Literal Genesis requires incest and would have created a threatened species

[Fascinated With God]

It is not possible to create a viable population of any animal by starting with a breeding pair and then expanding the population by encouraging incest. Even ignoring the problem of birth defects, when a population's gene pool shrinks beyond a certain point and genetic diversity in the species is eliminated, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new diseases. Without genetic diversity in a population, a deadly disease is much more likely to kill 100% of that population.

For example, cheetahs are consider a threatened species because of a population bottleneck about 10,000 years ago. This bottleneck is nowhere near as extreme as the one Creationists propose for humans just 6,000 years ago, and yet cheetahs are so closely related to one another that transplanted skin grafts do not provoke immune responses.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is not possible to create a viable population of any animal...

Not these days due to mutations. God would not have filled Adam and
Eve with mutations to clash into each other. The kids would logically
have few if any DNA defects.

Good work! You have discovered the story only works if you
assume it's completely true.

 

[Adaephon]

Not these days due to mutations. God would not have filled Adam and
Eve with mutations to clash into each other. The kids would logically
have few if any DNA defects.

Good work! You have discovered he story only works if you
assume it's completely true.

Mutations aren't "defects". If anything, when breeding a very small population, you'd want a lot of mutations to increase genetic diversity and avoid pairing negative recessives.

 

[juvenissun]

It is not possible to create a viable population of any animal by starting with a breeding pair and then expanding the population by encouraging incest. Even ignoring the problem of birth defects, when a population's gene pool shrinks beyond a certain point and genetic diversity in the species is eliminated, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new diseases. Without genetic diversity in a population, a deadly disease is much more likely to kill 100% of that population.

For example, cheetahs are consider a threatened species because of a population bottleneck about 10,000 years ago. This bottleneck is nowhere near as extreme as the one Creationists propose for humans just 6,000 years ago, and yet cheetahs are so closely related to one another that transplanted skin grafts do not provoke immune responses.

Incest does not take place generation after generation on human.
Do you know why?

 

[SkyWriting]

Incest does not take place generation after generation on human.
Do you know why?

Due to an accumulation of mutations. When the same mutations are found in both parents the DNA has fewer options for dealing with the problem and sometimes will send the mutation on through to the offspring.

It is estimated about one in 5 cases of incest result in serious complications for the child. The other 4 have few problems.

 

[disciple1938]

Adam and Eve were not the first humans on Earth
Humans were created on the sixth day, God rested on the seventh and created Adam and Eve later.
The reason that the other humans are only vaguely referred to is because the other humans are simply not important to the story, which is about creating the Adam race. The other humans had only animal souls and Adam was the first man with a spirit soul—The life (spirit) is in the blood and A- dom (meaning first blood or blood of God) was the beginning of the blood line leading to Messiah. The other races are, however, are only mentioned vaguely and only as they happen to pertain to the story of the Adam Race. (i.e. Cain’s wife or the Gihon woman that tempted Eve).
Humans were created on the sixth day and told to multiply and replenish the earth and to have dominion over the whole earth but Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden. That was to be their home.
Gen 1:27 -28 says that God created man and woman and told them to multiply. In contrast, verses Gen 2:18 - 20 gives a different account. According to this, Adam was originally meant to be alone. It wasn't until after creating all the animals for Adam to see and name that God created Eve. (BTW, it says Adam named them, not that he alone had dominion over them, or that he had dominion over them at all. Adam's world was a garden; he had no need for dominion over the world's animal population. The reason God re-created all the animals of the world for Adam was to find him a help meet.
In verses Gen 1:24 - 28 it states that man was created after the animals. Verses Gen 2:18 - 20 seem to be a direct contradiction unless you realize were reading about two different times, places and people(s).
After terraforming the earth, God put man and animal here and told mankind to be fruitful and replenish the earth. Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden and had perfect bodies. Had they not sinned, it's likely that they would never have had children, would still be alive today and none (or few) of the rest of the events mentioned in the Bible would have come to pass.
People please understand that the bible does not record every single detail about God, the Universe or Gods work in the universe. He does tell us all things pertaining to godliness. He also gave us brains to use because he made us in his likeness and thus inventive and creative creatures because it is our destiny top plant the heavens as it says in the prophets.

