And if he isnt risen...

[Ojian]

The very slow selection of DNA over millions of years make the idea of Eve and Adam ridiculous.

And yet the "very slow selection of DNA over millions of years" has never been demonstrated and is a fabricated story.

I asked how you can state this with confidence.

 

[Coriolis]

And yet the "very slow selection of DNA over millions of years" has never been demonstrated and is a fabricated story.

I asked how you can state this with confidence.

And I wonder how you can be so confident in your ignorance. I suppose you believe the earth is flat, too, since it looks that way when you step out your front door, and the moon landings were just a hoax. I don't have time to provide you with a review of the scientific literature on evolution and DNA, nor should that be necessary. It's easy enough to find, presuming you want to see it.

 

[Mole]

And yet the "very slow selection of DNA over millions of years" has never been demonstrated and is a fabricated story.

I asked how you can state this with confidence.

I can state this with confidence because in the 19th century Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species describing natural selection, but didn't know how it worked, until in the 20th century Watson and Crick discovered DNA and then we knew how natural selection worked.

Since then we have learnt to sequence the genome cheaply and easily and we are able now to precisely delineate the place of any creature within the DNA web of natural selection.

So Darwin discovered natural selection and Watson and Crick confirmed that it is true. So natural selection is simply a fact.

 

[Mole]

And I wonder how you can be so confident in your ignorance. I suppose you believe the earth is flat, too, since it looks that way when you step out your front door, and the moon landings were just a hoax. I don't have time to provide you with a review of the scientific literature on evolution and DNA, nor should that be necessary. It's easy enough to find, presuming you want to see it.

It's interesting, space travel is a hoax because in galactic terms the speed of light is so slow and the size of the universe so large, as far as we are concerned, the universe is set in concrete, and space travel for us and any other creatures is neither feasible or possible. And yet we have these fantasies of whizzing among the stars.

Fantasists are the easiest to hoax, the fantasists are low hanging fruit.

 

[Ojian]

And I wonder how you can be so confident in your ignorance. I suppose you believe the earth is flat, too, since it looks that way when you step out your front door, and the moon landings were just a hoax. I don't have time to provide you with a review of the scientific literature on evolution and DNA, nor should that be necessary. It's easy enough to find, presuming you want to see it.

I am quite familiar with the scientific literature, thank you. But without creating a strawman scenario as you have, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the particular subject of the this part of the thread. (continued next...)

 

[Ojian]

Just to catch everyone up, I was questioning your confidence that "we have not come from Eve and Adam as they didn't exist,". Your subsequent answers were vague, so I asked for more detail. You answers below are a bit more of the same, but I'll work with what you provided.

I can state this with confidence because in the 19th century Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species describing natural selection, but didn't know how it worked, until in the 20th century Watson and Crick discovered DNA and then we knew how natural selection worked.

Largely irrelevant to my question. I'm not disputing that "natural selection" occurs, though I probably disagree with you to the degree and effect that NS actually has in history.

Which may then seque to your next statement that "very slow selection of DNA over millions of years make the idea of Eve and Adam ridiculous." You still haven't supported this statement. Natural selection does occur, but at best it has only been demonstrated to provide minor variations on pre-existing themes, and has never been demonstrated to be able to produce new forms or the information required for life.

On the other hand, the concept that an original pair of humans existed, regardless of where or when, and produced the rest of mankind is at least supportable given our current understanding of genetics.

Since then we have learnt to sequence the genome cheaply and easily and we are able now to precisely delineate the place of any creature within the DNA web of natural selection.

Sequencing of the genomes of various forms of life has indeed been done, but the claim that with that we can "precisely delineate the place of any creature within the DNA web" is bunk. There is no such definitive genetic categorization possible from sequencing. In fact, continuing discoveries of genetic and epigenetic factors, combined with more recent opinions from the scientific literature is showing how wrong your statement is.

So Darwin discovered natural selection and Watson and Crick confirmed that it is true. So natural selection is simply a fact.

...and that matters how to my original inquiry?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Just to catch everyone up, I was questioning your confidence that "we have not come from Eve and Adam as they didn't exist,". Your subsequent answers were vague, so I asked for more detail. You answers below are a bit more of the same, but I'll work with what you provided.

