Adam and Eve

[Inigo Montoya]

From what I know about the nature of DNA, genetics and Mendels laws of genetics (namely that are inherent species limitations imposed by the genetic makeup of all living things) the account about Adam and Eve, ie two humans parenting the human race, seems to me to be the most plausible explanation of our origins.

What about it, folks? What does/can DNA, genetics, and Mendel do to establish Adam and Eve as the most plausible explanation for our origins?

[Neatras]

From what I know about the nature of DNA, genetics and Mendels laws of genetics (namely that are inherent species limitations imposed by the genetic makeup of all living things) the account about Adam and Eve, ie two humans parenting the human race, seems to me to be the most plausible explanation of our origins.

What about it, folks? What does/can DNA, genetics, and Mendel do to establish Adam and Eve as the most plausible explanation for our origins?

Based on all genetic evidence, our common ancestry with apes is assured. That by definition excludes special creation of the human race from a single breeding pair.

Minimum viable population studies show that humans could not have originated from a single breeding pair; it requires a population with a minimum value of, say, a few thousand. We approached this bottleneck a few times in our evolutionary history, but in no way do these events correspond to any of the Hebrew myths that spawned Christianity.

Mitochondrial DNA shows that our "mitochondrial Eve" (which Creationists idiotically jump to conclusions about because it has the word "Eve" in it) is several million years in the past, and didn't even have a remotely human form.

"Inherent species limitations" is nonsense language that's used to disguise the fact that the poster is stubbornly saying "kinds only produce more of their own kind." I'm charitable enough to correct his language so that his backward beliefs are at least internally consistent, even if they are nonsense. I'm still waiting for Creationists to posit any, and I mean any genetic mechanism that forces members of a population to remain fixed around some sort of genetic template. There is no such thing, and as a result this idea is blown out of the water. Too bad, so sad.

If that person would like to learn about biology and genetics (and I mean a legitimate education that's not fed from the pulpit), they're free to bring up their backward beliefs here and have them corrected. But Creationists don't want to be shown wrong about anything; that runs counter to their self-indulgent primitive thinking. They'd much rather the conversation shut down entirely the moment they've reached the end of their preaching rant. But a conversation is so much better when each side can learn something, so I'll keep the doors wide open.

Also, Adam and Eve are poetic figures from older Sumerian myths, so there was never any reason to think of them as literal people to begin with. C'est la vie.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by Neatras]

I'm still waiting for Creationists to posit any, and I mean any genetic mechanism that forces members of a population to remain fixed around some sort of genetic template. There is no such thing, and as a result this idea is blown out of the water. Too bad, so sad.

An analogy I like to use when thinking about this is to imagine building a tower out of blocks one block at a time. Ignoring for a moment the problem of stability/gravity, there is nothing that would actually stop me from continuously putting one block on top of another. If ever I was unable to, I could show the reason why. Maybe I've reached the ceiling. Maybe I've run out of blocks.
Creationists like to pretend that block piling can only go so high...and then no further. What's stopping me from putting on another block? No mechanism is ever proffered. Is there a force field or a barrier? What would stop a dog of dog "kind" from evolving into something that is no longer of dog "kind"?

[Still small]

It’s interesting that you raise this topic as I’ve just been reading a paper on m-DNA and, without explanation, they have noticed distinct separation between species or 'Islands in sequence space', as the article puts it. Here is the simple version and the more technical paper on which the simple version is based.

"Inherent species limitations" is nonsense language that's used to disguise the fact that the poster is stubbornly saying "kinds only produce more of their own kind." I'm charitable enough to correct his language so that his backward beliefs are at least internally consistent, even if they are nonsense. I'm still waiting for Creationists to posit any, and I mean any genetic mechanism that forces members of a population to remain fixed around some sort of genetic template. There is no such thing, and as a result this idea is blown out of the water. Too bad, so sad.