 

[disciple1938]

In Genesis, two different words are translated as "man". (Actually three, but the other usually refers generically to a child or youth)
One being 'iysh {eesh}, Strong's # 0376
The other is 'adam {aw-dawm'}which is the same word as the name Adam
'adam {aw-dawm'} Strong's # 0120
1. Heb. 'Adam, used as the proper name of the first Adamite man.
It's likely that the other humans, as a group, were not as intelligent as Adam and his descendants were, given the fact that they didn't know how to farm. The two distinct words used to denote man or mankind and their usage is strong indication that the Bible is speaking of two different groups of humans.
The name Adam and the word "man" mean the same thing. Adam is the name of the first "man" mentioned by name. The word "man" is used when speaking about mankind in general or as a group. Only when talking about Adam personally is his name used.
The humans of today may be descendants of both Adam and the other race. Cain married into the other race and so did Adam's other descendants. Noah's family was likely of mixed race and since we're descended from them, we are as well.

 

[SkyWriting]

Adam and Eve were not the first humans on EarthHumans were created on the sixth day, God rested on the seventh and created Adam and Eve later.The reason that the other humans are only vaguely referred to is because the other humans are simply not important to the story, which is about creating the Adam race. The other humans had only animal souls and Adam was the first man with a spirit soul—The life (spirit) is in the blood and A- dom (meaning first blood or blood of God) was the beginning of the blood line leading to Messiah. The other races are, however, are only mentioned vaguely and only as they happen to pertain to the story of the Adam Race. (i.e. Cain’s wife or the Gihon woman that tempted Eve).Humans were created on the sixth day and told to multiply and replenish the earth and to have dominion over the whole earth but Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden. That was to be their home.Gen 1:27 -28 says that God created man and woman and told them to multiply. In contrast, verses Gen 2:18 - 20 gives a different account. According to this, Adam was originally meant to be alone. It wasn't until after creating all the animals for Adam to see and name that God created Eve. (BTW, it says Adam named them, not that he alone had dominion over them, or that he had dominion over them at all. Adam's world was a garden; he had no need for dominion over the world's animal population. The reason God re-created all the animals of the world for Adam was to find him a help meet.In verses Gen 1:24 - 28 it states that man was created after the animals. Verses Gen 2:18 - 20 seem to be a direct contradiction unless you realize were reading about two different times, places and people(s).After terraforming the earth, God put man and animal here and told mankind to be fruitful and replenish the earth. Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden and had perfect bodies. Had they not sinned, it's likely that they would never have had children, would still be alive today and none (or few) of the rest of the events mentioned in the Bible would have come to pass.People please understand that the bible does not record every single detail about God, the Universe or Gods work in the universe. He does tell us all things pertaining to godliness. He also gave us brains to use because he made us in his likeness and thus inventive and creative creatures because it is our destiny top plant the heavens as it says in the prophets.

It's odd that God would consider the animals and decide that none were suitable for Adam if there were thousands of "others" to choose from for him to mate with. And that a separate Garden was Created just for Adam, some sort of island just for Adam.
But if that makes sense to you.
I'll keep your theory on the back-burner.

 

[disciple1938]

Skywriting...Back burner is where it belongs...but at least it should be out there. thanks for your comments. God bless you in all that you do. Perhaps the key to why Adam couldn't find a help meet from the other man races is because his spiritual mind was too advanced to want to mingle. They would be more like a pet than another equal companion. Just a thought.

 

[ChetSinger]

Yes, as I understand Genesis we all came from a single pair. I believe common descent from Adam is confirmed by Paul in Romans and 1 Corinthians, so it's not just a Genesis issue.

And since Eve is called "the mother of all living" I don't see any way to get around UCD. That is, UCD from two humans.

Why would such a conclusion be unacceptable? We Christians already believe in many things that some hold unacceptable, such as the miracles of Christ and the resurrection of Christ. Not to mention our own eventual resurrection. Since we already have beliefs, is belief in a God who is particularly good at designing initial genomes such a stretch?

 

[SkyWriting]

Skywriting...Back burner is where it belongs...but at least it should be out there. thanks for your comments. God bless you in all that you do. Perhaps the key to why Adam couldn't find a help meet from the other man races is because his spiritual mind was too advanced to want to mingle. They would be more like a pet than another equal companion. Just a thought.

Not bad. The spiritual element may have been the whole enchilada or at least very much more important.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, as I understand Genesis we all came from a single pair. I believe common descent from Adam is confirmed by Paul in Romans and 1 Corinthians, so it's not just a Genesis issue.

And since Eve is called "the mother of all living" I don't see any way to get around UCD. That is, UCD from two humans.

Why would such a conclusion be unacceptable? We Christians already believe in many things that some hold unacceptable, such as the miracles of Christ and the resurrection of Christ. Not to mention our own eventual resurrection. Since we already have beliefs, is belief in a God who is particularly good at designing initial genomes such a stretch?

I think multiple people have observed that if Genesis is correct, and God Created just two people, then the problems caused by mutations or changes to the original human design, would not pose a problem for populating the earth from only two sources. Besides, "common origin" theory says all life came from one source. So what's the problem with two?