I suspect that science has not figured everything out and that is why it is ideally founded on a process of continually requestioning assumptions (ideally). There is a difference between assuming the past is based on evolutionary processes vs. the Adam and Eve story because we can see current evidence of evolutionary processes, and so then make the assumption that these can be projected backwards on the past. There isn't a current process to look at that demonstrates the existence of Adam and Eve.

Also, when the numbers in a species gets low enough, it doesn't have enough genetic variety and so goes extinct. There isn't a way to show that an entire species can literally come from two parents. When scientists analyze human DNA and talk about coming from one common ancestor, realize that wasn't the only participant in the gene pool. There had to be many other members of the species with genetic variety to also add to the mix. I've been trying to find the estimated number below which the human species would not survive. You can't regenerate an entire species from one male and one female. It can't be demonstrated in the present, so genetic process would have to be different in the past if it were true. It takes a greater leap of faith to assume natural laws behaved differently in the past. Science assumes natural laws operated the same in the past as in the present.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

It's interesting, space travel is a hoax because in galactic terms the speed of light is so slow and the size of the universe so large, as far as we are concerned, the universe is set in concrete, and space travel for us and any other creatures is neither feasible or possible. And yet we have these fantasies of whizzing among the stars.

Fantasists are the easiest to hoax, the fantasists are low hanging fruit.

There is enough reasoned speculation in theoretical physics to assume we don't understand everything. What you say applies to humans with their current level of knowledge, comprehension, and ability. It requires faith to assume it is a conclusive fact for all beings in the universe.

Space is comprised of complex folds, so that what we see as linear distance between two points does not correspond to the actual shape of the universe when viewing it through higher dimensions. Viewing the universe and making assumptions about space and time based on 3 dimensions is almost as limited as doing this based on 2 dimensions. Imagine taking a large blanket and wadding it up into a ball-shape. Now imagine we are creatures that live on the surface of that blanket, and we live on one corner, but wish we could travel to the opposite corner. It's impossible because the linear distance is much too vast. We cannot see in 3 dimensions that the far corner is touching us because it is folded on top of us.

I grew up with an older brother who was obsessed with theoretical physics, so my bedtime stories were pretty much about the incomprehensible nature of the universe. I learned how gravity bends space, so that the greater the gravity, the greater the actual distance, although we don't perceive it as such. This is why it takes more energy to leave the surface of a planet than to travel distances in space. The first inch we perceive above the ground is a much greater distance than that same inch in space.

I'm definitely not an expert on theoretical physics, but know enough to realize that our comprehension of the true nature of the universe is but a wispy fragment. We look at an ant, a turtle, or a wolf and can see what they don't understand about the nature of the universe, so why assume that human perception sees it all? Not only do I suspect we haven't learned everything about the nature of space and time, but I suspect the hardware of brains cannot even ask all the questions relevant to it.

 

[Ojian]

I suspect that science has not figured everything out and that is why it is ideally founded on a process of continually requestioning assumptions (ideally). There is a difference between assuming the past is based on evolutionary processes vs. the Adam and Eve story because we can see current evidence of evolutionary processes, and so then make the assumption that these can be projected backwards on the past. There isn't a current process to look at that demonstrates the existence of Adam and Eve.

I agree with your first sentence, but only partially with your following ones. What "evolutionary processes" are you referring to? Is it more than M+NS (mutation and natural selection) that Mole was talking about? When you say we "can see current evidence of evolutionary processes", I would ask specifically what do you refer to? As I said before, I agree that NS is a real thing and can do 'stuff', but the evidence shows that the 'stuff' it can do is limited. NS has been shown to be able to produce variety on an already given form, but it has NOT been shown to be able to produce new forms. It other phrasing, there is evidence that NS can do microevolution. But there is no evidence that NS can produce macroevolution. Any macroevolutionary production of new forms via NS is pure conjecture. That is in part why many scientists in the biological arena have questioned the abilities of NS and are looking for a different method.

The process that demonstrates a possible 'Adam and Eve' being the source of humans is the same process that governs genetics as we know it now.

