Adam and Eve

[hecd2]

Why do you continue with your atheism here? What does it get you?

Peace

I am enjoying sharing views with others. Isn’t that what a forum is for? Isn’t dialogue in the world the way to achieve your tag?

Am I being more successful that you’d like? I suggest you get used to it.

By the way - do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[terryobrien80]

I hope my questions come out clear but its kinda confusing myself thinking about it lol. But here goes…

If Adam and Eve where the first two humans created does it mean they where the only two “created” the same way. Could there have been others created like them at a later date?

And if they where the only two created then wouldn’t this prove God also created the process of evolution?..

The Church, however, does not precisely define who or what “Adam and Eve” are. In this section on the creation of man,
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm
…the word Adam only apprears a few times in one paragraph out of that whole section.

Reading the Catechism is something that must be done with an eye toward the subtle nuances it contains.

 

[edwest2]

I am enjoying sharing views with others. Isn’t that what a forum is for? Isn’t dialogue in the world the way to achieve your tag?

Am I being more successful that you’d like? I suggest you get used to it.

By the way - do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I believe Intelligent Design will show that evolution, as it is currently taught, is not the best answer. An interview with scientist Charles Thaxton that may shed some light on this issue:

intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/eg/2008-07-25T13_49_57-07_00

Further, science is not the only way of knowing. Adam and Eve, two individuals, were our first parents. This, according to the Holy Spirit of God.

Peace,
Ed

P.S.

What’s a “tag”?

 

[PhilVaz]

Ed << P.S. What’s a “tag”? >>

Alec (HECD2) means this:

-------> Peace, Ed <--------

To achieve “peace” in other words. Your tag is peace. Peace on earth, goodwill toward theists, atheists, and scientologists. Hee hee.

Phil P

 

[Coder]

I think all this is rather irrelevant. Are you trying to say that the evidence does NOT point to common ancestry of humans and other animals?

It’s relevant if you think that genetics has the monopoly on revelations. People have long known that we have things in common with animals. All one need do is look at a monkey and one can see some similarities. Genetics is no shocker here.

The formula for coalescense is a simple formula (1 / 2N etc.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalescent_theory

This appears to be a rough model. Even the article refers to infancy of applying this theory and much work is in progress.

This has nothing to do with blindly rejecting science. Rather, my assessment is that scientists are not generally claiming to have solid conclusions (including the minumum number of humans). There are just too many unknowns to claim that the research is conclusive. Genetic codes are very, very, complex and the models need to improve from what I see (including coalescense theory). The estimates are too rough. Stay tuned as the research is done. I think you’re in for a surprise.

Surely, you won’t deny that much more research is underway. Why? Because they need more data of course!

So yes, I will stand firm in my assessment that the research is underway and the claims are not final. This is in early stages. Genetics is not a mature science like geology, math, Newtonian physics, etc. It’s a relatively young science.

I’m open to discussing further if you would like to break aspects down step by step. Let’s suppose that there were two creatures that evolved uniquely at the time when various pre-human forms were emerging. They would have many genes in common with the general population of the (for example) 10 - 100 thousand you claim, yet they would be the first two true humans. Maybe (for example) alleles changed more rapidly at a certain time, perhaps in the early first human generations. So perhaps the evidence of alleles are misunderstood today. I just think that there are so many factors affecting alleles and how they change and I think scientists agree that more needs to be understood about this.

Genesis, genetics, interesting.

 

[hecd2]

I believe Intelligent Design will show that evolution, as it is currently taught, is not the best answer. An interview with scientist Charles Thaxton that may shed some light on this issue:

intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/eg/2008-07-25T13_49_57-07_00

So I was right. You didn’t have anything of substance to add.

Further, science is not the only way of knowing. Adam and Eve, two individuals, were our first parents. This, according to the Holy Spirit of God.

I respect the fact that you believe that, but nevertheless it cannot be true.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Coder]

I respect the fact that you believe that, but nevertheless it cannot be true.

I simply don’t think that claim can be made. Scientists don’t seem to be talking this way - rather they seem to be working. Show us one scientifc paper that claims that the estimate of the minumum number of humans in history is conclusive. I don’t think you can. I think you can only show that early evidence based on immature models indicates this. Claims simply do not appear conclusive yet. The language of the papers does not seem to have that tone. Rather the tone is that more work needs to be done.

 

[hecd2]

It’s relevant if you think that genetics has the monopoly on revelations. People have long known that we have things in common with animals. All one need do is look at a monkey and one can see some similarities. Genetics is no shocker here.

So you’re being very ambiguous as to whether you accept common descent or not. Do you, or not?

The formula for coalescense is a simple formula (1 / 2N etc.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalescent_theory

1/2N etc. So you really don’t have a clue as to what the coalescent means.I think I’ve warned you before about trying to learn your science from Wikipedia.

