Title question - thank you so much!

That’s what believing in human evolution is. You can’t believe in God, so in your frustration, you look for a way to deal with that inability.

The men and women who you deem as brilliant, who you depend on to give you understanding and truth, are in the same boat as you. They know they’re just guessing. That’s why they need a consensus on everything.

That boat is sinking. I wondered why so many people have been caught in this particular snare. I see now that you’d be rather be trapped in a cage than bang on the doors of God’s house begging to be let in.

Dr. Joel Duff released a fresh new video review of a recent paper that is titled, "Digestive contents and food webs record the advent of dinosaur supremacy" by Qvarnstrom et. al.

You can find his full video here!. Give him a watch and subscribe. You can read the paper itself here.

The paper details fossilized dinosaur poop (coprolites) as they are found in the fossil record. Notably, we find smaller poops lower in the fossil record, and we don't find larger poops until much later in the fossil record. This mirrors the size disparity found in the skeletal fossil record, as seen in this figure.

Now, YECs have always had a flood/fossil problem. Somehow, the flood had to have sorted all these dinosaurs into the strict, layered pattern that we find them in the ground. None of their explanations have held much water (badum-tsss). For whatever sorting method they propose--weight, density, escape speed--there is always a multitude of fossils which disprove it. Fossilized poop make the situation even worse for them.

To paraphrase Dr. Duff:

Given flood conditions, why would there be fossil poop in the fossil record at all? Why would there be so much of it?

If the dinosaurs poop in the water, the poop isn't going to preserve. Even if they had pooped on some high ground, in this wet environment there isn't enough time for the poop to dry out and harden.

So, the mere existence of millions of fossilized feces found all throughout these supposed flood deposits should make the flood hypothesis impossible. On top of that, these feces are sorted in the same way the dinosaurs were. What a mighty coincidence.

Hello, my name is David. I studied Christian theology propaedeutic studies, as well as undergraduate studies. For the past two years, I have been doing apologetics or rational defence of the Christian faith on social media, and conservative Christian activism in real life. Object to me in any way you can, concerning the topic of the subreddit, or ask me any question.

One of the most notable things about debating creationists is their limited repertoire of arguments, all long refuted. Most of us on the evolution side know the arguments and rebuttals by heart. And for the rest, a quick trip to Talk Origins, a barely maintained and seldom updated site, will usually suffice.

One of the reasons is obvious; the arguments, as old as they are, are new to the individual creationist making their inaugural foray into the fray.

But there is another reason. Creationists don't regard their arguments from a valid/invalid perspective, but from a working/not working one. The way a baseball pitcher regards his pitches. If nobody is biting on his slider, the pitcher doesn't think his slider is an invalid pitch; he thinks it's just not working in this game, maybe next game. And similarly a creationist getting his entropy argument knocked out of the park doesn't now consider it an invalid argument, he thinks it just didn't work in this forum, maybe it'll work the next time.

To take it farther, they not only do not consider the validity of their arguments all that important, they don't get that their opponents do. They see us as just like them with similar, if opposed, agendas and methods. It's all about conversion and winning for them.

It is very popular here and in many other places for the strict religious adherents to the belief in the "common ancestry aspect of biological evolution" to claim that abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with the "common ancestry aspect of biological evolution" or "biological evolution" in general when it is brought up as a major issue, hurdle, or weakness. Yet, the same person, when asked what the best argument, evidence, or proof of the "common ancestry aspect of biological evolution" is, will say that there are a myriad of scientific fields that support it and that this wealth of evidence in scientific fields is the ultimate argument for it. Is this not the height of hypocrisy to say the former from one side of one's mouth and the latter from the other? Dare I say that anyone who does this is a charlatan, sophist, hypocrite, and blaggard—which, unfortunately, describes most people in this forum.

P.S. If this makes you upset you can definitely cry in your pillow later tonight about it, but unless you have some actual factual statement that resembles something like a worthy retort, please keep your lame complaints and grievances to yourself please.................. Thank You!!!

It’s frustrating to redefine things over and over. And over again. I know that it will continue to be a problem, but for creationists on here. I’d like to lay out some basics of how evolutionary biology understands things and see if you can at least agree that that’s how evolutionary biologists think. Not to ask that you agree with the claims themselves, but just to agree that these are, in fact, the claims. Arguing against a version of evolution that no one is pushing wastes everyone’s time.

