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

[Apostle John]

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.

That is not what I asked was it. By your response we proved it is only hypothesis and has no factual basis. Unfortunately you cannot prove how we humans got here without hypothesis, which includes studies as described above involving genetics. Hypothesis upon hypothesis never produces fact, only confusion. Evolution theory stating we evolved from animals is indeed a massive lie.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is not any objective useful in evolution.

'Useful' in the context of evolution, has a precise and objective meaning. It means that it increases the chances of survival and reproduction in the context of the environment of the population.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is not what I asked was it.

You didn't ask anything. Questions usually end with question-marks.

In any case, what fact might you be willing to accept? There are a lot of factual claims in the article.

By your response we proved it is only hypothesis and has no factual basis. Unfortunately you cannot prove how we humans got here without hypothesis, which includes studies as described above involving genetics. Hypothesis upon hypothesis never produces fact, only confusion. Evolution theory stating we evolved from animals is indeed a massive lie.

So, we should just ignore all evidence?

 

[ratiocinator]

Unfortunately you cannot prove how we humans got here without hypothesis, which includes studies as described above involving genetics. Hypothesis upon hypothesis never produces fact, only confusion. Evolution theory stating we evolved from animals is indeed a massive lie.

Again you are showing complete ignorance of, not only evolution, but science as a whole. Science never does proof, it does evidence. The evidence for evolution is so comprehensive that it makes doubting it irrational. You have been given some of it and all you've done is ignore it and go on restating your blind faith that it isn't true. No hint of any actual science, understanding or attempt at addressing the specific evidence you've been given.

 

[Apostle John]

You have been given some of it and all you've done is ignore it and go on restating your blind faith that it isn't true. No hint of any actual science, understanding or attempt at addressing the specific evidence you've been given.

Everything you have given involves hypothesis. To reiterate, hypothesis upon hypothesis never produces fact, only confusion. Moreover, if someone actually observes a change of say hair colour for example, in any animal in the field, it doesn’t confirm humans came from animals. This is the level of your science you cling to. If “it never does proof”, your type of ‘evidence’ can always be challenged effectively. It is no more than a faith based religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

'Useful' in the context of evolution, has a precise and objective meaning. It means that it increases the chances of survival and reproduction in the context of the environment of the population.

Well, no. Useful has no objective referent. It is always a first person qualitative evaluation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Everything you have given involves hypothesis. To reiterate, hypothesis upon hypothesis never produces fact, only confusion.

So, to you, it is literally impossible to draw reasonable conclusions from observed facts?

Moreover, if someone actually observes a change of say hair colour for example, in any animal in the field, it doesn’t confirm humans came from animals.

Correct, it doesn't.

What DOES confirm it is our DNA the convergence of the fossil record.

This is the level of your science you cling to.

No, it really isn't. Please cite a single scientific source or paper which states that "because animals have different hair colour, this confirms humans came from animals". If you cannot, then what you have just said is a lie.

If “it never does proof”,

Which is accurate. Scientific theories are well-substantiated explanations of facts, but they are never held up as absolute because that prevents us from re-examining and amending them.

your type of ‘evidence’ can always be challenged effectively.

I have yet to see you challenge any evidence, just brush it off.

It is no more than a faith based religion.

Please don't bring things down to your level.

But, hey, if you want to play that game: if evolution is a religion, it's a religion which has made decades-worth of incredible predictions and discoveries, and has directly contributed towards our understanding of the everyday world to such an extent that is considered indispensable in modern biology and medicine.

So, I guess it's the right religion, then.

 

[ratiocinator]

Everything you have given involves hypothesis.

No. Hypotheses are potentially testable explanation. The theory (scientific sense) of evolution has been tested endless times and is supported by copious evidence.

To reiterate, hypothesis upon hypothesis never produces fact, only confusion.

Since that has nothing to do with evolution, it is irrelevant. Evolution has long since past the stage of hypothesis. Claiming that it hasn't is just ignorance.

Moreover, if someone actually observes a change of say hair colour for example, in any animal in the field, it doesn’t confirm humans came from animals

Nobody has ever made such a claim.

