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

[Apostle John]

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...

Mice would have been running around near people for centuries. But seriously, the gestation period for mice is less than a month so worldwide experimentations on lab mice over the last 20 years should have shown something to support species to species evolution by now.

 

[ratiocinator]

Mice would have been running around near people for centuries. But seriously, the gestation period for mice is less than a month so worldwide experimentations on lab mice over the last 20 years should have shown something to support species to species evolution by now.

You're still fixating on an irrelevant and dogmatic example. There is no necessity for a population to evolve into a different species given some amount of time. It generally happens when populations become isolated and/or the environment significantly changes. We can, however, observe it even over geographical distance, rather than time (ring species) but then, of course, you'll do the usual evolution-denying sidestep and claim it isn't really a change of 'kind' and suddenly we're away from the scientific idea of species and into the looking glass world of the undefined 'kind' that means whatever a creationist happens to think helps at the time.

See also: Speciation: causes, process, types and examples.

It's also worth noting that the case for evolution can, today, be made from genetic evidence alone, with no recourse to the other evidence at all (including all the evidence that was used to develop the theory in the first place). You really couldn't ask for better confirmation than an entire new field of study that confirms a theory that was already well evidenced.

Just a few random examples to get give you a taste of the real subject (a tiny, tiny part of the vast amounts of evidence that you are denying):

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences
Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations
Genesis and the Genome (pdf)

Please at least try to get an understanding before the usual ignorant, creationist nonsense along the lines of "similarities in genes don't prove anything". It's not about just similarities in the genes. It's as much about the nature of the differences and the relics of genes that no longer work (humans still have the remains of the gene for making egg yoke, for example).

 

[Apostle John]

There is no necessity for a population to evolve into a different species given some amount of time.

The whole concept of evolution relies on that very fact and is necessary.

It's also worth noting that the case for evolution can, today, be made from genetic evidence alone

The study of genetics does not prove evolution in anyway whatsoever. In fact it disproves evolution, genetic information carried through multiple mutations deteriorates overtime thereby disproving the idea of small organisms changing up in size to more larger, more complicated organisms.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The whole concept of evolution relies on that very fact and is necessary.


The study of genetics does not prove evolution in anyway whatsoever. In fact it disproves evolution, genetic information carried through multiple mutations deteriorates overtime thereby disproving the idea of small organisms changing up in size to more larger, more complicated organisms.

You do not understand evolution. I would suggest taking some courses before continuing a conversation about something you do not understand in the slightest, and in fact, demonstrate a total misunderstanding of every aspect of it in your posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

That would refute the theory of evolution. You simply do not understand it. You would probably laugh at someone that said:
"Prove to me that your God is real. Show him doing something evil."

Wouldn't you doing that actually refute your version of God? Your demand would refute the theory of evolution if someone could do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The whole concept of evolution relies on that very fact and is necessary.

Where does it rely on that? Prove it with a proper source.

The study of genetics does not prove evolution in anyway whatsoever. In fact it disproves evolution, genetic information carried through multiple mutations deteriorates overtime thereby disproving the idea of small organisms changing up in size to more larger, more complicated organisms.

Science does not do "proofs" in that sense of the word. Science is based upon evidence and genetics is evidence for evolution. But you have almost zero understanding of the sciences. You clearly do not understand that basics. Are you willing to learn? It is not that hard. You could lean what the scientific method is and what is and what is not evidence in the sciences. This does not just apply to evolution, it applies to all sciences. So would you care to learn or are you only interested in looking silly?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Where does it rely on that? Prove it with a proper source.

Science does not do "proofs" in that sense of the word. Science is based upon evidence and genetics is evidence for evolution. But you have almost zero understanding of the sciences. You clearly do not understand that basics. Are you willing to learn? It is not that hard. You could lean what the scientific method is and what is and what is not evidence in the sciences. This does not just apply to evolution, it applies to all sciences. So would you care to learn or are you only interested in looking silly?

As far as I can tell there are several versions of science as different philosophies of science and not just one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

My irony meter just exploded.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe you are saying that Adam and Eve is a myth because it does not agree with your flawed view of evolution.

No. It's a myth because the facts of genetics demonstrate it to be such.

The real myth is evolution.

Evolution accounts for all the evidence, and accurately predicts new evidence.
Myths tend not to have that quality.

What God says about Adam and Eve is truth and agrees with science

It doesn't. And just ignoring, or being otherwise willfully ignorant, about the science will not make it go away.

at least as far as we know it.

