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

[Subduction Zone]

You know God once told me “you’re special” only pronounced similar to speeeeecial. He has given me over 200 words of knowledge/wisdom all in line with what the Bible teaches but I won’t be sharing many on here. I am humble and know all Christians are a class apart.

You really should not accuse other Christians of being "special". Most of them are not deniers of science and reality.

 

[ratiocinator]

Btw using genetics to explain evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics. There’s no way evolution can go toward more complex organisms without breaking this law.

So, we can add the second law of thermodynamics to the ever growing list of science that you don't understand.

In what way do you think the second law is relevant since we are not dealing with a closed system or one that is remotely close to equilibrium? Local increases in complexity are commonplace under these circumstances. Think snowflakes, for example.

 

[Apostle John]

So, we can add the second law of thermodynamics to the ever growing list of science that you don't understand.

In what way do you think the second law is relevant since we are not dealing with a closed system or one that is remotely close to equilibrium? Local increases in complexity are commonplace under these circumstances. Think snowflakes, for example.

Think how genes can acquire information when they are just made up of atoms. Mutations do not create information they do the opposite and destroy it hence evolution to more complex organisms just is not achievable. Snowflakes are not living organisms and have no relevance to the point.

 

[exchemist]

The atheist presentation for evolution is very erratic if not silly. One says Lucy is a completely irrelevant case, the other says Lucy is strong scientific evidence. One claims she IS THE missing link when the skeleton could be anything. This discredits atheists.
Btw using genetics to explain evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics. There’s no way evolution can go toward more complex organisms without breaking this law.

This is a very, very stupid claim and I'm surprised to see it still being put forward. Even most creationists have stopped using it as an argument because it opens them to ridicule.

You can only apply the laws of thermodynamics to a thermodynamic system. A species is a classification, not a thermodynamic system. A species comprises whole populations of organisms, living and dying over the course of multiple generations, over extended periods of time. There is no possible way to treat this collection of entities, separated in both time and space, as a thermodynamic system.

Secondly, even an individual organism is an open thermodynamic system, so one can't apply the second law of thermodynamic to it without considering all its exchanges of energy and matter with its surroundings. If one does that, one immediately sees (if one is not an idiot) that there is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[metis]

Yet, paradoxically, there is an inordinate amount of dinosaur fossil finds going back a supposed 65 million years.

Yes, but that is of no surprise, especially since humans separated from the other apes much later.

 

[Apostle John]

This is a very, very stupid claim and I'm surprised to see it still being put forward. Even most creationists have stopped using it as an argument because it opens them to ridicule.

You can only apply the laws of thermodynamics to a thermodynamic system. A species is a classification, not a thermodynamic system. A species comprises whole populations of organisms, living and dying over the course of multiple generations, over extended periods of time. There is no possible way to treat this collection of entities, separated in both time and space, as a thermodynamic system.

Secondly, even an individual organism is am open thermodynamic system, so one can't apply the second law of thermodynamic to it without considering all its exchanges of energy and matter with its surroundings. If one does that, one immediately sees (if one is not an idiot) that there is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

An organism‘s genes doesnt get information from energy and matter. Where does the increase in information come from within the atoms of the dna of the genes.

 

[ratiocinator]

Think how genes can acquire information when they are just made up of atoms. Mutations do not create information they do the opposite and destroy it hence evolution to more complex organisms just is not achievable.

More nonsense.

Information is basically related to unexpectedness or uncertainty (Information theory). To the extent that something is predictable, it gives you no information. A random mutation is pretty much entirely unpredictable so is giving you information - not necessarily useful information but it is supplying the required novelty. It is natural selection that weeds out the useless and amplifies the useful based on survivability and reproduction in the context of the environment. In effect, information therefore flows from the environment to the genome.

You are also just trying to make sweeping generalisation based on ignorance. There is very specific evidence for evolution in genetics that puts the theory well beyond reasonable doubt.