1: Evolutionary biology is a theory of biodiversity, and its description can be best understood as ‘a change in allele frequency over time’. ‘A change in the heritable characteristics of populations over successive generations’ is also accurate. As a result, the field does not take a position on the existence of a god, nor does it need to have an answer for the Big Bang or the emergence of life for us to conclude that the mechanisms of evolution exist.

2: Evolution does not claim that one ‘kind’ of animal has or even could change into another fundamentally different ‘kind’. You always belong to your parent group, but that parent group can further diversify into various ‘new’ subgroups that are still part of the original one.

3: Our method of categorizing organisms is indeed a human invention. However, much like how ‘meters’ is a human invention and yet measures something objectively real, the fact that we’ve crafted the language to understand something doesn’t mean its very existence is arbitrary.

4: When evolutionary biologists use the word ‘theory’, they are not using it to describe that it is a hypothesis. They are using it to describe that evolution has a framework of understanding built on data and is a field of study. Much in the same way that ‘music theory’ doesn’t imply uncertainty on the existence of music but is instead a functional framework of understanding based off of all the parts that went into it.

Hello y'all, how are you? I have a question about evolution, I believe in Evolution and I have many muslims friends who say the most stupid things about it, I explained the tree of life and explained that the apes wasn't apes they also evolved before us. But he asked me this question "Then why current apes don't evolve again?" I thought about telling him that the apes we evolved from is from another group which is called "Homo Genus" and the current apes is from a group called "Pan Genus" but I came to here for 2 reasons, first one is to get sure from the groups info, second reason to find a simpler way to explain this because these guys are stupid idk how they're passing their exams.

Thanks.

So, I've been in a several day long debate with a pretty knowledgeable creationist on stack overflow - we've been arguing over Mendal's accountant, and so far it's been pretty fun, and rather mathsy.

For those who aren't familiar, this is the piece of software that predicts "Genetic Rust" - basically the idea that detrimental mutations accumulate to the point where species go extinct (which we don't observe in real life, which invalidates the model).

Despite this, I was struggling to figure out why it was so broken. On it's face, the model looks fine - relatively reasonable assumptions you can play with, and yet even setting numbers to ludicrously high, the model still predicts a drop in fitness.

However, after three days digging through the code, I think I've found it. The big fat thumb on the scales of this model, swinging everything in the direction of genetic collapse through a giant, untested assumption:

Mendel's accountant applies a factor to positive mutations, arguing that the highest positive mutation would be much lower in impact than the highest negative mutation. Kind of reasonable on the face of it.

However, here, in the code, it sneakily uses this scaling factor to skew the entire distribution of mutation impact (not mutation frequency). Impact of positive mutations almost disappear under the default values. In the go versions, the functions are:

https://github.com/genetic-algorithms/mendel-go/blob/master/dna/mutation.go#L157
https://github.com/genetic-algorithms/mendel-go/blob/master/dna/mutation.go#L173

and the graph, excuse my terrible figure making skills: https://imgur.com/a/bKwxP8e

If you're looking for the impact of positive mutations, it's that tiny, tiny blue line at the very left of the graph. Zoom in if you can't see it. Remember, this is combined with an already low value for positive mutation frequency, again under the defaults, to make positive mutations with significant impact essentially non existent.

Now, what I'd like here is some commentary. Is this the problem I think it is? Any creationists want to refute this, with data and numbers? Any model making biologists want to comment?

Someone asked me to make this a post for responses.

'There are too many to go through them all. Where do you want to begin?

We have the testimony across thousands of years. Evolutionists have only imagination.

