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

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

"random" and "without purpose", are not synonyms.

 

[metis]

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

I am a scientist who studies and has had a subscription to "Scientific American" since the early 1970's, so I follow the evidence. So, where do you get your scientific information from? You keep on posting "observable scientific studies", and I have yet to see even one of them from you, so can you do that?

 

[metis]

I chose this screen name after several attempts at picking others upon joining this forum, they appeared to have already been taken.

It will seem rude to non-Christian when they finally stop breathing and see only Christians enter heaven.

Oh, I see, so you just blow off Jesus' command to "judge ye not...".

 

[Apostle John]

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?

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


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.

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?

I doubt your fooling anyone, certainly not me, with empty statement upon empty statement and point blank deflection. Once again how do dumb genes/chemicals acquire the intelligence and capacity to change under the biological processes you have stated. Try to avoid empty rhetoric it is very unconvincing.

 

[Apostle John]

I am a scientist who studies and has had a subscription to "Scientific American" since the early 1970's, so I follow the evidence. So, where do you get your scientific information from? You keep on posting "observable scientific studies", and I have yet to see even one of them from you, so can you do that?

I keep asking how mutations of genes gain in information and more importantly intelligence because I never get a satisfactory answer. This must happen if evolution theory is correct. I have only posted “observable scientific studies” once, in reply to your response to the question. Your answer defies observed studies and was thus an inadequate answer.

 

[ratiocinator]

I doubt your fooling anyone, certainly not me, with empty statement upon empty statement and point blank deflection.

Once again how do dumb genes/chemicals acquire the intelligence and capacity to change under the biological processes you have stated.

Once again: the genes and chemicals don't require any intelligence.

The genes are subject to variation, both due the the different alleles and (more significantly in the long term) mutation. Those variations may or may not significantly affect the traits of the organism. If they do, the effect may be positive (make survival and reproduction more likely in the context of the current environment of the population), neutral (make no difference to survival and reproduction), or negative (make survival and reproduction less likely).

Quite clearly, if survival and reproduction is less likely, then the organisms with the trait will tend to have fewer offspring and hence die out. Conversely, if survival and reproduction is more likely, then the organisms with the trait will tend to have more offspring and the trait will spread through the population. That is natural selection. It isn't rocket science, is it? And it doesn't require intelligent genes.

 

[wellwisher]

What is interesting you cannot start life with only DNA, and a beaker of simple chemicals, and have the DNA uses it magic to create a living life form. The DNA actually is more like a hard drive than the CPU of the cell. It has the data, but that is it. The DNA needs a lot of support by the protein grid to do anything; enzyme complexes.

When Mother cells duplicates her DNA, to make two daughter cells, she constantly makes use of a functional protein grid, since the DNA is more like a hard drive, than a CPU, and has to be taken off line; temporarily. The protein grid or protein matrix is the real CPU, since it does all the work, including the duplication the DNA hard drive.

Since the daughter cells will also begin life, with a protein grid already in place, from the mother cell, this CPU causes the DNA to unpack, so it can coordinate with this grid. The DNA is induced to parallel the protein grid, even before the condensed chromosomes are unpacked. The DNA has a specific place it needs to be for the grid.

Too many people places the DNA too high up the food chain; science fiction. Red blood cells, for example, do not have a nucleus or DNA, but can continue to live for weeks. However, without the DNA hard drive for extra needs, the protein grid has to depend more on the smaller motherboard memory.

Since the DNA is the hard drive, read and write, is controlled by the protein grid, mutations for change do not form apart from the protein grid. Proofreading enzymes; part of the protein grid, can tell the difference between perfect base pairs on imperfect; defect, based on free energy value. For mutations to remain; typos, the proof readers have to allow it. Like an editor, sometimes the sentence structure needs improvement.

 

[Apostle John]

Once again: the genes and chemicals don't require any intelligence.

The genes are subject to variation, both due the the different alleles and (more significantly in the long term) mutation. Those variations may or may not significantly affect the traits of the organism. If they do, the effect may be positive (make survival and reproduction more likely in the context of the current environment of the population), neutral (make no difference to survival and reproduction), or negative (make survival and reproduction less likely).