As far as YOU know it, perhaps.
Willful ignorance is a good way to achieve that, off course.

Some things like eternal life are more in the future although science is making breakthroughs in that area also.

Que?
There is no such thing as "eternal fire", because fire consumes certain types of matter, and that matter isn't infinite anywhere in the universe.
So there's no such thing as "eternal fire" as that would require an infinite amount of matter, which doesn't exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Species to species evolution is a delusion.

You might want to google "observed speciation".
Perhaps use "duck duck go" instead of google, since that search engine doesn't serve you with links based on your browsing history.
You'll get more accurate links instead of (more then likely) mere creationist propaganda on google.

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

Well, that is false off course since comparative anatomy supports evolution in every way.
But even so, fossil evidence is among the weakest of evidence for evolution.
Try genetics instead.

Genetics makes common ancestry of species a genetic fact.

Genetics allows us to establish blood ties between individuals, and thus determine levels of relatedness / common ancestry.
This is how we can tell if your cousin is your actual biological cousin.
We can do the same for species.

This is how we also know about so-called "Y-chromosome adam" and "mitochondrial eve".
Funny how creationists are usually very quick to point at those two as supposedly "evidence" for their bible myth, while rejecting genetics facts that reveal common ancestry of species. It's the exact same tech that allows us to establish both.

To accept Y-chromosome adam and mitochondrial eve while rejecting that humans and chimps share ancestors, is sheer hypocrisy of the highest degree.

Really, to fully support your claims, you need to demonstrate a small mammal changing to another distinctly separate species

Speciation is a vertical process, not a horizontal one.
Speciation results in sub-species. Not in "distinctly separate species".

Like how wolves evolved into dogs but not into cats.

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.

There has not been any experiments with mice for "centuries". And it would also take a lot longer then a few centuries.
You might want to read up on how evolution actually works.

If we would see mice in a lab speciate into a non-mouse, then evolution theory as currently understood would be falsified.

So the evidence you demand to see for evolution, wouldn't actually support evolution theory. It would instead contradict it.
This is your level of ignorance of the theory you are so religiously hellbend on denying....

Why is it that creationists can only argue strawmen?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The whole concept of evolution relies on that very fact and is necessary.

No.

The study of genetics does not prove evolution in anyway whatsoever.

False. It makes common ancestry of species a fact.
Evolution theory explains the mechanism of that fact (among many other facts).

In fact it disproves evolution,

No.

genetic information carried through multiple mutations deteriorates overtime

Except when it doesn't. You have been given loads of examples of exactly that in the past. You handwaved them away.
Willful ignorance is not going to make you "win" the argument.

thereby disproving the idea of small organisms changing up in size to more larger, more complicated organisms.

Evolution is not a ladder towards "stronger, bigger, faster".


You know.... I don't think I have actually ever seen you make a correct statement about what evolution says. Not once.
All you can do is argue strawmen. What do you hope to accomplish by doing so?

 

[ratiocinator]

The whole concept of evolution relies on that very fact and is necessary.

No, it does not. Again you are just showing that you don't understand anything about the subject.

The study of genetics does not prove evolution in anyway whatsoever.

I just gave you a very small sample of some of the copious evidence from genetics that does provide evidence (way beyond reasonable doubt) for evolution. You've ignored it all.

In fact it disproves evolution, genetic information carried through multiple mutations deteriorates overtime thereby disproving the idea of small organisms changing up in size to more larger, more complicated organisms.

Simply false (again). This is just more creationist misinformation. Mutation provides novelty and natural selection selects that which is useful. Useful novelty is new information and can (and does) lead to greater complexity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, it does not. Again you are just showing that you don't understand anything about the subject.



I just gave you a very small sample of some of the copious evidence from genetics that does provide evidence (way beyond reasonable doubt) for evolution. You've ignored it all.



Simply false (again). This is just more creationist misinformation. Mutation provides novelty and natural selection selects that which is useful. Useful novelty is new information and can (and does) lead to greater complexity.

Nitpick. There is not any objective useful in evolution. Useful is a human subjective evaluation.

 

[Apostle John]

Genetics makes common ancestry of species a genetic fact.

Genetics allows us to establish blood ties between individuals, and thus determine levels of relatedness / common ancestry.
This is how we can tell if your cousin is your actual biological cousin.
We can do the same for species.

This is how we also know about so-called "Y-chromosome adam" and "mitochondrial eve".
Funny how creationists are usually very quick to point at those two as supposedly "evidence" for their bible myth, while rejecting genetics facts that reveal common ancestry of species. It's the exact same tech that allows us to establish both.