1. The massive amount of MISSING evidence that evolutionists MUST HAVE. 90 percent of earth MISSING for them. Over 9 universes worth of MISSING evidence doesn't exist. The NUMBERLESS transitions do not exist nor is there any reason to think they ever did. This by itself invalidates evolution as "scientific". There is NO answer except "just blindly believe in evolution anyway".
2. Geology, the rapid burial was denied until it had to be admitted but it gets worse. Massive COOLER slabs of rock MILES INSIDE the earth as predicted by creation scientists. Massive and RAPID plate movements showing worldwide flood, and so on. https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/creationists-power-predict/ You can't add time to this problem. There is no answer for evolutionists.
3. Genetics. The human genetics has so completely falsified "evolution" that you are BANNED now from bringing up the details here so I won't. No mentioning evolutionists evil philosophy on humans here. But I'll point out, https://gulfnews.com/world/90-of-animal-life-is-roughly-the-same-age-1.2227906
4. Bacteria/fruit flies. Ironically evolutionists themselves have disproven evolution while desperately trying to find SOME, ANY evidence for it. They failed horribly. Over 75k generations of bacteria OBSERVED and no evolution possible. However bacteria was discovered before that so millions of generations and bacteria still bacteria. However you even have FOSSIL bacteria that they believe are "billions of years" old. So that would be TRILLIONS OF GENERATIONS WITH NO EVOLUTION POSSIBLE. Meaning you cannot hide behind "Time" anymore.. It takes away the last hiding place for evolution. If bacteria cannot evolve then you cannot evolve. That's a fact.
5. Genetics and evolution narrative contradict. https://creation.com/saddle-up-the-horse-its-off-to-the-bat-cave

"Evolutionary scientists establish relationships between living organisms based on morphological and DNA similarity. Creatures that are anatomically similar are believed to be so because they possess a close evolutionary relationship—they are supposed to have inherited these characteristics from a fairly ‘close’ common ancestor. The same is true of creatures that are genetically very similar. So if two creatures are supposed to be evolutionarily close by one of these criteria, they should be by the other also—provided, that is, that the whole idea of common descent is valid."-link. Similarities WITHOUT DESCENT are proven and grow in ABUNDANCE making the whole concept of evolution nonsense.

And so on.

It has been falsified in every way possible. There was NO evidence hence massive amount of MISSING evidence. They even tested the assumption of needing high mutation and high generations and STILL evolution will not occur. You have NO REASON to believe in evolution AT ALL.

This would be a falsification measure. If 30 minutes after the big bang we had the conditions of evolution and it started and resulted in human beings in that time would we still defend a physicalist evolution? If not then we recognize the relationship between time and complexity. If we recognize that relationship, then we must be able to determine a threshold of complexity that cannot arise through the time up to now since the big bang. What is that threshold? If every planet (edit.delete.typo: on earth) had advanced life as of now, would random evolution be the answer again? If we cannot define such a threshold, then physicalist evolution is probably unfalsifiable hence unscientific.

(This is a question that to my knowledge has not been well addressed and is a problem that supports the unscientificness of physicalist evolution.)

I’m curious to see what the strongest arguments are for creationism + arguments against evolution.

So to any creationists in the sub, I would like to hear your arguments ( genuinely curious)

edit; i hope that more creationists will comment on this post. i feel that the majority of the creationists here give very low effort responses ( no disresepct)

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/?srsltid=AfmBOoovgirb2ynuzqjWQSTK3fOlGoK8QvS5qklW94aSsyfELtDkhY3F

I don’t know how to respond to this article I was having a debate with someone on this topic and they brought this up, I do not know where to begin.

yesterday, i made a post regarding ervs. majority of the replies on that post were responsive and answered my question whilst a few rejected my proposition.

thats why i will try to make the case for ervs here in this post

<WHAT ARE HERVS?;>

HERV stands for Human Endogenous Retrovirus. Retroviruses evolved a mechanism called reverse transcription, which allows them to insert their RNA genome into the host genome. This process is one of the exceptions to the central dogma of molecular biology (DNA > RNA > Protein), which is quite fascinating! 

Endogenous retroviruses are sequences in our (or other species') genomes that have a high degree of similarity to the genomes of retroviruses. About 8.2% of our entire genome is made up of these endogenous retroviral sequences (ERVs). Importantly, ERVs are not viruses themselves and do not produce viruses. Rather, they are non-functional remnants of viruses that have infected our ancestors. You could compare them to 'viral fossils.' 

These viral sequences strengthen the evolutionary lineage between us and our primate cousins. When a retrovirus infects a germ cell (egg or sperm), it can be passed on to the offspring of the host. These viral sequences become part of the DNA of the host's children, and as these children reproduce, their offspring will also carry the same viral sequence in their DNA. 

The viral DNA can either be very active or remain dormant. Typically, if the host cell is healthy, the virus will remain relatively inactive. If the cell is stressed or in danger, the viral genes may be triggered to activate and produce new viruses. 