For just a small example from countless others all across the field of genetics, humans have a mutated (non-functional) version of the gene for making egg yoke. We also have mutated versions of several olfactory receptor genes (sense of smell) -as do chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Many of the disabling mutations on those genes are shared with those species, so we can use them to create a 'family tree' of the relationships between the four species. This turns out to be identical to the relationship deduced from other evidence (both genetic and otherwise). See: Genesis and the Genome (pdf).

Snowflakes are not living organisms and have no relevance to the point.

They represent an increase in complexity in open systems far from equilibrium, hence they are directly relevant to you poor understanding of the science.

 

[exchemist]

Yet, paradoxically, there is an inordinate amount of dinosaur fossil finds going back a supposed 65 million years.

What? That's nonsense. The dinosaurs died out 65m years ago. Dinosaurs were on the Earth from about 245m years ago until 65m years ago. That means they were around to generate fossils for 180m years.

Man has been around for about 3m years, 1/60th of the time the dinosaurs were.

 

[exchemist]

An organism‘s genes doesnt get information from energy and matter. Where does the increase in information come from within the atoms of the dna of the genes.

I am pointing out the deep stupidity of trying to invoke the laws of thermodynamics to refute evolution.

Trying to apply information theory to a classification is quite different, though equally silly. And for individual organisms, their information content changes far more every time they defecate than when a mutation take place in one of their gametes.

 

[Apostle John]

More nonsense.

Information is basically related to unexpectedness or uncertainty (Information theory). To the extent that something is predictable, it gives you no information. A random mutation is pretty much entirely unpredictable so is giving you information - not necessarily useful information but it is supplying the required novelty. It is natural selection that weeds out the useless and amplifies the useful based on survivability and reproduction in the context of the environment. In effect, information therefore flows from the environment to the genome.

You are also just trying to make sweeping generalisation based on ignorance. There is very specific evidence for evolution in genetics that puts the theory well beyond reasonable doubt.

For just a small example from countless others all across the field of genetics, humans have a mutated (non-functional) version of the gene for making egg yoke. We also have mutated versions of several olfactory receptor genes (sense of smell) -as do chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Many of the disabling mutations on those genes are shared with those species, so we can use them to create a 'family tree' of the relationships between the four species. This turns out to be identical to the relationship deduced from other evidence (both genetic and otherwise). See: Genesis and the Genome (pdf).


They represent an increase in complexity in open systems far from equilibrium, hence they are directly relevant to you poor understanding of the science.

You are not answering the big problem of how mutations of genes gain in information and intelligence

 

[metis]

On here there is a disproportionate amount of interest in lgbt issues. Another word God gave me a while back was “stifled queer”. All words I get require some interpretation (again in line with what the Bible teaches). It means odd types, cut off from being with God, non-Christians in other words.

So, now you are judging them?

 

[metis]

You are not answering the big problem of how mutations of genes gain in information and intelligence

It probably relates to both brain size, brain-lobe proportions, and brain complexity. Such is why "normal parents" can potentially have a son like Einstein or a 9' son [true].

 

[Apostle John]

It probably relates to both brain size, brain-lobe proportions, and brain complexity. Such is why "normal parents" can potentially have a son like Einstein or a 9' son [true].

Not really. Try harder for an explanation that doesn’t defy observational scientific studies.

 

[Windwalker]

By 'sabda jaala', I mean a lengthy article or book with fancy words, overall carrying no meaning, having no evidence.

Does poetry have no meaning? Is music without words meaningless?

Yes, reason and evidence should be the bed-rock of belief.

Depends on what type of belief you are talking about. Do you believe in hope? Is that based on reason and evidence? Where does faith fit into anywhere? Must everything have firm handles upon it. "You say you love me, but I cannot accept that without firm evidence. Prove it, and then maybe I will believe you". Pray tell me this is not how you engage in your relationships with others?

How can something that cannot even be grasped by mind be taken as truth?

You say you have been Enlightened? This seems an extraordinary statement for one who has experienced Truth beyond propositional reasoning. I know from my own temporary experience, there is no way my mind could grasp it. Yet I know beyond all doubt that is absolute truth.

Can Infinity be grasped by the reasoning mind? If so, then that means your mind must be able to see beyond Infinity itself, in order to see it from the outside. These things are not possible. There is a reason it is called Ineffable.

