Talk:Criticism of the Bible

'Impossibly High' Rate of Mutation Comment

A quick Google search for 'causes of Genetic Variation in Humans' reveals that DNA Mutation AND Gene Flow are causes of human Genetic Variation (though I'm no Geneticist and don't know how to correctly interpret what Google is telling me). It seems to me that the Human Genome and Evolution of Humans is so vastly complex that asserting that observed Human Genetic Variation is not consistent with the existence of 2 original Homo Sapiens is making too much of an extreme statement. The article on Speciation would seem to be relevant here (assuming humans are derived from a pre-existing species, which seems to be likely, though not necessarily proven in absolute terms). 'Common sense' would seem to indicate that humans must have come from some pre-existing Genetic ancestor as it is highly unlikely that humans could have evolved in 'one step' from, say, a single-celled organism (how would an Amoeba give birth to a human?). ASavantDude (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@ASavantDude: Your missing the most important part of the sentence: "Moreover, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans if all humans were descended from two individuals several thousand years ago." It's not the number that's the problem, it's the time frame. Ten thousand years is not enough time for humans to have evolved in to numerous different races with widely varying genomes. I'll try to make the wording more clear. Kaldari (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I support your recent change. —PaleoNeonate – 06:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of Theoretical Constraints to the Rate of Mutation within Organisms

I accept that it is a bit of a stretch to state that humans could have evolved in 10,000 years. Nevertheless, I am confused about the types of mutation that can arise, whether there are 'mutation amplification' mechanisms that can somehow speed up the rate of mutations (or the rate at which such mutations accumulate - together with complexities that arise in terms of how mutations interact with each other), and whether evolutionary mechanisms can be speeded up under abnormal conditions (via exposure to certain chemical agents, highly ionising radiation, viruses that somehow interact with an ancestor organisms genome, etc....). I think that there is a certain onus on someone to shed some light on potential mechanisms and means that (i) Could have given rise to the existence of Homo Sapiens (assumed to be from a common ancestor that we share with Chimpanzees), (ii) That could provide plausible explanations for not only the existence of Genetic Variations within humans BUT also why the types of Genetic Variation that are seen occur in the way that they do and (iii) That provide the best current scientific Guess concerning what timescale over which humans are likely to have evolved over from the most recent ancestor with Chimpanzees that we have. In short, what timescale are we really supposing that human evolution occurred over?

ASavantDude (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That would depend on how 'human' is defined (and there is much debate over this). At least 3 million years ago, our ancestors were walking fully upright, or beer near to it, with feet morphology very similar to our modern feet; aside from that, they were still basically upright chimps. Simple stone tools were being used at this time. More complex use of tools, and fire, and spread over the Old World happened 1.5 to 2 million years ago. 'anatomically modern humans'first appeared around 200,000 years ago, or so. Behavioural modernity did not begin until ~50,000 years ago, and its appearance is as yet unexplained. and yes, in addition to mutations, there is gene flow, meiosis and genetic drift. and the various selection forces.

Incorrect Reference (Help requested)

I'm brand new to editing Wikipedia, but I noticed that there was a messed up external link in the archeology section. In the first quote by Dever, it has "...No archeologist thinks so. (location of previous reference) [...]" This link was just redirecting to msn.com, which isn't helpful.

The original link was to this http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/18/1679514.aspx. I used the wayback machine to find a way to access the original article via https://web.archive.org/web/20110812123824/http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/11/18/4350632-bible-gets-a-reality-check. I don't know the best way to fix this, so if someone could help with that, that would be great. I probably should have left it in there, but I figured it needs to actually be corrected either way so hope it's not a big deal. Thanks. NanoTech976 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

In the authorship section there should be a mention of every undisputed author

I believe some books written by the prophets have legitimate authorship, such as Amoz and Jeremiah.Alexandre Newman (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles mainly act as summaries of reliable sources. Further, Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, so your interpretation of the Bible as a Wikipedia editor cannot be cited. If you know of reliable sources which discuss this as it relates to criticism of the Bible, please feel free to propose them here. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)