

Such projection! How is my view of evolution flawed? How is evolution a myth? You have now entered the realm of science, not woo woo. You need to support your claims properly.


I do not think that anyone believes that you can do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really don't care one iota about your unrealistic need for evidence. It shows that you mind is not capable of handling the truth.

LMAO! Why on Earth is it unrealistic to demand evidence? By your poor standards a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as valid as your personal religious beliefs. Evidence allows us to tell the difference between reality and fantasy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you can explain scientifically how one gets a person out of a rib and why one could not do it visa versa ie start with Eve.

You may "believe" that. But that belief is pointless. You need to be able to support that belief.

 

[Colt]

I believe you can explain scientifically how one gets a person out of a rib and why one could not do it visa versa ie start with Eve.

I believe that Adam and Eve were celestial beings who took on the human form based on a technique far beyond our understanding. They arrived on a previously populated, evolved earth. They were to replace the previous fallen administration. Marooned by their own default (although repenting and salvaging what they could) they eventually died of old age having lost the use of the "tree of life" due to sin.

 

[Apostle John]

How is my view of evolution flawed? How is evolution a myth? You have now entered the realm of science, not woo woo. You need to support your claims properly.

Species to species evolution is a delusion. Your claims are not supported properly by just comparing skeletons and then speculating they just changed through adaptation, etc.
Really, to fully support your claims, you need to demonstrate a small mammal changing to another distinctly separate species, not just a change in hair colour. The fact that this has not been done with small rodents like mice in the lab after centuries of experimentation shows it’s a lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Species to species evolution is a delusion. Your claims are not supported properly by just comparing skeletons and then speculating they just changed through adaptation, etc.
Really, to fully support your claims, you need to demonstrate a small mammal changing to another distinctly separate species, not just a change in hair colour. The fact that this has not been done with small rodents like mice in the lab after centuries of experimentation shows it’s a lie.

My claims are supported by scientific evidence. A concept that you do not understand. And no, you proposed a strawman of evolution. That is not how it works. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. That is actually a creationist belief.

Now do you want to merely keep making false claims? If you do so you will never know how you keep calling God a liar.

 

[Apostle John]

My claims are supported by scientific evidence. A concept that you do not understand. And no, you proposed a strawman of evolution. That is not how it works. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. That is actually a creationist belief.

Now do you want to merely keep making false claims? If you do so you will never know how you keep calling God a liar.

Why can you not show us some hard, non-theoretical scientific evidence, something solid like mice changing into a bigger organism instead of sounding like a stuck record.

 

[ratiocinator]

Your claims are not supported properly by just comparing skeletons and then speculating they just changed through adaptation, etc.

So you have no idea at all what the actual evidence for evolution consists of.

The fact that this has not been done with small rodents like mice in the lab after centuries of experimentation shows it’s a lie.

Simply false. I suggest you try finding out something about the subject and its supporting evidence before commenting further on something you clearly don't understand. I also don't see where you got 'centuries of experimentation' from, since the theory was only first published about 160 years ago...