These viruses can integrate into any location within our DNA, but their placement is influenced by regions known as hotspots or cold spots in our genome. To illustrate this, Imagine a shooter aiming at a target. At 0–20 meters, they are highly accurate, hitting the target most frequently. This represents a genomic hotspot, where HERVs integrate more frequently. As the shooter moves farther away, to 20–30 meters, their accuracy decreases due to distance and other factors. While they still occasionally hit the target, it happens less often. This corresponds to a genomic cold spot, where HERVs integrate less frequently, though they are not absent entirely.

we humans have thousands of ervs that are in exactly the same place as that of chimps. besides that, were able to create phylogenetic trees with the ervs that MATCH that of other phylogenetic trees that were constructed already by other lines of evidence. all of this simple coming by with chance is extremely unlikely .

now, if we only try to calculate the chance of the placements being the same ( between chimps and humans), youll quickly realise how improbable it is that all of this happened by chance. someone else can maybe help me with the math, but from what i calculated its around 10^ −1,200,000 ( if we take in to account hotspots) which is extremely low probability.

any criticism ( that actually tries to tackle what is written here) would be appreciated.

Edit; seems like I was wrong regarding the math and some other small details . Besides that. Many people in the replies have clarified the things that were incorrect/vague in my post. Thx for replying

CORRECTION;

-Viruses haven't been shown to infect a germ line as of yet. Scientists therefore do not know what came first , transporons ( like ervs) or viruses ( this ultimately doesnt change the fact that ervs are good evidence for common ancestry)

-Its not clear if stress can activate ervs. Many suspect it but nothing is conclusive as of yet . that doesnt mean that ervs cant be activated, multiple processes such as epigenetic unlocking or certain inflamations can activate ervs ( and maybe stress to if we find further evidence)

-Selection pressures ( like for example the need for the host to survive) influences placement selection ( when ervs enter our bodies).

-Hotspots are not so specific as we thoughts and insertions might be more random then first reported.

-I would like to thank those that commented and shed light on the inaccuracies in the post.

i have heard "its just a theory" and "Scientific theories are religious" three times today. I rarely hear true objections from YEC

I wanna hear those theories.

Ervs are pretty good evidence that evolution takes/ took place for every organism including us humans.

But when discussing ervs. Do we solely argue for evolution based on the placement? Or also for example how the ervs are rendered useless in our dna ?

Edit: people are somehow assuming that im against ervs being as evidence used for evolution, im not. Im simply asking if something besides placement ( placement is already conclusive, i know that) can be used to argue for evolution, may it be similair mutation patterns in ervs between species for example)

I believe that it’s possible for there to be an omnipotent and omniscient God that can still allow for free will and random chance guiding evolution, much the way one does his third run of Dark Souls III with a walkthrough to get the best ending. Once you know the desired outcome on every conceivable level, it’s just physics: if you know the initial conditions and the final conditions, you can calculate for any point between.

Abiogenesis is perfectly feasible, because God set off the Big Bang with just the right physics and just the right materials in such a place that they’d eventually come together to create life.

Micro and macro evolution are (at the most basic of levels) based on random chance, which can be traced down to the random motion of particles, which move in accordance to the physics framework made by God—

I only thought about this as I typed it out just now, but I may have just re-invented simulation theory.

So my parents and pretty much my whole family are creationists I don't know if they are young earth or old earth I just can't get an answer. I have tried to explain things like evolution to the best of my ability, but I am not very qualified for this. What I want to know is how I am suppose to explain to them that I am not crazy.

When species come to exist om, how many of that species would be present? 2-3 and then it would expand to more ?