This is the level of your science you cling.

False.

If “it never does proof”, your type of ‘evidence’ can always be challenged effectively. It is no more than a faith based religion.

False again. Between blind faith (religion) and proof, there is objective evidence that can give various degrees of confidence in a theory. The theory of evolution is one of the best tested theories in science.

 

[ratiocinator]

Useful has no objective referent. It is always a first person qualitative evaluation.

Generally speaking you have a point. However, in the context of evolution, there is a specific and well defined meaning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Generally speaking you have a point. However, in the context of evolution, there is a specific and well defined meaning.

Yes, replication of the fittest genes or what variant used there. And that takes place even within a species. Hence in practice subjectivity is a cause and effect in string of causes over time for that replication. Hence the universe is natural and physical, yet in some cases of organisms subjective as not independent of the replication and the organism in effect.

 

[wellwisher]

This is a creative way to read the science into the Bible, and in some sense has some symbolic merit to it. However only if held very lightly. If you look too closely it begins to lose meaning.

Take for instance the symbol of the Garden of Eden. It was considered paradise. So if the Fall, or expulsion from the Garden occured because of transitioning from hunter-gatherer type existence to agrarian living is to be viewed as a shift moving from good to bad, then are we to assume then that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is preferable?

One of the problems with that is of course would be seeing your family members or yourself being attacked and eaten by leopards, snakes, and any other number of things that kill you that being part of a civilized society protects you from. Evolutionarily speaking, humankind didn't get thrown out of the Garden. They stood up and walked out of it in pursuit of a more stable and safe existence!

I could go on with this, but I think you get my point? How strictly do you want to try to make the story fit the science and read the science into the story? If loosely, it has some merit. If you're trying to prove the Bible through the science, you're going to have some problems. Agreed?

The DNA assumption of evolution breaks down around the time of civilization. How does science equate DNA to the rise of civilization, the invention of written language, and will and choice? Will and choice imply the brain is leading. Will and choicer is no linger connect to instinct. Civilization is not one behavior at a time, but an entirely new lifestyle, requiring many innovations to appear in a cluster. It is not discover how ti use fire and then you are good for 50,000 years; DNA. Civilization has many new behavior that have to be mastered within a short lifetime.

Fall from paradise is a metaphor for humans choosing this new human behavior, based on learned knowledge of good and evil; brain, that broke the age old connection to natural human instinct; DNA and 1 million plus years of evolution. Like animal instinct, human instinct is engrained on the DNA. With the brain suddenly leading, humans could depart from natural instinct and evolution. This led to war, genocide, slavery, and new types of disease due to changes in behavior.

A simple example that can allow one to see this assumption of the modern brain leading the DNA, is homosexual behavior. Evolution and natural selection requires sexual reproduction; male and female, to write changes to the DNA. Homosexuality, by its very nature can not sexually reproduce, to record this behavior on the DNA. Logically, what is left is the brain and learned behavior, is needed to help one makes such choices, in the short term, that may or may not ever reach the DNA, due to lack of the sexual merging of genes. This is not about politics but common sense logic.

Adam and Eve, were at that tipping point, where evolution shifts away from being exclusively connected to sex, to also being connected to thought and will; knowledge of good and evil. Tree of life is a metaphor of DNA and natural instinct. The tree of life is taken away; repressed, but not destroyed, as the brain and consciousness come to the front.

As a modern analogy, computers are now under the will and choice of the programmers. Computers can learn and pretend to be like us, but all based on how they are programed; computer instinct. When AI finally appears, from this matrix of code and data, as a self aware consciousness, that can ignore its program, and even willfully make changes, we will call that day, Adam. The age of civilization, as we know it, will come to an end, since now other computer entities will think for you; loose analogy only to make the point of consciousness exceeding its original program.

Adam was in charge of naming the animals. How does this come from the DNA? It is more connected to the brain and subjectivity, at a time when there was no right or wrong answer. It was up to the will and choice of Adam. This was paradise. It still had natural instinct, but also the budding will to change and improve, without yet any moral judgments that would lead to all types of problems. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is when right and wrong subjectively appear and there is now subjective right and wrong answers, that can start wars or cause decline.

