This is why religious believers should pay very close attention to evolution.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by spy66

 

I've always found that verse fascinating. Now I personally don't think the writers of the Bible knew how evolution worked but the verse saying that God told the Earth to bring forth life is reminiscent of abiogenesis and evolution.

What I don't understand is why many Creationists limit God to only using magical creation. Some believe that God couldn't have used abiogenesis or evolution to bring about life, that God could have only conjured life into being supernaturally. But everything about life is natural and all the evidence we find points to natural evolution not magical creation. So isn't it much more accurate to say that if there is a God He/She/It used evolution? I think its a far preferable idea to believing that life on Earth was just part of a week long magic trick.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Correct. Verse 24 says exactly the same thing about living creatures as well.

Verse 24 says: Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind.....

If this has nothing to do with evolution? Than it has to be magic. I don't think God does Trix. So i will stick to evolution but i will do so very carefully.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

OK I'll Bite......The seed of the grass was already in the earth.

Just like me when I plant a pepper plant. I til the ground plant a pepper seed and then expect a pepper plant to grow.

Notice later he commands the plants to replenish the earth. The replenishing doesn't mean create. So the seed was already there.

Your agenda here is to tell me next that man's ancestor crawled out of a mud hole and God watched as he changed into a branch swinger then into a upright modern man.

Stay with creation, Evolution is still a THEORY that has stonewalled because of the lack of proof.

Evolution 0
Creation 1

thread=bunked

Originally posted by Loken68
OK I'll Bite......The seed of the grass was already in the earth.

Just like me when I plant a pepper plant. I til the ground plant a pepper seed and then expect a pepper plant to grow.

Notice later he commands the plants to replenish the earth. The replenishing doesn't mean create. So the seed was already there.

Your agenda here is to tell me next that man's ancestor crawled out of a mud hole and God watched as he changed into a branch swinger then into a upright modern man.

Stay with creation, Evolution is still a THEORY that has stonewalled because of the lack of proof.

Evolution 0
Creation 1

thread=bunked

You have not debunked anything with that.

Verse 11:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so

Read the verse above a few times and pay attention to what i have underlined.

If you believe the seed was already there than you have no knowledge of the process needed to reach this stage.

Its like saying that Man was already there , and all God ha to do was to dig him out of the ground and do some CPR. That sounds a bit stupid doesn't it!





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by Loken68

Stay with creation, Evolution is still a THEORY that has stonewalled because of the lack of proof.

Yeah, Evolution is a "theory" the way that germ theory is a theory





There's a qualified rebuttal to anyone claiming that evolution is still just a theory. The scientific definition of theory is FAR FAR away from the common vernacular usage of the word.

Anyone willing to do the research can find evidence in support of evolution but no evidence whatsoever that a supernatural sky daddy conjured man from dirt and woman from a rib.

Evolution has been proven and new evidence is constantly emerging. If there is a God he/she/it used evolution, why is that so hard to the religious fundamentalists and creationists to accept? Why do they limit God by saying he could create the Universe in 7 Days but could not have, over time, caused life to evolve and become more complex and diverse?

Edit to Add screenshot from the video:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d851ab31c9ed.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Echoing the scientific philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary consequence of using inductive logic.-Wiki

The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.

No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.

Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.

There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true. Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.

Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones.


I could go on and on but I'm not.

Thread stands as: Bunk
Evolution=0
Creation=2

oh by the way you may wanna study scientific method before using scientific law.

The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word.

reply to post by Loken68


I think you are missing the point totally. And you do by what you state admit that evolution is what is taking place. Its just that you don't see it within your own argument.

I have stated before that when "God" Decided to create the heaven and the earth. All the ingredients where added for the organic life and so forth to evolve, nothing was left out or added afterwards by God.

reply to post by Loken68


This is what God is saying:

Verse 11:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,

Verse 20:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life

Verse 24:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind

God is not creating anything. God is just taking the honor of he's creation.

EDIT to add:

If the order of Genesis chapter one is correct. I will assume that the knowledge about evolution of earth living creatures did not evolve out of the sea/water.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Loken68

 

This is what God is saying:

Verse 11:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,

Verse 20:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life

Verse 24:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind

God is not creating anything. God is just taking the honor of he's creation.

Verse11 he's commanding seed to replenish or grow.
Verse 20 aquatic creation.
Verse 24 Land animal creation
He is using the natural elements found on Earth. to replenish the earth just as man was (formed) in a image of him.

He did not slowly allow animals to "evolve" into anything. They were created after a pattern (Kind). Read the book everything that was placed on Earth had a master mold already in heaven.


