Replies

in order to go through abiogenisis, only pure chemicals could be used i nthe ‘evolutionary’ process however nature doesn’t provide pure chemical- You’ll have to talk with Betty Boop about that as it was she I beleive that had that discussion about a 1/2 year ago- or perhaps it was alamo girl- dirty chemicals foudn in nature would have mucked up the process of abiogenisis- That discussion was a long time ago and I don’t remember all the specifics right off hand but it was a fascinating htread- and if you find it please do ping me to it-

In a somewhat related issue Man when he was created started out with pure genes- then as time whent on and mutaitons occured the gene pool became more andm ore corrupted- and htis can be traced baqck and shown through dna sampling (MTDNA I beleive it was? The Eve project- the further back they went the more pure the genes were foudn to be- which is apparently why family coudl mate without ill effect before it became geneticlly not feasible to do so due ot complications i nthe offspring.

Stop. Just stop. Although you've only written one paragraph, I still can't figure out where to begin with it. I know this is a common creationist meme, and you're just doing your part, but come ON.

The biggest issue with this whole idea is that you are citing things like genetics and mitochondrial DNA and the work of those who study human evolution and have twisted it so fantastically to suit your needs. I simply cannot understand how someone who believes Adam was zapped into existence X number of years ago can offer up human genetics as some sort of evidence. You can not do that. You are citing primate/human DNA evolution to come up with the cockamamie idea that there is no such thing as human evolution. I can't wrap my head around that.

But playing your game, ok, Adam was "perfect," whatever that means. He had a "perfect" genome. What does that even mean? And why then, did his perfect genome, from which a genetically identical (yet somehow not the sex chromosomes) Eve emerged. But Eve wasn't perfect, because she succumbed to a magic talking snake. Not so perfect?

Yet still perfect enough to mate with her genetically identical except for the whole XX/XY thing to produce two perfect sons. Except one of them wasn't so perfect because he was a murderer. So two perfect humans created two perfect humans, one of which committed murder, one of the worst sins imaginable.

Help me out here.

Furthermore, depending on your definition of "perfect," the more "similar" one's specific genome is to a mate's genome, the less viable sexual reproduction is. So when we had a few perfect people running around mating with their mothers and sisters, their viability would be even less than in incestuous relationships today. (Of course, your "out" is that biblical "perfect" means they were supernatually perfect and "we can't know" and *poof*! It was magic and worked out great. Except for the 50% of the first kids were murderers thing.)

But you yourself say that the farther we go back in human history, the less mutations we see. (Again, ignoring what mutations actually are and actually mean, since in creationist-land there are no such things as "good" or "indifferent" mutations.)

I'll stop. I'm confused.