Also, when the numbers in a species gets low enough, it doesn't have enough genetic variety and so goes extinct. There isn't a way to show that an entire species can literally come from two parents.

Pardon?? A species going extinct isn't due to not having enough genetic variety. What do you mean by this? Are you supposing that a species has backup genetics already in place for some future environmental change? That is not how evolution is supposed to work. Even is you assume evolution (M+NS on a macro scale) is true, and a species doesn't suffer from some catastrophic event that just wipes it out (which would not involve evolution), a species would have to develop its supposed changes in response to environmental changes, not have them ready to go beforehand. And every species would theoretically be in the same boat.

Of course there is a way to show a species coming from two parents. That's basic genetics. Take cats. Though current information doesn't come down to showing only two parents, genetic testing has identified as little as 5 lines, with one of those lines present in all domesticated cats. Genetic tests on domesticated dogs too have had some scientists comment that they could all have come from a single pair.

I've been trying to find the estimated number below which the human species would not survive. You can't regenerate an entire species from one male and one female.

I've read a few studies on this. Of course nobody knows or perhaps can know for sure, but on the bottom limit estimates range from 2 to about 10,000 needed.

I guess this may depend on your definition of a species. But even in evolutionary terms, whatever the demarcation point you choose for something to be a new "species", at the beginning there will be only 1. At minimum, a second of that species would have to be produced to then continue the line. So there, at minimum you need 2.

It can't be demonstrated in the present, so genetic process would have to be different in the past if it were true. It takes a greater leap of faith to assume natural laws behaved differently in the past. Science assumes natural laws operated the same in the past as in the present.

I am making no assumptions that processes were different in the past. It is basic genetics. It's the same process we see today. We probably differ on where the original progenitors of the species came from. But once they are here, there is nothing outside of current natural processes to produce the continued line.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

[MENTION=2100]Ojian[/MENTION]
Do you have training in genetics? What is your position on animals determined to be "endangered species" because of low populations? Is that a credible concern?

 

[Ojian]

[MENTION=2100]Do you have training in genetics? What is your position on animals determined to be "endangered species" because of low populations? Is that a credible concern?

Usually a species becoming endangered is because of some human activity, over-hunting (human or otherwise), or some environmental event that reduces the population size. I've never heard of a population being normally low and it being categorized as endangered, though I suppose that could have happened. But in any of those scenarios, I've never heard of some concern relating to genetic variety. Do you have any examples?

Regardless, I doubt if any species was reduced down to 2 individuals that could still reproduce, people would just write them off. I would suspect that the utmost care would be made to preserve the remaining individuals and anything done to encourage reproduction.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Usually a species becoming endangered is because of some human activity, over-hunting (human or otherwise), or some environmental event that reduces the population size. I've never heard of a population being normally low and it being categorized as endangered, though I suppose that could have happened. But in any of those scenarios, I've never heard of some concern relating to genetic variety. Do you have any examples?

Regardless, I doubt if any species was reduced down to 2 individuals that could still reproduce, people would just write them off. I would suspect that the utmost care would be made to preserve the remaining individuals and anything done to encourage reproduction.

My understanding is that when a population is reduced enough, the mutations that can result from inbreeding place it at risk for being able to recover its numbers. There are some species with estimated populations numbers that essentially define extinction because it is assumed the number is too low to recover.

The term for it is "functional extinction" which is when "the population is no longer viable. There are no individuals able to reproduce, or the small population of breeding individuals will not be able to sustain itself due to inbreeding depression and genetic drift, which leads to a loss of fitness." wikipedia

 

[Coriolis]

I am quite familiar with the scientific literature, thank you. But without creating a strawman scenario as you have, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the particular subject of the this part of the thread. (continued next...)

Pointing out your ignoring of the scientific literature on a subject is not a strawman. Better to provide actual evidence for your own position. First, we must differentiate between the idea of "Adam and Eve", and some mythologically neutral original single pair of human ancestors. There is no scientific or historical evidence for the Adam and Eve described in Genesis. An original pair of human ancestors is possible, but unlikely. In any case, the inability to rule it out completely says nothing about the validity of the Genesis account. If someone's belief in that story hangs on its historical veracity, their faith is shallow indeed.