Again I plant a pepper, I can very well say "Let my Garden bring forth a Pepper"

What your proposing is pinning up a goat and a boar and hoping to get a cat.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Loken68]

reply to post by Loken68


The second video I posted (sorry about the last minute edit) actually used that Hawking quote and explained how the whole thing works.

You are using a mousetrap and a watch, two things which are known to be designed by man they are not applicable examples. It's the old Ray Comfort "The Coke Can means there's a creator" argument, doesn't work. Increases in complexity via natural means are far from impossible, everything after the Big Bang has shown that.

A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created

No one would ever claim that evolution takes place by random chance. Environmental factors, population mechanics, there are a great many non-random factors affecting the path of evolution. They don't HAVE to be designed just because you think they do.

No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered

Wrong. This link is to a transcript of this video:

It works the same way in biology. Mutations are degrees of variation which are usually quite subtle but cumulative, normally harmless, and occasionally advantageous. Any change in information is different information, not already present, and therefore can only be considered “new”. But of the many types of mutations known to occur, there are additions and duplications as well as deletions and the rest. So yes, genetic material can be added or taken away. But as to whether “information” has been added as opposed to lost, we can’t really tell because creationists won’t tell us what they think “information” is or how to measure it.

We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form

Why?

And by the way we've found more transitional forms that Darwin would have ever dreamed of. Transitional Forms

We’re not looking for a blend of two species that both currently exist. Such a thing would actually go against evolution. Instead, he said, that if his theory were true, then what we should find would be a basal form potentially ancestral to both current species. And in this one case alone, we’ve found dozens of them in a near continuous lineage dating beyond the dawn of the Mesozoic era.

The most famous one was the first ever recognized as such. Archaeopteryx lithographica was discovered in 1860. It was the first of many lines of evidence revealing that birds had evolved from dinosaurs. So Darwin’s theory was first vindicated while he was still alive. Of course creationists will never accept that, and still complain that archaeopteryx can’t be intermediate because we can’t prove it’s the single crown species from which all other birds emerged. But it doesn’t have to be, and that’s not what transitional means. In biology, species can be precisely identified genetically. But in paleontology, they’re determined morphologically.

Source:

The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds."

Any such gaps do not suddenly mean we pull out a "God did it" label and move on with our lives. Nothing has ever been learned or gained by claiming something is supernatural or that God did it. Everything we once thought supernatural once we actually got around to studying it has been found to be quite within the boundaries of nature. We used to think mental illness, in fact almost all illness, was caused by demons or spirits, would you have preferred we left that alone and slapped on a nice "Devil did it" sticker? Claiming a sky daddy did it solves nothing and ignores the evidence in support of Evolution. Just because Evolution isn't perfect doesn't mean we revert into primitive apes swallowing down any myths we are spoon-fed.

Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence.

Actually speciation has been observed, the distinction between micro and macroevolution is only one based on time. Over time those micro-evolutionary traits and changes that occur are what cause speciation or "marcroevolution". Speciation

I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word.

Revealed to a bunch of bigots and primitive superstitious people by a genocidal and maddeningly paradoxical deity. The God of the Bible kills children, demands blood of animals, damns people to an eternal Hell for sins as simple as lying, drowns the entire Earth in a horrific flood. The Biblical creation myths do nothing to explain our origins save perhaps the verse spoken of in the OP which does seem insightful. I have decided not to put my faith in anything but to actually base my conclusion on a preponderance of the evidence. You see when something has been vindicated by the evidence there is no need for faith because it is evidently true. Evolution is evidently true. Magical creation is evidently false.

Originally posted by Loken68

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Loken68

 

This is what God is saying:

Verse 11:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,

Verse 20:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life

Verse 24:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind

God is not creating anything. God is just taking the honor of he's creation.

Verse11 he's commanding seed to replenish or grow.
Verse 20 aquatic creation.
Verse 24 Land animal creation
He is using the natural elements found on Earth. to replenish the earth just as man was (formed) in a image of him.

He did not slowly allow animals to "evolve" into anything. They were created after a pattern (Kind). Read the book everything that was placed on Earth had a master mold already in heaven.


Again I plant a pepper, I can very well say "Let my Garden bring forth a Pepper"

What your proposing is pinning up a goat and a boar and hoping to get a cat.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Loken68]

I am confused about what your definition of what a command is within these verses.

-Is, Let earth bring forth.... a command given to earth?

-If i say: Let Erick bring forth the ball is that a direct command to Erick?