As for the idea of a “genetic mechanism that forces members of a population to remain fixed around some sort of genetic template�, I, unfortunately, don’t know of one, yet it continues to be case in several long running experiments. If you are of the mistaken belief that we have not observed it because we haven't observed enough generations to notice the change, let's look at some things we have observed, remembering, change by DNA mutation is dependant upon 'generations' and not 'time', per se, that is what should be considered. This can be done by a 'time period' comparison, if you wish, to simplify the understanding of generational change -
Drosophila melanogaster: the fruit fly. Scientists have been studying them for over a hundred years. Fruit flies take about a week to mature from egg to adult and reproduce, laying up to 500 eggs in a lifetime, thus, producing 50 generations in a year (link). Over the 100 years of study, since published in Science magazine in 1910, some 5000 generations have been observed. (Try calculating the number of actual fruit fly @ 500 per generation - 500x500x500 . . . . or 5x10⁵⁰⁰⁰). Yet, what have we observed over this period? They have observed multiple mutations . . . . yet, they are still fruit flies. Even by careful selective breeding of various mutations and keeping them alive, they have produced offspring with 4 legs instead of 6; 2 pairs of wings, 1 functional, 1 not; no eyes; 4 eyes; all manner of configurations, most of which needed to be nursed in ordered to survive to maturity, but they are still fruit flies. Also, these mutations were just variations of the existing fruit fly genome, no new information.

Another example is Escherichia coli which under the right conditions "can divide every 20 minutes. This means that in just 7 hours one bacterium can generate 2,097,152 bacteria.� ( “Bacteria� (2016), Microbiology Online). Bacteria, therefore, would be ideal candidates for studying asexual evolution. After one century of studying bacteria, scientists have seen over 2,600,000 generations of bacteria produced—the equivalent of over 78,000,000 years of human evolution (assuming a 30 year human generation). In spite of all of that time for evolution, bacteria are still bacteria. Just like 'dogs are still producing dogs' and 'sheep are still producing sheep'.

Let me remind you of Lenski's on-going experiment with E. coli. It basically asks the question: "How evolutionary change can occur in E. coli under a restricted diet in lab conditions?" The 30-year exercise remains extremely repeatable. It uses very direct measurements, even to the level of analysing time-stamped, freeze-dried bacterial genomes from generations long past (links). Now Lenski's research clearly shows 'microevolution' or adaption occurred in these bacteria but it took 33,000 generations and about 10 trillion individual E. coli in order to merely duplicate one gene and damage another (link). And they are still E. coli. This would be an example of "something like A begets a different style of A - maybe a cursive A or a Roman script or perhaps Comic Sans or Century Gothic" but it certainly is nowhere near 'macro evolution'. This is an example of high-confidence science, being testable, observable and repeatable.
Richard Lenski’s ongoing study of E. coli has documented many minor genetic changes over 67,000 generations. One particular change—the development of an ability to metabolize citrate—was hailed by some as a marvel of evolutionary accomplishment. Upon determination of the genetic changes, however, all of the genetic components were already present; the new ability had resulted from changes in the expression of two existing genes (link & link).
In a study that was 10 million times as large as the Lenski study, malarial parasites developed resistance to chloroquine. The genetic changes in this case included an accumulation of four to eight point mutations in one gene. The malaria that evolved resistance were also found to be at a disadvantage when chloroquine was not present. (link). Yet the malarial parasite still remained a malarial parasite.

The science or rather the results of several scientific experiments have shown that while life forms speciate so as to adapt to the new environments, these changes have never gone beyond the Family taxonomy level which supports the Biblical model of several created kind or families multiplying according to their kind. Can anyone post scientific research to the contrary? What the biological boundary is, I don’t know but there appears to be one. Then, again, it may simply be a matter of Divine edict just as when God said, “Let there light and there was light�, He also said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.�

Again, can anyone show scientific evidence to the contrary?

Have a good day,
Still small

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 4 by Still small]

That's a neat aside I won't mind reading between you and Neatras.


However, I'd like you to weigh in on what the thread asks regarding Adam and Eve.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 4 by Still small]
Yes, Mr. small, and you are still a chordate, a vertebrate, a mammal and an ape. Modern classification, cladistics, classifies according to lines of descent. So the descendents of fruit flies will always be fruit flies even if they lose the ability to fly or have four legs. And a barnacle that has no exoskeleton or jointed feet is still an arthropod.
There could even be a case made that they mitochondria in your cells are still symbiotic bacteria. See, for instance: Can Archaea Teach Us About the Evolution of Eukaroyotes? The discovery of copious new archaeal species is shedding light on the tree of life and revealing some unique cellular biology. --- https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles ... aroyotes-/
It seems that your understanding of biology is severely lacking and you seriously underestimate your ignorance. That can, with some little effort, be rectified. Of course, you can't be expected to learn everything about the subject. There is several lifetimes worth of data to be mastered. And more has been learned about biology in the last fifty years than in the previous five thousand.