 

[Ojian]

My understanding is that when a population is reduced enough, the mutations that can result from inbreeding place it at risk for being able to recover its numbers. There are some species with estimated populations numbers that essentially define extinction because it is assumed the number is too low to recover.

The term for it is "functional extinction" which is when "the population is no longer viable. There are no individuals able to reproduce, or the small population of breeding individuals will not be able to sustain itself due to inbreeding depression and genetic drift, which leads to a loss of fitness." wikipedia

I looked up the term "functional extinction" on wikipedia to hopefully to get your references, and I think that page is what you were looking at (since the language is virtually identical).

Now of course a population could no longer be viable if there are no individuals able to reproduce. Of the examples in the wikipedia page, that appears to be the problem with the Northern White Rhino, as the females apparently are barren. (I would like to point out that they are a subspecies though of rhino's in general, and not a true distinct species, but that is mostly irrelevant)

As for breeding individuals not able to sustain themselves due to inbreeding depression and genetic drift, I would agree that such a condition may exist within a low population species, but it is by no means a given. In other words, having such a detrimental effect on an inbreeding population is not guaranteed. This is proven day after day with artificial selection done with many species. Cats, dogs, cows, sheep, goats, horses, (I do it with) snakes,...etc., all are often interbred to produce desired traits and develop new 'lines' of animals. Sometimes detrimental effects of inbreeding do appear, but it is in no way the rule, in fact it is more of a rare occurrence than not. Genetically speaking, I think that most, if not all, species have enough plasticity in them to overcome most of any inbreeding effects, even if starting (or reduced) to a low population (of 2 individuals).

So while inbreeding can conceivably be a problem for low population groups, it is not a rule. The wikipedia examples for functional extinction were not caused by that particular issue. I'm genuinely curious if you (or anyone) has a real example of it though.

This (hopefully) allows the topic to be brought back on track. Beyond a likely disagreement on how two starting individual humans (Adam and Eve) came to be, there is nothing scientific that demands that such a pair would have to be "functionally extinct" and could not produce the human race.

 

[Mole]

There is enough reasoned speculation in theoretical physics to assume we don't understand everything. What you say applies to humans with their current level of knowledge, comprehension, and ability. It requires faith to assume it is a conclusive fact for all beings in the universe.

Space is comprised of complex folds, so that what we see as linear distance between two points does not correspond to the actual shape of the universe when viewing it through higher dimensions. Viewing the universe and making assumptions about space and time based on 3 dimensions is almost as limited as doing this based on 2 dimensions. Imagine taking a large blanket and wadding it up into a ball-shape. Now imagine we are creatures that live on the surface of that blanket, and we live on one corner, but wish we could travel to the opposite corner. It's impossible because the linear distance is much too vast. We cannot see in 3 dimensions that the far corner is touching us because it is folded on top of us.

I grew up with an older brother who was obsessed with theoretical physics, so my bedtime stories were pretty much about the incomprehensible nature of the universe. I learned how gravity bends space, so that the greater the gravity, the greater the actual distance, although we don't perceive it as such. This is why it takes more energy to leave the surface of a planet than to travel distances in space. The first inch we perceive above the ground is a much greater distance than that same inch in space.

I'm definitely not an expert on theoretical physics, but know enough to realize that our comprehension of the true nature of the universe is but a wispy fragment. We look at an ant, a turtle, or a wolf and can see what they don't understand about the nature of the universe, so why assume that human perception sees it all? Not only do I suspect we haven't learned everything about the nature of space and time, but I suspect the hardware of brains cannot even ask all the questions relevant to it.

Au contraire, we have the equations of general relativity to understand space and time, and we have the equations of quantum mechanics to understand the building blocks of matter.

The religious are left appealing to the God of the Gaps, and in the same way, to say we don't understand everything, doesn't mean we understand nothing.

And however mathematically satisfying, there is none, absolutely no evidence for hidden dimensions, in exactly the same way there is no evidence for hidden angels and devils.

Higher dimensions are wish fulfilment like the God of the Gaps, angels and devils, space travel, and mbti.

 

[Ojian]

Pointing out your ignoring of the scientific literature on a subject is not a strawman. Better to provide actual evidence for your own position.