Lets say I have a wind chamber that blows around legos that is just like the "Money chambers" that are used for contests, so legos are blown around and every once in a while 2 or more random legos are forced together and sometimes they even make a random chain of several legos stuck together, but then the wind breaks them up almost just as often as they come together. Now lets say a "living thing" or "the very first living thing" is for analogies sake equal to an "Eiffel tower made out of legos", so from the Creation perspective, no matter how long those legos are flying around all over the place, millions- billions- trillions- bazilions- etc... of years and/or "instances of this occurring", those legos will never come together to make an "Eiffel tower", but a follower of the "Main Stream Western Scientific Perspective on Origins of Life and its diversity on Earth" believes this could happen in the range of millions to billions of years and/or "instances" and is very possible and believable. Now lets take that analogy and say we start out with an "Eiffel tower made out of legos" sitting in this wind chamber, and as you would easily conclude, some parts of the "Eiffel tower made out of legos" blocks wind in certain areas so that certain legos break off less and that certain sizes and shapes of lego pieces and lego chains can easily get caught and added along with others that do not and are rejected by these areas, so a type of selection happens that is analogous to "natural selection" and "mutations" where things can be added and/or removed in a selectable and distingusihing way, a follower of the "Main Stream Western Scientific Perspective on Origins of Life and its Diversity on Earth" will believe that in the millions to billions of years range and/or "instances of this occurring" range, an "Eiffel tower made out of legos" can actually change into an "Aircraft Carrier made out of legos". From the Creation perspective this could never happen no matter how much time occurs and/ or "instances" happen. I know this analogy is not perfect and that it will get plenty of heavy criticism on here and I know that arguments and expositions from both sides are a lot more complicated, and that I will definitely be reprimanded for not explicitly noting this complexity in my very simplified analogy. I "INVITE" you to give me a better analogy so that both sides can understand each other better. Even if you do not agree with my perspective, i want you to understand the perspective that I am coming from. In all respect, peace, good nature and for friendly conversations sake..... " Bonne Chance !!! "

The sense in which I'm using species is the following: A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of producing fertile offspring

That being said, are there any specific cases of observed speciation where the new species isn't capable of producing fertile offspring with the original species?

I've read a few articles about the ring species - Ensatina salamanders and Greenish Warblers. Few sources claim that Monterey and Large-blotched Ensatina salamanders can't interbreed. Whereas, other sources claim that they can, in fact, interbreed in 3 out of 4 contact zones.

As for the Greenish Warblers, the plumbeitarsus and viridanus subspecies don't interbreed due to differences in songs and colouration. But it's not proven that they're unable to produce fertile offspring through hybridization.

All the other examples I found fall into the same categories(or they're in the process of becoming new species). So please help me find something more concrete, or my creationist friends are making unreasonable demands.

In my experience, modern creationists who are somewhat better educated in evolutionary biology both accept micro- and macroevolution, since they accept that species diversify inevitably in their genetics, leading to things like morphological changes amongst the individuals of species (microevolution), and they also accept what I refer to as natural speciation and taxa above the species level emerging within a "kind", in extreme cases up to the level of a domain! (" They're still bacteria. "—Ray Cumfort (paraphrased), not being aware that two bacteria can be significantly more different to each other than he is to his banana (the one in his hand..)).

There are also creationists among us who are not educated as to how speciation can occur or whether that is even a thing. They possibly believe that God created up to two organisms for each species, they populated the Earth or an area of it, but that no new species emerged from them – unless God wanted to. These creationists only believe in microevolution. Most of them (I assume) don't believe that without God's intervention, there wouldn't be any of the breeds of domestic dogs or cats we have, that they could have emerged without God's ghastly engineering.

This makes me often wonder: are there creationists who don't believe in evolution at all, or only in "nanoevolution"? I know that Judeo-Christian creationists are pretty much forced to believe in post-flood ultra-rapid "hyperevolution", but are there creationists whose evolutionary views are at the opposite end of the spectrum? Are there creationists who believe that God has created separately white man and black man, or that chihuahuas aren't related to dachshunds?

(Edit: the title "The Discovery Institute MAY be advising the US government" is probably more appropriate, since the actual relevance of Project 2025 is still not all that clear, at least to me. I can't change the title unfortunately.)

Most of us on Team Science are probably at least mildly uncomfortable with the US election result, especially those who live in the US (I do not!). I thought I'd share something that I haven't seen discussed much.

Project 2025 is, from what I'm aware, a conservative think tank run by the Heritage Foundation, dedicated to staffing the new Trump government with people who can 'get the job done', so to speak. While it's not officially endorsed by Trump, there's certainly a real possibility that he will be borrowing some ideas from it, or going ahead with it to an extent.

The Discovery Institute, I'm sure, needs no introduction around here. They're responsible for pushing intelligent design, and have reasonably strong links with wealthy entities that fund them to support their political, legal and cultural agendas. Their long-term goal, as outlined in the Wedge Document, is to get creationism (masquerading as intelligent design) taught in public schools in the US, presumably as a stepping stone towards installing theocracy in the US.

The big deal is that: the Discovery Institute is a 'coalition partner' for Project 2025. This means that they will likely receive significant funding, and also that their leadership will be advising government on relevant policy issues.