 

[an anarchist]

I am humble and know all Christians are a class apart.

Oof.
And
LOL

@Apostle John your screen name tells me you are full of yourself "apostle John" think you are doing the work of apostle John, eh? The good disciple.

May seem a bit rude but thinking Christians are a class apart is elitist and discriminatory and arrogant, so there's that.

 

[nPeace]

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

Try this...
You are having a conversation with someone about the colors of crayons.
Someone jumps in, and starts arguing about the texture of the crayons, and insisting that you get the point.
What do you call that person?
You answer. I don't want to get it wrong.

Now that you are on another subject, I might as well join you.
Natural selection has no goals. Get the point?

Try this...
Light a match above a candle, in your cozy living room. What do you get?
Now, light a match under the bundle of wood, in your fireplace. What do you get?
You can try lighting the match, and dropping it in your wastepaper basket. What do you get?
Now go to your kitchen. Turn on all the gas, wait a couple minutes. Then light a match. What do you get?

Different environments, right? Are the results random? Why not? Go figure.
Do you say the environment directed the lighting of the match?
Hope that doesn't fly over your head.

 

[nPeace]

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.

You change the subject.
We call that a strawman.

 

[YoursTrue]

It probably relates to both brain size, brain-lobe proportions, and brain complexity. Such is why "normal parents" can potentially have a son like Einstein or a 9' son [true].

I'm beginning to think that some people that like to contemplate such things as quantum mechanics as their life course and spend considerable time thinking about this as such born from normal parents have a brain problem anyway. Evolution perhaps? I hear Einstein's brain is preserved. What do you think scientists might learn from his brain?

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, don't go throwing around terms like "daft". It only discredits you. And you also just demonstrated that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. Not only is Lucy scientific evidence for human evolution she is strong scientific evidence. She was the "missing link" that creationists demanded.

Let's go over your claims that show how little that you know. Yes, it is only 40% of a skeleton, but guess what, humans and other apes are bilaterally symmetrical. That means that we could have up to 80% of her bones represented. One's right knee is a mirror image of one's left knee. You really should not listen to lying sources. I can tell that you did by your answer. Do you know what her skeleton tells us? Her knees tell us that she was bipedal. Her skull tells us that she was bipedal. Her hips tell us that she was bipedal. There is no doubt that she was bipedal. Her hips are also much more similar to ours than to chimps, our closest ape relation.


I am going to briefly define scientific evidence for you:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis

Human evolution, in fact evolution in general is a testable concept. I can name various tests that exist for both. That means that it is a scientific theory or hypothesis. And the Lucy fossils and other Australopithecus afarensis finds all support the theory of evolution. That means that they are scientific evidence. Since it is scientific evidence that actually puts a burden of proof upon you. You can't get away with just denial. You only prove that you are not qualified to debate this topic once you are presented with evidence. You have two choices. Refute it or accept it as evidence.

So good luck with disproving Lucy as a transitional fossil. No creationist, not even any that have scientific training, has come close. You called something "daft" and you cannot refute it. That would make your claims worse than the ones that you called daft.

How is human evolution a testable concept? You say in general it's a testable concept. Please detail that with tests that have been performed, thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is human evolution a testable concept? You say in general it's a testable concept. Please detail that with tests that have been performed, thank you.

There are quite a few ways. Every new discovery is a potential test. DNA when they first started to analyze individual genes that led to a situation where evolution could have been refuted. When the genome of humans and chimps were compared there was an amazing amount of similarity. That was a prediction of the theory of evolution. And as we went to more and more distantly related species the amount of similarity dropped. That too was predicted by the theory of evolution. We did not know that before DNA was analyzed. it could have shown that we were closer to a rat. Or even toad. But instead we observed exactly the pattern of relatedness predicted by the theory.

There are in fact several different tests using DNA alone that the theory passes. They could all have refuted it.

In general any serious breaking of phylogeny would refute the theory of evolution. A Precambrian bunny rabbit is the classic example given. But another would be a chimera. The existence of a Griffon, and animal made up of the part of several distantly related animals, would refute the theory if a beat with an eagle's head and winds and a lions furry body was discovered.