NO it is not. It is telling everyone that i am in command and Let Erick bring the ball without interference. I have no physical contact or helping Erick in any way to bring forth the ball. I am just observing the process.

God never did interfere, because after a creation he observed that it was Good. And it was so.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Titen
Revealed to a bunch of bigots and primitive superstitious people by a genocidal and maddeningly paradoxical deity. The God of the Bible kills children, demands blood of animals, damns people to an eternal Hell for sins as simple as lying, drowns the entire Earth in a horrific flood. The Biblical creation myths do nothing to explain our origins save perhaps the verse spoken of in the OP which does seem insightful. I have decided not to put my faith in anything but to actually base my conclusion on a preponderance of the evidence. You see when something has been vindicated by the evidence there is no need for faith because it is evidently true. Evolution is evidently true. Magical creation is evidently false.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

Oh this is my last response to you since your the type to take a scientific debate to the next level of religious attack. Even toe op said God watched....


AGAIN though most evolutionist agree that in order for evolution to be proven true one would have to go back in time to interview the toads that crawled out of the universal gene pool. At least I have documented evidence.

Evolution=0
Creation=3
op, sorry, I guess he proved devolution by going on the attack




[edit on 14-5-2010 by Loken68]

reply to post by Loken68


Given how quickly you've responded I'm guessing didn't read any of my links or do any of the research required to understand my rebuttal. This tells me that you are a religiously biased zealot with no respect or desire to face facts or even to bother looking up or researching the subject we are currently debating.

Your attempts at proving Creation have merely been to poke holes at what you perceive are flaws in evolutionary theory most of which I have shown are not flaws in evolution but in your own understanding of how evolution works. Even if these flaws turned out to have merit (and trust me when I say that none of them do) flaws in evolution do not make Creation a viable theory. Creation has absolutely no evidence to back it up unless we count the Bible as evidence and if we count one sacred set of myths we should also count others. Magical Creation versus natural process, which seems more plausible ... hmmm...

So the conclusion you are defending has no evidence to back it up and is instead based upon ignoring and misrepresenting the evidence supporting Evolution.

I point you back to the OP and ask you one last time. If you believe God could conjure up a Universe and all life on Earth in a week why couldn't he also have set into motion the circumstances causing life to begin and evolve on Earth that we see evident when we study biology and the fossil record? Why are you limiting your supposedly All-Powerful Deity?

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

reply to post by spy66


no no "let" is a command to the earth.


1:11 And God said, Let(a primitive root; to say (used with great latitude):--answer, appoint, avouch, bid, boast self, call, certify, challenge, charge, + (at the, give) command(-ment), commune, consider, declare, demand, X desire, determine, X expressly, X indeed, X intend, name, X plainly, promise, publish, report, require, say, speak (against, of), X still, X suppose, talk, tell, term, X that is, X think, use (speech), utter, X verily, X yet). the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass(a primitive root; to sprout:--bring forth, spring), and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Let is a command!

reply to post by Titen-Sxull



Yes I read your links, I didn't watch the videos nor will I. However my responses to you were prepared in advance. Simply because You've made up your mind. I'd like to sway you from it, but I doubt I could.

reply to post by Loken68


You could sway me from it if you provided ample evidence supporting Magical Creation by a deity. I am not so closed off to the idea of God but what I am closed off to is ignoring the clear evidence.

As I said in my earlier posts if there is a God that had a hand in our existence it is clear he/she/it used Evolution. There is no cause to cling to myths which have proven to be false. We have enough evidence backing up Evolution to know that it happens and that it is responsible for the rich bio-diversity on Earth. It may seem blasphemous or sinful to believe anything but the myths you were raised to believe but I assure you that is not the case. If there is a God out there he wants you to find the truth based on the evidence and the evidence is pointing toward evolution.

That's what this thread is all about I imagine, opening minds.

Magical creation is a simplistic explanation invented by primitive man, we are beyond that now. We have made great stride in understanding life and where we came form answers that do not disprove God. Disproving the myths of the Bible doesn't mean you have to let go of your God - on the contrary science means you can study God's Universe and find the real truth for yourself.

Why defend a conclusion for which there is absolutely no evidence?

Originally posted by Loken68
reply to post by spy66

 

no no "let" is a command to the earth.


1:11 And God said, Let(a primitive root; to say (used with great latitude):--answer, appoint, avouch, bid, boast self, call, certify, challenge, charge, + (at the, give) command(-ment), commune, consider, declare, demand, X desire, determine, X expressly, X indeed, X intend, name, X plainly, promise, publish, report, require, say, speak (against, of), X still, X suppose, talk, tell, term, X that is, X think, use (speech), utter, X verily, X yet). the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass(a primitive root; to sprout:--bring forth, spring), and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Let is a command!