[Still small]

Yes, Mr. small, and you are still a chordate, a vertebrate, a mammal and an ape. Modern classification, cladistics, classifies according to lines of descent. So the descendents of fruit flies will always be fruit flies even if they lose the ability to fly or have four legs. And a barnacle that has no exoskeleton or jointed feet is still an arthropod.

That may be so, except that you are speaking of a man-made classification system based on the presumption of an unproven fact of The Theory of Evolution (ToE). Though it may be accepted by many, it is still a fallacy of presumption and circular.

There could even be a case made that they mitochondria in your cells are still symbiotic bacteria. See, for instance: Can Archaea Teach Us About the Evolution of Eukaroyotes? The discovery of copious new archaeal species is shedding light on the tree of life and revealing some unique cellular biology. --- https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles ... aroyotes-/

Once again, a conclusion based on a fallacy of presumption, not fact. Have you considered the possibility of a Common Creator using common ‘building blocks’? Or have you excluded this possibility due to materialistic bias?

It seems that your understanding of biology is severely lacking and you seriously underestimate your ignorance. That can, with some little effort, be rectified. Of course, you can't be expected to learn everything about the subject. There is several lifetimes worth of data to be mastered. And more has been learned about biology in the last fifty years than in the previous five thousand.

Was it Einstein who said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong�? Regardless of your opinion about my understanding of biology, etc, all I was asking at the end of my post was, “Can anyone post scientific research to the contrary?� Anyone?

As mentioned before, both the fruit fly and bacteria were exposed to extreme environmental changes and 'forced selection' to encourage change, thereby, drastically extending the comparison time period if it were under normal conditions. Yet, fruit fly were observed to still be fruit fly and bacteria were observed to still be bacteria. This is, as predicted, that biological reproduction, while allowing for variation within a 'kind', will not go beyond the boundaries of taxonomic level of approximately 'Family', and most certainly, not beyond the level 'Order', except possibly by extreme bioengineering by an intelligent being. Yet, even the extreme bioengineering of the scientists could not push it beyond these limits.

Again, “Can anyone post scientific research to the contrary?� Anyone?

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 7 by Still small]

Again, “Can anyone post scientific research to the contrary?� Anyone?

Do you discard information such as this, or have some other explanation?:

https://en.wikiwikipedia/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

My favorite Richard Dawkins book is "The Ancestors Tale." A bit long but a good read, and is full of examples of evolutionary sequences that support the ToE (and, of course, the scientific literature contains many tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles on the subject that also confirm the validity of the theory).

There is simply too much observational evidence from the fossil record, and consistent results from genetics studies over the past 40 years or so, to believe that the biblical stories of origins or species diversification have any validity at all. They are simply myths that have been repeatedly disproven by modern science.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 7 by Still small]

Still small: �That may be so, except that you are speaking of a man-made classification system based on the presumption of an unproven fact of The Theory of Evolution (ToE). Though it may be accepted by many, it is still a fallacy of presumption and circular.�

We “presume� the postulates of Euclid and prove the Pythagorean Theorem. But then we test that theorem by measurements in the real world. Thus the reasoning is born out by prediction and experiment. From geological, paleontological and evolutionary theory we predict what rock strata we should investigate to find a transitional between fish and amphibian. We look there, and as predicted, we find tiktaalik, which has characteristics intermediate between fish and amphibian. Science makes predictions and thus checks the validity of its theories.

Still small: �Was it Einstein who said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong�? Regardless of your opinion about my understanding of biology, etc, all I was asking at the end of my post was, 'Can anyone post scientific research to the contrary?' Anyone?�

Well, that's the way science works. Prove evolution wrong and become world famous and win a Nobel Prize. We will all then have to re-think data and experiments that fill the shelves of thousands of libraries. So far, the theory explains the data. The theory has provided accurate predictions for over a century and a half, and the consilience of biological, geological, paleontological and physical sciences unknown to Darwin and Wallace has only reinforced confidence in the theory. It is the best supported theory in science.