And your commitment to a materialistic philosophy has apparently impaired your ability to stick to the topic of the thread.

Mole had stated that "The very slow selection of DNA over millions of years make the idea of Eve and Adam ridiculous". He said this (and a prior related comment) to preemptively negate any need for meaning in Jesus sacrifice, the OP topic to which I was commenting on earlier and in answering questions that YOU had posed.

But regardless of the link to any early human progenitors, the "very slow selection of DNA over millions of years" is what I was replying to. I thought I already knew where he was going with this (confirmed somewhat by his answer later), but I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and not assume his point (as you apparently have no problem doing with me), and so I challenged him on that statement. It is his (or your) job to back that up, not mine.

First of all, the statement is silly on it's face. We do not have DNA samples of any sufficient quantity from 'over millions of years' to support such a statement. And no, bugs fossilized in amber is not sufficient to support it. At best, we have DNA going back a few hundred thousand years to study, and most of that is within a 100,000 years or so. So unless you know of some secret stash of ancient DNA, the statement is nothing more than a hypothetical fabrication. See my other responses for more info.

First, we must differentiate between the idea of "Adam and Eve", and some mythologically neutral original single pair of human ancestors. There is no scientific or historical evidence for the Adam and Eve described in Genesis. An original pair of human ancestors is possible, but unlikely.

And neither is there any scientific or historical evidence against an Adam and Eve. Granted, depending on ones hyperskeptical view of what qualifies as historical evidence, I would admit evidence for it could appear to be fairly quiet. But it is the prerogative of anyone to accept or deny what they will. Either way, nothing presented so far negates the possibility, as you admitted.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I agree with your first sentence, but only partially with your following ones. What "evolutionary processes" are you referring to? Is it more than M+NS (mutation and natural selection) that Mole was talking about? When you say we "can see current evidence of evolutionary processes", I would ask specifically what do you refer to? As I said before, I agree that NS is a real thing and can do 'stuff', but the evidence shows that the 'stuff' it can do is limited. NS has been shown to be able to produce variety on an already given form, but it has NOT been shown to be able to produce new forms. It other phrasing, there is evidence that NS can do microevolution. But there is no evidence that NS can produce macroevolution. Any macroevolutionary production of new forms via NS is pure conjecture. That is in part why many scientists in the biological arena have questioned the abilities of NS and are looking for a different method.

Can you provide the evidence showing "that the 'stuff' it can do is limited"? The fact that no one was able to demonstrate macroevolution to you does not count as such evidence. I hope you understand that.

Using your logic, there was no sun 20K years ago because no one can demonstrate that. Claims to the contrary are just pure conjecture.

You accept evolutionary processes, but then claim that they suddenly stop operating. Yes, this is possible, but requires an explanation of the mysterious mechanism that prevents evolutionary processes from continuing. Moses may have parted the Red Sea, but day to day observation tells us that, without applying magic or engineering, water will continue to fill the void.

The process that demonstrates a possible 'Adam and Eve' being the source of humans is the same process that governs genetics as we know it now.
...
I am making no assumptions that processes were different in the past. It is basic genetics. It's the same process we see today. We probably differ on where the original progenitors of the species came from. But once they are here, there is nothing outside of current natural processes to produce the continued line.

It can be the case that a species can originate from one pair. However it's unlikely that Homo sapiens is one of such species. Evidence shows that humans mixed in the past with Neanderthals, Denisovans and possibly other species. Which means the the most recent possible common Adam and Eve (if ever existed) were Homo erectus.

 

[Ojian]

Can you provide the evidence showing "that the 'stuff' it can do is limited"? The fact that no one was able to demonstrate macroevolution to you does not count as such evidence. I hope you understand that.

The evidence of what NS can do is sufficient to explain my statement (otherwise what you are asking of me is to prove a negative). M+NS has been demonstrated to be able to make minor/microevolutionary changes to living things. This is not controversial. Popular examples might be: Galapagos finches beak size changes, variety found in dogs/cats/etc, bacterial antibiotic resistance, Lenski's LTEE with e.coli nitrate intake in oxic conditions, and even the popular nylonase in bacteria. Most of this stuff falls under either normal plasticity in an organism or the breaking of existing functions in the cell that allow a new behavior/function to emerge.

