Debate on Evolution and Genetics with Predrag Maksimovich, a Doctor and a Quoran

Q

If you accept Darwin's theory of evolution, how can you believe in Adam and Eve at the same time?
https://www.quora.com/If-you-accept-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-how-can-you-believe-in-Adam-and-Eve-at-the-same-time/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

See http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com

Answered Fri

Ask those who do accept Darwin’s theory of evolution, both in details of mechanism and in overall picture.

I don’t accept it in either way.

Q

If you accept Darwin's theory of evolution, how can you believe in Adam and Eve at the same time?
https://www.quora.com/If-you-accept-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-how-can-you-believe-in-Adam-and-Eve-at-the-same-time/answer/Predrag-Maksimovich

Predrag Maksimovich

Exploring Weight Loss: LCHF Diet.

Answered Fri

If you accept Darwin's theory of evolution, how can you believe in Adam and Eve at the same time?

There is nothing to accept or not to accept in any theory.

Scientists make certain hypotheses which they test and thereafter try to compose a theory.

Theory of evolution is well-tested and proven and it doesn’t depend on somebody’s belief or absence of belief in it. It works even if there are no humans around to think about it.

However, the story of Adam and Eve should be accepted in a metaphorical sense not as a literal description of events.

BTW, scientists have another proven theory which clearly states that a new race of human beings cannot be made from one Adam and one Eve. Genetical material would be too similar and lead to fatal hereditary genetical diseases.

So, there were many Adams and many Eves.

Also, scientists found out (by researching mitochondrias which are inherited only through females) that there were about dozen or less proto-females from whom we all came. They gave to these proto-women Nordic names - making them some sort of Scandinavian goddesses!!!

Answered

twice, A and B.

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

53m ago

Oh, I thought you were Catholic?

“Theory of evolution is well-tested and proven”

I thought you were a medical doctor and therefore had some training in assessing scientific proof …?

Predrag Maksimovich

20m ago

Yes. It’s proven and it’s being tested on a daily basis. Only small improvements and corrections were implemented. Not even cosmetic, very minor ones.

I’m trained and can do reasonably well in assessing scientific proof.

My religion is not important for this question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

13m ago

Your religion is somewhat disqualified as per your answer.

“Yes. It’s proven and it’s being tested on a daily basis.”

You are obviously not testing on daily basis that man evolved from apes (or “are still apes” according to phylogeneticists).

“Only small improvements and corrections were implemented. Not even cosmetic, very minor ones.”

Improvements in what?

“I’m trained and can do reasonably well in assessing scientific proof.”

I’m not trained and seem to do better than you.

Lenski test is NOT a test for whether man evolved from subhuman animals, nor are adapting microorganisms.

Taking them as proof for it is an inadequate view of what proof means.

If you have two premisses you will get your proof from it:

• either all species are totally fixed as to DNA or all species of whatever kind evolved from LUCA
• but not all species are totally fixed as to DNA.

The conclusion can only be yours - except you need the first premiss before you can use that syllogism.

[not just the second one, my emphasis here]

Predrag Maksimovich

10m ago

Improvement in the theory of evolution, obviously. I don’t care if you’re better or worse than anybody else. I don’t know who Lenski was and what’s his test. Humans are part of evolution of mammals. This is already proven. DNA is changing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2m ago

“DNA is changing” is NOT a proof of “humans are part of evolution of mammals”.

As a doctor, you should get on board with the Lenski experiment.

20 000 generations of escherichia (or whatever, e.) coli, and the most drastic change is that some strains have become capable of feeding on citric acid as well, which the Salmonella bacterium is also.

In other words, a fine refutation of evolutionist claims of kind-to-kind evolution + an explanation of where evil (you know what I mean, I don’t think microorganisms have freewill) bacteria arose after the fall, indeed those we have mostly after the Flood.

Predrag Maksimovich

Just now

I’m afraid that a person who finds Darwin’s theory of evolution acceptable cannot have a meaningful discussion with a person who doesn’t.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Oh, the divide is a deeper religious one than that between Catholics and Protestants in the 16th C. (neither side of which would have accepted Darwin for a moment)?

B

Predrag Maksimovich

24m ago

This IS from medical school. The assumption is that two perfectly healthy adults, male and female, have perfectly healthy DNA. But they can’t produce a new human race regardless of how many children they have.

You know what you can do with the last paragraph of your comment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21m ago

“The assumption is that two perfectly healthy adults, male and female, have perfectly healthy DNA.”

If Adam or Eve or both had had sickle celle anoemia, they could certainly not have avoided sickle celle anoemia in all offspring.

But with a perfectly healthy DNA to start with the comment is counter-intuitive.

In other words, to accept it, one would need rigorous testing and people with perfectly healthy DNA are not around to test it on.

Predrag Maksimovich

20m ago

It’s not that simple and don’t require testing on real people. It boils down to possible recombinations of parental DNAs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

15m ago

Namely, in some reasonable detail?

Predrag Maksimovich

12m ago

You seem to have a problem with my answer with the original question. If that’s the case please be so kind and write your own answer.

Answered

twice, C and D.

C

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11m ago

Did:

Hans-Georg Lundahl's answer to If you accept Darwin's theory of evolution, how can you believe in Adam and Eve at the same time? [click or see above]

Predrag Maksimovich

9m ago

Excellent! So, you don’t believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. I believe. That means I don’t have anything to discuss with you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5m ago

If you consider yourself as a Catholic, I think you do.

Predrag Maksimovich

3m ago

My religion is my problem. Doesn’t have any influence on my acceptance of the Darwin’s theory. I don’t have anything else to discuss with you. I wrote my answer to the original question, you wrote yours. Good!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Your religion is problematic, if you claim to be Catholic, so “my problem” is not totally off.

Predrag Maksimovich

Just now

I don’t claim to be religious, nor I claim to be Catholic. My religion is no business for anybody else.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Oh, sorry, I mistook you for having claimed to be Catholic. Many of my conservative friends are.

D

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10m ago

For your part, you seem to have some trouble explaining how recombinations of healthy DNA can become unhealthy DNA.

Predrag Maksimovich

8m ago

You would have to study a bit of genetics and apply your knowledge. Even DNA in one person is changing and cells have inbuilt mechanism to preserve “healthy” DNA.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6m ago

OK, some details?

I am not exactly a total beginner in genetics.

[No Answer.]