To accept Y-chromosome adam and mitochondrial eve while rejecting that humans and chimps share ancestors, is sheer hypocrisy of the highest degree.

No it doesn’t and I already exposed that lie on page 2 of this thread by examining a ‘scientific’ study appearing in the magazine Nature that had been put up by the atheists. It had a multitude of flaws and sweeping statements, no fact. It is the same how you argue your case, assertion with no fact, along with blanket denial to any challenge of your empty regurgitation of nonsense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No it doesn’t and I already exposed that lie on page 2 of this thread by examining a ‘scientific’ study appearing in the magazine Nature that had been put up by the atheists. It had a multitude of flaws and sweeping statements, no fact. It is the same how you argue your case, assertion with no fact, along with blanket denial to any challenge of your empty regurgitation of nonsense.

Well, again.
Here is the 3 positions.
God is a fact.
Evolution is a fact.
They are both human constructs and I don't claim any of them to be facts.

Now explain for the everyday world how these 3 positions all happen as they can all 3 be observed for the everyday world.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No it doesn’t and I already exposed that lie on page 2 of this thread by examining a ‘scientific’ study appearing in the magazine Nature that had been put up by the atheists. It had a multitude of flaws and sweeping statements, no fact. It is the same how you argue your case, assertion with no fact, along with blanket denial to any challenge of your empty regurgitation of nonsense.

To say you "examined a scientific study" is fairly generous. Here is the entirety of your post in question:

So this has been the only ‘evidence’ put forth so far in support of science that can be examined. As suspected it disappointed. A Nature article had the following sweeping statement and was full of guesswork like;

“When the overall population size does not change (as is likely to have happened for long periods of human history), men have, on average, just one son. In this case, evolutionary theory predicts that for any given man there is a high probability that his paternal line will eventually come to an end.”​

Adam was told by God to go forth and multiply and had three sons as well as daughters. The account in Genesis suggests multiplication happened freely and readily with lots of sons born to men. With the ages lived to back then along with the commandment from God to procreate and the fact man needed other human company to live and survive shows the Bible to be more plausible than the science story.

I looked it up, and found this extract was from this article here:

Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time - Nature

Studies re-date 'Y-chromosome Adam' and 'mitochondrial Eve'.

www.nature.com

So, by "examining a 'scientific' study", what you actually mean is "read two sentences out of a popular article about science".

I mean, that's hardly an "examination", and it's not a "scientific study".

It's just you taking one part of one article and making baseless generalisations about it without any substantive argument or evidence.

 

[Apostle John]

To say you "examined a scientific study" is fairly generous. Here is the entirety of your post in question:


I looked it up, and found this extract was from this article here:

Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time - Nature

Studies re-date 'Y-chromosome Adam' and 'mitochondrial Eve'.

www.nature.com

So, by "examining a 'scientific' study", what you actually mean is "read two sentences out of a popular article about science".

I mean, that's hardly an "examination", and it's not a "scientific study".

It's just you taking one part of one article and making baseless generalisations about it without any substantive argument or evidence.

There you go again responding with more empty pith. Let’s examine whether you no fact from fiction since you have dug that article out and show me a single fact within it as opposed to hypothesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it doesn’t

Yes it does.

and I already exposed that lie on page 2 of this thread by examining a ‘scientific’ study appearing in the magazine Nature that had been put up by the atheists.

Please. You wouldn't recognize proper science if it came up and hit you upside the head with a peer reviewed paper.
Every statement you make about the subject shows you have no understanding of it whatseover.
Yet, you feel qualified to "examine" scientific studies.

It would be laughable if it wouldn't be so sad.
Your arrogance, willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty is absolutely mind-blowingly astounding.

It had a multitude of flaws and sweeping statements, no fact. It is the same how you argue your case, assertion with no fact, along with blanket denial to any challenge of your empty regurgitation of nonsense.

Do you deny that DNA allows us to establish blood ties between individuals?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There you go again responding with more empty pith. Let’s examine whether you no fact from fiction since you have dug that article out and show me a single fact within it as opposed to hypothesis.

Do you suppose the entirety of evolutionary theory hinges on the claims of a single article?

Rather than going looking for facts that you will refuse to accept are facts, why not simply ask questions about how the theory is supposed to work? You don't have to accept it, but it doesn't help to learn.

 

[1213]

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.

I think Bible has information that makes it more believable than others. For example about how earth was formed and how the flood happened, which explains well why world is like it is nowadays.