But that is it. The extent to what M+NS can do is demonstrably limited to microevolutionary levels. Showing M+NS to can produce macroevolutionary changes has NOT been demonstrated. That is the evidence.

I know that due to a materialistic philosophy, Darwin wanted to take the at-the-time-limitedly-understood process of minor changes due to selection pressures and extend that to presumably explain any and all changes throughout life, and many people have taken that idea and run with it. But despite all the hand-waving, just-so evolutionary stories that are told, the actual evidence has only shown NS capable of limited change. This is why, despite still being married to a broad evolutionary(materialistic) explanation for life, many scientists are very aware of the capabilities of NS and are instead looking for an alternative explanation. NS can explain the survival of the fittest, but it doesnt explain the arrival of the fittest.

If you know of a macroevolutionary change that is explainable by M+NS without resorting to a just-so explanation, please enlighten me.

Using your logic, there was no sun 20K years ago because no one can demonstrate that. Claims to the contrary are just pure conjecture.

No, you have it backwards. Appealing to your illustration, what I am saying is that we have witnessed the sun existing for the entire course of recorded human history. There is no reason to think that the sun did not exist prior to recorded human history because 1) we have witnessed it existing for as long as we know, and 2) there are not mitigating factors to suggest a change of that status.

But to apply the reliance on NS to your illustration is like saying we can apply heat to wood and make fire. We can add more wood (and more heat) to make bigger fires. We can witness and reproduce this ad nauseam. But that process also explains the sun, because all someone needs to do is get a whole lot of wood and heat, throw it up into the air, and BAM! - the Sun.

You accept evolutionary processes, but then claim that they suddenly stop operating. Yes, this is possible, but requires an explanation of the mysterious mechanism that prevents evolutionary processes from continuing. Moses may have parted the Red Sea, but day to day observation tells us that, without applying magic or engineering, water will continue to fill the void.

I made no such claim. My claim is that observed evolutionary processes (M+NS) can produce X, and such processes continue to operate and produce X. What I dispute is saying that since M+NS can produce X, a lot of M+NS can also produce Y, with Y being a product category exponentially beyond X. M+NS can do some things; M+NS can not do everything.

It can be the case that a species can originate from one pair. However it's unlikely that Homo sapiens is one of such species. Evidence shows that humans mixed in the past with Neanderthals, Denisovans and possibly other species. Which means the the most recent possible common Adam and Eve (if ever existed) were Homo erectus.

I agree in part. But I am not sticking to existing categorization of humans as only H. sapiens. I hold that Neanderthals, Denisovians, and -other- were 'human', since they presumably could and did breed with H. sapiens. Yes, any Adam and Eve would have been a precursor to those groups. I don't know if I would categorize them as H. Erectus necessarily, but I'm open to the idea.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

The evidence of what NS can do is sufficient to explain my statement (otherwise what you are asking of me is to prove a negative).
...
But that is it. The extent to what M+NS can do is demonstrably limited to microevolutionary levels. Showing M+NS to can produce macroevolutionary changes has NOT been demonstrated. That is the evidence.

Yes, I am asking you to prove negative. I know it is an absurd request, but you claimed:

.the evidence shows that the 'stuff' it can do is limited.

Absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence (assuming that the evidence is absent, which is incorrect).

More importantly, you seem to confuse evidence with physical observation. The two are related, but not the same.

There are few examples of direct observation of macroevolution, but they do exist. I suspect that you will reject them, because they are marginal. But let me ask you this: what kind of macroevolution would convince you? Does it have to be something spectacular, like a transition of a hippopotamus into a dolphin?


Contrary to your other claim, vast majority of research biologists and related scientists consider evidence for macroevolution overwhelming. This is demonstrably true if you do search for peer reviewed papers on evolution in scientific databases. This is not a proof that macroevolution is true of course, but it will show that your claim:

many scientists are very aware of the capabilities of NS and are instead looking for an alternative explanation.

is unsupported. Unless of course your definition of "many" is few.

Also, what is this alternative scientific explanation that they are looking for?