What do you think this means going forward? I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "teach the controversy" thing gets another round.

I wonder if it might be strategically beneficial for us to focus more on combatting ID rhetoric than hardcore YEC. The Discovery Institute is not full of idiots - many of the top guys there have decades of experience in spreading propaganda in a way that's most likely to work in the long-term. While they have failed as of right now, especially after losing at Kitzmiller v Dover and similar trials, they may be more powerful with the government on their side. The DI is also aware that their association with P2025 is a bad look for their image, having apparently instructed the Heritage Foundation to take down their logo from their homepage showcasing their biggest partners. So, the DI is clearly thinking strategically too here.

Links:

List of coalition partners for Project 2025 - includes Discovery Institute

Discovery Institute removed from homepage of Project 2025 - Twitter

The Wedge Document - written by Discovery Institute

I have had this conversation several times before deciding to write about it:

Me: are you sure the sun existed one billion years ago?

Response from evolutionists: yes 100% sure.

Me: are you sure the sun 100% exists with certainty right now?

Evolutionists: No, science can't definitively say anything is 100% certain under the umbrella of science.

If you look closely enough, this is ONLY possible in a belief system.

You might be wondering how this topic is related to Macroevolution. Remember that an OLD Earth model is absolutely necessary for macroevolution to hold true.

So, typically, I ask about the sun existing a billion years ago to then ask about the sun 100% existing today.

So by now you are probably thinking that we don't really know that the sun existed with 100% certainty one billion years ago.

But by this time the belief has been exposed from the human interlocutor.

So for context, I’m a teacher, I know how to teach kids how evolution works and everything like that. But I’m struggling ever since I found out how devoted to the idea of YEC my wife is.

I’m not usually a confrontational person so when it comes to these ideas i tend to shy away from pressing to hard.

How do you even begin to teach grown adults who are set in there ways and think that not only they’re right but if they change their view they’ll go to hell for it?

Is it even worth it?

In a youtube video by an evolutionary biologist titled Creation Myths: Genetic Entropy at 14:50 he explains that the ratio between beneficial + neutral mutations and deleterious mutations decreases over time since the probability of a beneficial mutation increases over time because the more deleterious mutations the more opportunities for a deleterious substitution to back mutate creating a beneficial mutation until there is an equilibrium.

My issue with this is that this model only includes substitutions and according to one study 16% - 25% of mutations in the human genome are indels. And the probability of a indel reversing is incredibly low as far as I understand. What I would like to know is how does indels and other mutations beyond substitutions affect this model of mutations? Surely it shouldn't be ignored.

I truly don't understand. Is it genuine ignorance or willful? The amount times I encounter this in debates doesn't make sense to me

I listened to Richard Edward Green, Assistant Professor of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California-Santa Cruz., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS8bukoLJTw

In his talk he mentioned that the mitochondria that was present in Neanderthal didn't survive when Homo Sapiens interbred with Neanderthal. This means that the female line, which is the line that provides mitochondria, did not survive in Homo Sapiens. (around 22 minute)

I also heard a long time ago that someone speculated that a passage in Genesis 6:2-4 that mentioned "the sons of god" referred to Neanderthal. https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/br9jki/are_the_neanderthals_and_denisovans_children_of/

What I find interesting is that the wording in Genesis 6:2-4. The sons of god took the daughters of man because they were good looking (my words not the biblical words.) Isn't that saying the female line of Neanderthal was replaced by females of the existing humans at that time. My question is why didn't the mitochondria from Neanderthal survive? What's the evolutionary explanation? What advantage that was only in Neanderthal males and not in females was the cause for the survival of the male line. Was it the Y chromosome?

Was this just chance? I'd like to know what is said in the Torah. There have been a long line of changes in language as far as the original text in the Torah, so perhaps it's not very accurate.

Given that my belief, even though I'm an atheist, that the Adam and Eve story, also in Genesis, is in fact the same story as a set of mono-zygotic male/female twins being the origin of the human line. This is based on cryogenics ie how can a change in chromosome count can propagate through a population.

What other parallels are there in Genesis?

This is just food for thought. It makes you wonder just who wrote Genesis. As an atheist I don't believe it was god. If you are one of the judeo/christian group perhaps you do. I'm more interested in a scientific explanation.