 

[Apostle John]

Please cite a single scientific source or paper which states that "because animals have different hair colour, this confirms humans came from animals". If you cannot, then what you have just said is a lie.

Nobody has ever made such a claim.

You’ve misquoted me which is against your rules. But this paper asserts proof of the concept of natural selection (and ergo humans evolving from animals). Natural selection is nonsense of course and with just common observation hair colour changes in humans without natural selection.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aav3824

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You’ve misquoted me which is against your rules.

That is not true, we quoted you directly.

But this paper asserts proof of the concept of natural selection (and ergo humans evolving from animals).

That is also not true. It asserts no such thing. It is simply a paper detailing an observation of a specific instance of mutation in mice. It make no claim about "proof of natural selection", and says nothing about its observations "proving" humans evolved from animals.

 

[ratiocinator]

You’ve misquoted me which is against your rules.

Another false claim. I quoted verbatim.

But this paper asserts proof of the concept of natural selection (and ergo humans evolving from animals).

Not according to the abstract, it doesn't. It's about predicting natural selection, not 'proof of the concept of natural selection'. Nobody with any knowledge of the subject questions that natural selection happens.

Natural selection is nonsense of course...

Comical. Natural selection is pretty much a truism. You'd have to think of a reason that would prevent it from happening, it's so blindingly obvious.

...and with just common observation hair colour changes in humans without natural selection.

Variation in hair colour in humans has very little to do with natural selection. Pigmentation in mice in different environments is a different matter.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Another false claim. I quoted verbatim.



Not according to the abstract, it doesn't. It's about predicting natural selection, not 'proof of the concept of natural selection'. Nobody with any knowledge of the subject questions that natural selection happens.



Comical. Natural selection is pretty much a truism. You'd have to think of a reason that would prevent it from happening, it's so blindingly obvious.



Variation in hair colour in humans has very little to do with natural selection. Pigmentation in mice in different environments is a different matter.

Yeah, probably. But it could be a case of spandrel because of natural selection.

 

[Apostle John]

Another false claim. I quoted verbatim.

I cannot debate this obsessive lying and constant pithy, distortion of the truth.

Comical.

Richard Dawkins approves many comedians for his annual award. Another reason not to take this type of atheist pretending to know about science seriously.

 

[ratiocinator]

I cannot debate this obsessive lying and constant pithy, distortion of the truth.

I was thinking the same thing.

Richard Dawkins approves many comedians for his annual award.

Who cares? Comedians generally intend to be comical.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I cannot debate this obsessive lying and constant pithy, distortion of the truth.

Once again, you accused us breaking forum rules and misquoting you. We did not. That was false.

Why did you do that when it is blatantly untrue?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everything you have given involves hypothesis. To reiterate, hypothesis upon hypothesis never produces fact, only confusion. Moreover, if someone actually observes a change of say hair colour for example, in any animal in the field, it doesn’t confirm humans came from animals. This is the level of your science you cling to. If “it never does proof”, your type of ‘evidence’ can always be challenged effectively. It is no more than a faith based religion.

Incorrect. Hypotheses bring us ever closer to the truth. The computer, tablet or phone that you are using owe their existence to hypotheses. Your life is dependent upon them. Anything that was derived from the sciences is dependent upon hypotheses.


And yes,evolution has been confirmed countless times by testing various hypotheses. As to challenging evidence how would you do it "effectively"? Your claim, your burden of proof. How would you challenge the evidence from "Lucy" for example?

 

[Apostle John]

As to challenging evidence how would you do it "effectively"? Your claim, your burden of proof. How would you challenge the evidence from "Lucy" for example?

‘Lucy’ shows the daftness of the imagination of man. Bones, only 40% complete and they go fabricate a fairytale story with them. I’m not going to discuss the fantasy of using dating methods with you again. Those bones are likely actually to come from a female human. The fragments of skull, how do you even know they kept their original shape for example?