Quite clearly, if survival and reproduction is less likely, then the organisms with the trait will tend to have fewer offspring and hence die out. Conversely, if survival and reproduction is more likely, then the organisms with the trait will tend to have more offspring and the trait will spread through the population. That is natural selection. It isn't rocket science, is it? And it doesn't require intelligent genes.

Genes are chemicals that degrade overtime through mutation in any species. Survival isn’t something that makes an organism change and ascend to another organism regardless of environment.

 

[Tinker Grey]

One wonders how Hydrogen and Oxygen know how to make water.

 

[ratiocinator]

Genes are chemicals that degrade overtime through mutation in any species. Survival isn’t something that makes an organism change and ascend to another organism regardless of environment.

Whoosh!

What makes you think that genes 'degrade' due to mutation? Since mutations are effectively random, they might have any of the results I described. It's perhaps better to think of genes as information. The physical substrate gets reproduced, so we aren't talking about some fixed physical molecule.

You've basically just ignored the explanation I gave (because you asked for it) and gone back to repeating your unsupported dogmas.

You just don't seem to be able to deal with people giving you substantive answers and actual evidence. You just bury your in the sand and go back to your comfort zone of blanket denial.

How about being specific? What part of the process I described do you think is wrong and why?

 

[metis]

I keep asking how mutations of genes gain in information and more importantly intelligence because I never get a satisfactory answer. This must happen if evolution theory is correct. I have only posted “observable scientific studies” once, in reply to your response to the question. Your answer defies observed studies and was thus an inadequate answer.

Then let me recommend you post it again. What's stopping you? I have not seen your "observable studies" post, so I would appreciate it if you reposted it.

Mutations do not "gain information" because what they do is to add variation to the gene pool. As I stated before, if genes change through mutation, there's no way to know in advance which organs it might affect and specifically how it might affect them. This is basic genetics. A brain that's affected could have serious problem with cognition, but it could also go the other way because specific mutations aren't predictable.

Under your concept, there's no way life on Earth would have advanced past being single-celled organisms, and yet there were no multi-celled organisms found that are more than 1 billion years b.p. How do you explain that with your supposed "observable studies"?

Mutations are observable as I posted when mentioning the fruit fly studies done at my old alma matter, and given enough time who knows what could possibly evolve out of them tens or hundreds of millions of years later?

So, please post your "observable studies" if you will.

 

[an anarchist]

It will seem rude to non-Christian when they finally stop breathing and see only Christians enter heaven.

Be honest... Do you take pleasure in that thought?

 

[metis]

Genes are chemicals that degrade overtime through mutation in any species.

Genes are not "chemicals".

 

[Apostle John]

How about being specific? What part of the process I described do you think is wrong and why?

Survival as the driving factor in organisms changing species growing in more complexity and intellect. Life had to begin before it could survive.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Survival as the driving factor in organisms changing species growing in more complexity and intellect. Life had to begin before it could survive.

Survival is not the driving factor in the ToE and organisms are secondary.

 

[metis]

Survival as the driving factor in organisms changing species growing in more complexity and intellect. Life had to begin before it could survive.

Now you're finally on the right track but should have been stated this way: "Survival is a driving factor in organisms growing in more complexity and intellect".

 

[Apostle John]

Be honest... Do you take pleasure in that thought?

Tbh, I will get pleasure to see those that live their life like there’s no accountability.

 

[Apostle John]

Now you're finally on the right track but should have been stated this way: "Survival is a driving factor in organisms growing in more complexity and intellect".

You misunderstood my response to the poster. I politely disagree with you regarding survival in organisms but I am on the righteous track.

 

[an anarchist]

Tbh, I will get pleasure to see those that live their life like there’s no accountability.

Ahh yes... That aptly describes all non Christians...

 

[Apostle John]

Genes are not "chemicals".

Genes are made purely of chemical elements from the periodic table, nothing else.