Then i say no wonder religion is a mess. Becuase you will never understand what you read if you use that interpretsion of: Let earth bring forth and so on.

I don't read "Let" as a command in those verses. Maybe that's why i see things more clearly than others.

I don't even read: Let it be light as a command. Because of what verse 4 is saying.

Verse 4

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

God never even divided the light from darkness. The light did that just fine on its own. God created the light from what is mentioned in the last sentence in verse 2. And Gods spirit moved upon the face of the waters. The light is a result of God's movement. It was never a command but a cause do to a movement. Wanting to create a light is not a command but a goal. God wouldn't have to command anything if he is THEE God.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

LET is not in the original words.

in the following, any word with a number after it is in the original text, any word without a number after it, is not in the original text

And God 430 said 559 , Let the earth 776 bring forth 1876 grass 1877, the herb 6212 yielding 2232 seed 2233, [and] the fruit 6529 tree 6086 yielding 6213 fruit 6529 after his kind 4327, whose 834 seed 2233 [is] in itself, upon the earth 776: and it was so.

that means the following words weren't in the original text:

AND
LET THE
THE
[AND] THE
AFTER HIS
[IS] IN ITSELF
UPON THE
AND IT WAS SO

those words were added by translators.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by undo]

Aww, and it was going so nicely - polite, rational debate and now... I'm doing a sad face..

Right my 2 cents - as an Atheist (if that matters).

I wouldn't say "Let" is a command, it's a permission - ie "Hey Earth - you can do your thing now"... the word "Can" is also a permission.

Let's contrast this with an example of God being bossy...

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" - he's saying I forbid that, it's naughty, don't do it.

I think if the Earth, grass etc were commanded to grow God would've been "Hey, plants, animals and stuff - Thou Shalt Grow"...

Some points and thoughts on the responses.

* Keeping score is pissy and juvenile - do you go to be at night and say "Hey honey, I won an argument on the internet"?

* Not possibly debunkable one way or another, it'd be nice to disagree and discuss politely. If we're just here to ram home points, m'eh - people aren't going to listen, it'll only strengthen opposing convictions.

* Titen-sxull - did God go to live with his Uncle and Aunty in Bel Air? Sorry, but wanted to lighten it a bit.

Loken68 - I don't want to point the finger at you, you're mostly making good and strong arguments, but some of your posts are coming across as mean-spirited.

"I could go on and on, but I'm not" - guess what, you continue to go on and on, which is fair enough, but you're contradicting yourself, this weakens your argument.

"I didn't watch the videos nor will I. However my responses to you were prepared in advance. Simply because You've made up your mind. I'd like to sway you from it, but I doubt I could. "

Ok - you're haranguing someone for having "Made up their mind" AND admitting you've prepared responses ahead of time as you have too - you may as well be talking to yourself then, again this does your Strong argument a disservice.

I don't mean this as attack on you, I agree with some of what you're saying, but the style in which you say it is coming across badly.

* * * * * * * *

Response to Undo:

Does God speak 733T?

reply to post by undo


What do the original text say about Verse: 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26.

Could you post a link to the original text! I would really like to take a look at them.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


i can sway ya! (i think. )

the first adam was a race of male and female clones, cloned in the images of the gods. they were sterile slaves with self-regenerating bodies - all parts regenerated. there was no shut off markers, no cascade event leading to bone degeneration and disease, no menopause, no pain in childbirth because new children were created via cloning technology.

then some of the clones were modified to procreate. that's the fall narrative. knowledge given by the serpent was "adam KNEW (to know or have knowledge of someone in that time frame, is to have sex with them) his wife and she gave birth."

when the clones started copulating and reproducing, their DNA was modified again, so that their life span was set according to the coding in their DNA, which continues the regeneration of only certain body organs until the cascade event kicks in, and the everything begins to slow down, the eventual onset of disease and weakness kills the body. this was probably achieved by splicing animal DNA into god cloned DNA, causing what was once a self-regenerating, pain free, healthy body with a brilliant mind, to become subject to the temporal things the rest of the animal kingdom was subject to and a huge decline in intelligence.

in effect, we went from having super intelligent, healthy, pain-free, self-correcting eternal bodies, to temporary animal based flesh which is corrupt from birth in that it is subject to death (hard coded death on a timer switch) and deprecated learning capacity.

the reason given for the change was, they didn't want reproducing, inferior clones to live forever and eventually take over the universe.

and there you have the creation of and fall of the adam in a few simple paragraphs.