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

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is random is the sense we cannot predict the outcome, but it is selective in the sense that what determines the outcome is not pure chance.

Evidence with a link as per science but in everyday words since I only understand the base. If you have to link to more advanced do so and I will try.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Evidence with a link as per science but in everyday words since I only understand the base. If you have to link to more advanced do so and I will try.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for. You want a scientific link that explains why a natural, selective process is not random?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They don't match with atheistic opinions.

There's no such thing as "atheistic opinions".

But they match very well with everything that can really be seen in real life.

As said already, these bible myths don't match the evidence of reality.
These myths make claims of real world events that would have been very impactful.
Such events leave behind evidence. These claims thus make testable predictions about what we should and shouldn't find in the real world, if these stories are accurate.

And when we investigate these predictions.... the evidence we should be finding doesn't exist.
And the evidence we should NOT be finding, does exist.

This disproves those stories.


Fun factoid btw: did you know that geology as a field in science was actually kickstarted by a couple of christians who set out into the world to find physical evidence of the magical flood claimed in the bible? As said, the story makes predictions about what we should and shouldn't find in terms of physical evidence. So these people went out looking for exactly that evidence. Instead of finding that evidence, they discovered that the whole thing is BS, and their work kickstarted geology as a scientific field in the process. So really.............. it's been KNOWN that this flood myth is false since pretty much the start of geology as a scientific field.

I'm amazed at the amount of people who still haven't caught up with that....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True.

I'm intrigued you say harcore creationists are actually advised against using the thermodynamic argument. I was aware they have stopped using it, but did not know there is actual advice out there not to do so. Where did you come across that? I'd quite like to file a link to that, for future use

Arguments to Avoid Topic

There are several popular arguments that creationists should not use simply because they are outdated or contain misinformation.

answersingenesis.org

Funny isn't it.... I'm not aware of any scientific sources going out of their way or seeing any need at all to create a page dedicated to "what arguments not to use to defend evolution theory" or what have you...

 

[Apostle John]

No, they're not. "A result of natural, biological forces" is not the same as "a result of random chance".

A biological process that relies on selective natural pressures is not "random".

Natural selection is not random.

Then how do dumb genes/chemicals acquire the intelligence to magically change under the circumstances you state.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for. You want a scientific link that explains why a natural, selective process is not random?

Yes.

 

[ratiocinator]

Then how do dumb genes/chemicals acquire the intelligence to magically change under the circumstances you state.

What on earth makes you think that they need to be intelligent? There is nothing magic going on - basically the mechanism of random variation and natural selection is extremely simple and straightforward (although the details can get complicated and there are other mechanisms that add to it). In fact, it's one of the easiest theories in science to understand - there is no complicated mathematics, for one thing. The whole process is close to being a truism, it's so simple and obvious.

What are you finding so hard?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you’re now claiming undirected energy from the sun make genes/chemicals intelligent so they can grow bigger, faster, stronger organisms. Are you a trained scientist or one of those comedians that won the Richard Dawkins Award? You’ll say it’s all achieved by random chance over millions of years next.

Dude

Sunlight, ie: high energy photons, forms the basis of energy for the vast majority of life on this planet.

What did they teach you in high school biology classes?
Serious question.


And no, I'm not a trained scientist. I just finished high school and actually paid a bit of attention during biology classes.
You on the other hand.... it sounds like you didn't. If you are actually serious (I still have doubts that you're not just a satirical Poe), I doubt if you've ever had a proper high school biology class in your life. If you did, you should sue the school for ripping you off

so they can grow bigger, faster, stronger organisms

and ps: evolution.... NOT A LADDER towards "bigger, faster, stronger".

Yet another thing you are wrong about.
I don't think I've ever seen you make a correct statement about evolution theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So by the last response you are claiming it is all achieved by random chance…..

Nobody said that.

the testable predictions must be based on back-fitting, back-engineering of genetic data.

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then how do dumb genes/chemicals acquire the intelligence to magically change under the circumstances you state.

They don't.

You might want to read up how evolution works. But you're not going to, are you?
You're not actually interested, are you?

You are content just spewing strawmen in defense of your a priori religious beliefs, are you?

Tell me honestly: do you actually care that you seem incapable of making a correct statement about evolution theory?
Do you actually care that all you are doing constantly is arguing strawmen?

Do you think it is helpful to your case that you apparently have to insist on being wrong about evolution in order to continue arguing against it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What are you finding so hard?

The answer is universal among creationists:

"It contradicts my a priori faith based religious beliefs"

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes.

Here's a brief introduction. I think it's clear from this that it isn't random but depends on the environment.

Natural Selection

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here's a brief introduction. I think it's clear from this that it isn't random but depends on the environment.

Natural Selection

evolution.berkeley.edu

Yeah, point one is random. The other ones are about how to get resources and energy in competition with other random mutations. It is not all random, but a necessary part is random.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then how do dumb genes/chemicals acquire the intelligence to magically change under the circumstances you state.

"Not the result of intelligence" does not mean "random".

Do you not understand the difference? If a pen falls off a table, its fall isn't "random" just because gravity doesn't have a brain.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes.

It's... In the name. It's a selective process.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's... In the name. It's a selective process.

Yeah and part of that process is random. It selects based on random parts which ones are the fittest for replication.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yeah and part of that process is random. It selects based on random parts which ones are the fittest for replication.

Right, but the actual process itself - natural selection - is not random. The results can't be predicted because of the random variables, but the process is still selective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Right, but the actual process itself - natural selection - is not random. The results can't be predicted because of the random variables, but the process is still selective.

Yeah, but that selection is without purpose. It just is so in the end, because the universe is so in this case.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah and part of that process is random. It selects based on random parts which ones are the fittest for replication.

Random input, followed by non-random processing, results in non-random output.

Mutation is the random input (random, with respect to fitness - it's not random with respect to anything in the sense of what mutations can take place is regulated by physics / chemistry)

Selection is the non-random processing.

Fixation of selected mutations is the non-random output.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yeah, but that selection is without purpose. It just is so in the end, because the universe is so in this case.

It would probably not be helpful to ascribe purpose to the process, no. It's more accurate to view it as an inevitable consequence of natural forces, like wind or gravity.