This appears to be a rough model.

What do you mean by rough? It is is not “rough” in any way that affects the case here.

Even the article refers to infancy of applying this theory and much work is in progress.

Really? Where does it do that?

This has nothing to do with blindly rejecting science. Rather, my assessment is that scientists are not generally claiming to have solid conclusions (including the minumum number of humans). There are just too many unknowns to claim that the research is conclusive. Genetic codes are very, very, complex and the models need to improve from what I see (including coalescense theory). The estimates are too rough. Stay tuned as the research is done. I think you’re in for a surprise.

No I’m afraid not. You are, frankly, not qualified to make this assessment. I’m beginning to wonder whether you even understand what an allele is, because if you do, you are being rather obtuse in other ways. The fact that you don’t understand the 20 or so papers that I referenced for you (how many have you read exactly?) means any vagueness is down to you not the science. The data we have excludes the possibility of two parents in the human lineage. That’s the way it is. How are you getting on with finding just one population geneticist who accepts that humans could have a bottleneck of two in their ancestry? Thought so.

Let’s suppose that there were two creatures that evolved uniquely at the time when various pre-human forms were emerging. They would have many genes in common with the general population of the (for example) 10 - 100 thousand you claim, yet they would be the first two true humans. Maybe (for example) alleles changed more rapidly at a certain time, perhaps in the early first human generations. So perhaps the evidence of alleles are misunderstood today. I just think that there are so many factors affecting alleles and how they change and I think scientists agree that more needs to be understood about this.

I am afraid none of this helps to explain the fact that modern humans and chimps share more alleles than can pass through two people and that other signatures of a such a monstrously severe bottleneck such as LD data are utterly incompatible with two parents.

I think we have got to the end of the road. You will continue to believe in a literal Adam and Eve because you wish to, and the evidence will continue to exclude that possibility whether you understand it or not. And I think we have to leave it there, otherwise we will simply go over the same ground. Which will be, at least for me, utterly tedious.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Coder]

I am afraid none of this helps to explain the fact that modern humans and chimps share more alleles than can pass through two people and that other signatures of a such a monstrously severe bottleneck such as LD data are utterly incompatible with two parents.

Explain for non-geneticists (I do not claim to be knowledgeable beyond some basics in genetics) your arguments against the theory that these alleles could have evolved in humans in a similar way as they did with with apes but after a divergence rather than being passed through multiple lineages?

 

[Coder]

No I’m afraid not. You are, frankly, not qualified to make this assessment.

My understanding is something like this: An allele is a code portion of DNA that changes and can vary among species and creatures of the same species. Thes alleles can be compared as apples to apples based on the known sites that they are on. These known sites are called loci. It’s analogous to a common pointer to RAM where different data can be found. There are observed patterns in alleles. For example a specific code may repeat several times so this pattern is used as a genetic signpost to trace back and compare with other creatures (within and across species).

No I’m afraid not. You are, frankly, not qualified to make this assessment.

My assessment is made based on the way the scientists seem to present (and not only on my very limited knowledge of genetics). They do not seem to present with the attitude of conclusive claims.

 

[Coder]

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9419236

All one needs to do is read a few sentences into the article. There we see a scientist clearly claiming that the analysis of alleles (codes) in the Mhc cannot be used to conlude that the number of humans was 100,000. I presented this many posts back. This clearly shows that at least in 1997 there was debate and that several factors must be considered when analyzing genes. Apparently these factors were not considered.

 

[hecd2]

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9419236

All one needs to do is read a few sentences into the article. There we see a scientist clearly claiming that the analysis of alleles (codes) in the Mhc cannot be used to conlude that the number of humans was 100,000. I presented this many posts back. This clearly shows that at least in 1997 there was debate and that several factors must be considered when analyzing genes. Apparently these factors were not considered.

Have you read the paper yet? Or are you basing your entire case on the abstract of a paper you haven’t read? That would be about par for the course.

I said that we’d be going over old ground and here we are, doing just that. How is it that I can carefully explain that this paper does not claim that the analysis of DRB1 cannot be used in estimates of population size, and yet you come back with the same old error - is anything at all going in? How many of the twenty or so references that I gave you, have you read and understood? How well could you explain, say, the concept of the Kingman coalescent or other aspects of a Wright-Fisher population? How about your understanding of the analysis of linkage disequlibrium and and the effect that a bottleneck of two would have on LD? How well are you getting on finding a professional population geneticist who has said or is willing to say that the genetics of extant humans are consistent with the possibility of a bottleneck of two? Found one yet? I thought not.

I don’t really want to go round in circles with someone who hasn’t even read the paper on which he is basing his argument. Why don’t you carry on with your wishful thinking, since it obviously comforts you. It doesn’t change the fact that the evidence precludes the possibility of the human lineage passing through a bottleneck of two.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Coder]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4009184#post4009184