Einstein's theories are no where near as well supported as the theory of evolution. He wasn't a biologist. But all you have to do is provide that “single experiment� that proves the theory of evolution wrong. All science has is tens of thousands of volumes of supporting evidence. Bring us your “single experiment�.

Still small: �This is, as predicted, that biological reproduction, while allowing for variation within a 'kind', will not go beyond the boundaries of taxonomic level of approximately 'Family', and most certainly, not beyond the level 'Order', except possibly by extreme bioengineering by an intelligent being.�

In high school, many years ago I memorized taxonomic levels: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, species. The system has changed. There are no “levels� in modern taxonomy, only lines of descent. The old system was man-made and based on a flawed 18th century understanding. The new system is based on observations from DNA, genetics, anatomy and developmental biology. Basing your taxonomy on the Linnaean system is like basing your chemistry on phlogiston or your medicine on the four humors.

So, dogs don't evolve into cats. (Or are dogs and cats the same "kind"?) if that were seen to happen evolution would be wrong. DNA, biochemistry, the fossil record and embryology all point to is that dogs and cats share a common ancestor, which evolved into to separate "kinds" if you will insist on the term. Birds are evolved dinosaurs and humans are apes.

Now to return to another of your points: �Once again, a conclusion based on a fallacy of presumption, not fact. Have you considered the possibility of a Common Creator using common ‘building blocks’? Or have you excluded this possibility due to materialistic bias?�

If you are allowed magic or miracles, you can “explain� anything at all. Pigs can fly to the moon by expelling flatulence through the curls of their tails. No matter that no one has ever seen it happen. God can do it, or perhaps Dr. Strange, or Harry Potter. Magic and miracles can "explain" anything and so such explanations are useless.

Science does not seriously postulate what cannot be tested or observed. Of course there is always some uncertainty about details. I suspect there always will be. But it has never been useful to invoke magic or miracles.

You demand evidence? Go to the nearest university library. You won't find all the supporting evidence for evolution, but you will find sufficient to keep you reading for several hundred lifetimes.

Bring out your "single experiment".

[Neatras]

Still Small, I'm only 60% sure I even wanna get into this argument with you, because nothing you say is unique, and none of your arguments are interesting. I've heard it all before, I know the mentality that is required to spew these arguments out. I'd much rather hear interesting arguments on this site.

So before I engage, I'm gonna put you to work. Nothing insane, just a little test. And over the course of this test, you will affirm and accept individual conclusions that all support the theory of evolution. By the end of it, you will not have any justified reason to claim the theory of evolution is unfounded. This will be my own little game.

So.

Test #1:

• A set of 1,000 unique numbers is made.
• This set can be[strike] integers or decimal numbers[/strike] any number, however the kicker is that every single number in this original set has to be between 50 and 51 in value. Example: 50, 50.5, 50.05, 50.27 (We'll keep it at 2 significant figures, thanks Riku.) Duplicates are allowed.
• This test will comprise several iterations.
• At the start of each iteration, 10 new numbers will be introduced. I don't care what range we give them.
• At the end of the iteration, we remove all the new numbers that are more than 1 unit away from the lowest number or the highest number.
• Then, we remove an equal amount of numbers randomly from the set equal to the amount of numbers we successfully added.

I'm not trying to pull an optical illusion on you. So please reread the above test, and if you like, make a simple example. Writing it down might help. The point is you need to have an awareness of the mechanics of this test. I'll explain:

What we have is an isolated population of numbers. No matter what, when we introduce the next generation of numbers, every single one of the new numbers will be within a range of 1 full unit. This is because it cannot be more than 1 greater than the lowest, and cannot be more than 1 less than the biggest value. We also kill values randomly.

The test's question is this:
Is it possible, after many iterations of this experiment, for a value of 100 to eventually be allowed into the pool?

When you have made your answer, we'll discuss how this factors into our discussion of biology. You can ask any questions you like, but I'd prefer if you were at least direct and didn't try to pull any "gotcha" comments. Creationists have a bad habit of trying to rewrite the script, so I'm simply not going to allow this. I've stated before that by the end of this, you will affirm all the individual conclusions that support the theory of evolution. And we'll do this with brute force logic.