Going back to hippopotamuses and dolphins. They are actually quite closely related. No one will be able to demonstrate to you that transition (or rather transition from the common ancestor) but there is plenty of evidence for that relationship. There is at least half a dozen transitional forms in the fossil record and related palaeogeographical, paleoenvironmental and geochemical evidence. These are not so-so stories.

Tell me, why do dolphins and whales share more DNA with hippopotamuses or cows than cows with horses? Why do whales have muscles for moving ears if they don't have external ears that can be moved? why do they have vestigial olfactory nerves? Can they smell underwater? Why do their foetuses have hair or vestigial limbs?

Can you explain the purpose of all these features? Or maybe you don't believe in any purpose of such things? Maybe you think that animals are just lumps of random organs thrown together, whether they fit or not? Maybe the alternative theory of your many biologists can explain that? Please, share these explanations. Because all these things can be explained by evolution. And all you have been saying so far is that it has not been demonstrated.

Also, can you or your alternative theory explain why humans posses mutated, non-functional genes for production of egg yolk in exactly the same genome location as chickens? Is this a sign that in our "plasticity" we may start laying eggs at some point?

No, you have it backwards. Appealing to your illustration, what I am saying is that we have witnessed the sun existing for the entire course of recorded human history. There is no reason to think that the sun did not exist prior to recorded human history because 1) we have witnessed it existing for as long as we know, and 2) there are not mitigating factors to suggest a change of that status.

1) we have witnessed NS operating for as long as we know, and
2) there are no known factors that would prevent NS from continuing its operation on a larger scale in longer timeframes.

Basically, you are saying:
- "Yes, I believe that 1+1=2."
- "What about 1+1+1+1+1=5?"
- "No, this hasn't been demonstrated!"

 

[Coriolis]

And your commitment to a materialistic philosophy has apparently impaired your ability to stick to the topic of the thread.

Now you are making an assumption, one easily dispelled had you actually been following my comments here.

Mole had stated that "The very slow selection of DNA over millions of years make the idea of Eve and Adam ridiculous". He said this (and a prior related comment) to preemptively negate any need for meaning in Jesus sacrifice, the OP topic to which I was commenting on earlier and in answering questions that YOU had posed.

But regardless of the link to any early human progenitors, the "very slow selection of DNA over millions of years" is what I was replying to. I thought I already knew where he was going with this (confirmed somewhat by his answer later), but I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and not assume his point (as you apparently have no problem doing with me), and so I challenged him on that statement. It is his (or your) job to back that up, not mine.

First of all, the statement is silly on it's face. We do not have DNA samples of any sufficient quantity from 'over millions of years' to support such a statement. And no, bugs fossilized in amber is not sufficient to support it. At best, we have DNA going back a few hundred thousand years to study, and most of that is within a 100,000 years or so. So unless you know of some secret stash of ancient DNA, the statement is nothing more than a hypothetical fabrication. See my other responses for more info.


And neither is there any scientific or historical evidence against an Adam and Eve. Granted, depending on ones hyperskeptical view of what qualifies as historical evidence, I would admit evidence for it could appear to be fairly quiet. But it is the prerogative of anyone to accept or deny what they will. Either way, nothing presented so far negates the possibility, as you admitted.

So you fault others for not proving a negative, while not being up to the task yourself? As [MENTION=33169]Gunboat Diplomat[/MENTION] ably pointed out already, absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. The way evolution works, it is quite likely that there were a first man and first woman, in the sense that at some point, a pre-human ancestor gave birth to offspring that crossed the line into what we would consider human by modern standards. These would have been followed, probably quickly, by other humans such that modern humans descended from a generation (or the generations) in which this transition took place. None of which says anything about any of them living in blissful ignorance in a garden paradise where everything was provided, so long as they followed the rules of some deific being.

And that is the point of the thread: whether some initial disobedience by the first human couple precipitated a legacy of sin that required an event like the resurrection to correct. Anyone who insists on the literal truth of this narrative is missing the point. The Bible is not about science and the physical world, but rather about the spiritual world, human nature, and our relationship to the divine.

(And by the way, DNA millions of years old has been identified and studied. The scientists doing this work, though, know better than to attempt to draw conclusions about God. It would be good if religious people could return the favor.)