 

[Jig]

It is not possible to create a viable population of any animal by starting with a breeding pair and then expanding the population by encouraging incest. Even ignoring the problem of birth defects, when a population's gene pool shrinks beyond a certain point and genetic diversity in the species is eliminated, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new diseases. Without genetic diversity in a population, a deadly disease is much more likely to kill 100% of that population.

I find it interesting that you find it hard to fathom how two people are alone responsible for the entire human population, yet you personally believe that a spontaneously generated single-celled organism alone is responsible for the entire biological population.

 

[Assyrian]

It is not possible to create a viable population of any animal by starting with a breeding pair and then expanding the population by encouraging incest. Even ignoring the problem of birth defects, when a population's gene pool shrinks beyond a certain point and genetic diversity in the species is eliminated, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new diseases. Without genetic diversity in a population, a deadly disease is much more likely to kill 100% of that population.

I find it interesting that you find it hard to fathom how two people are alone responsible for the entire human population, yet you personally believe that a spontaneously generated single-celled organism alone is responsible for the entire biological population.

There would have been no communicable diseases when the first organism formed, these diseases are its distant descendants. You would have had the equivalent of genetic diseases from deleterious mutations, but these would only affect the strains with that mutation. It wouldn't be transmissible. You see it is diseases that are transmissible that are the problem for a population with low genetic diversity, if the disease can kill one host and all the other members of the species genetically very similar the disease has a god chance of wiping them all out.

 

[SkyWriting]

I find it interesting that you find it hard to fathom how two people are alone responsible for the entire human population, yet you personally believe that a spontaneously generated single-celled organism alone is responsible for the entire biological population.

I was only arguing against a flawed theory that some hold to. A far better theory is that the entire world was one almost infinitely complex organism that produced an endless number of independent offspring until some of them finally stuck to the wall and reproduced. At least I find fewer flaws with that one as it fits the entropy model.

 

[Jig]

You see it is diseases that are transmissible that are the problem for a population with low genetic diversity, if the disease can kill one host and all the other members of the species genetically very similar the disease has a god chance of wiping them all out.

Given the current Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis, how many hominini creatures was there at the very moment this tribe started?

 

[Assyrian]

Given the current Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis, how many hominini creatures was there at the very moment this tribe started?

It's population genetics rather than evolution, but there seems to have been a genetic bottleneck around the time of the Toba super volcano 70,000 years ago when the population dropped to between 10,000 and 15,000. If that's what you are asking about.

 

[Jig]

It's population genetics rather than evolution, but there seems to have been a genetic bottleneck around the time of the Toba super volcano 70,000 years ago when the population dropped to between 10,000 and 15,000. If that's what you are asking about.

Let's just look at one genus. It would seem (at least in my current understanding of Darwinian evolution) that at one point in time that the genus 'homo' did not exist. When it did come into existence (at the very moment), how many creatures could be classified as such?

 

[Calminian]

It is not possible to create a viable population of any animal by starting with a breeding pair and then expanding the population by encouraging incest. Even ignoring the problem of birth defects, when a population's gene pool shrinks beyond a certain point and genetic diversity in the species is eliminated, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new diseases. Without genetic diversity in a population, a deadly disease is much more likely to kill 100% of that population.

You're assuming uniformitarianism in this post. You're assuming the the original couple was identical to couples of today.

The Bible doesn't create a statute against close relative relationships until Moses' time. In fact, Abram married his sister.

You see your problem is not biology or anything science related, your problem is trusting scripture, and trusting the wisdom of God. God created the scientific laws, and transcends and overrides them at will. He created Adam and Eve and designed them to be the mother and father of all humans. But that's not to say that two of their descendants (brother and sister) thousands of years later could accomplish the same thing. You're slipping into a very common philosophical trap.

It's also interesting that Noah was said to be pure in his generation, which may also mean that he was genetically pure in some way, and therefore, he and his wife were capable of multiplying humans on the earth as were Adam and Eve.

But again, this is not an issue of science but design. Do you trust the Bible that God created creatures that were designed to do what they do? Or do you trust uniformitarianism philosophy (epicureanism to the greeks) which precludes the possibility of design and is materialistic, naturalistic and uniformitarianism?

 

[Assyrian]

Let's just look at one genus. It would seem (at least in my current understanding of Darwinian evolution) that at one point in time that the genus 'homo' did not exist. When it did come into existence (at the very moment), how many creatures could be classified as such?

It is only when a species splits to become two or more separate species that you classify it as a genus, so the genus existed as a single species before became a genus, you would have to look at when that species divided from its cousins, but that is also a gradual process. It is like looking at the spectrum, you can look at one point and say clearly that is green, at another and say quite confidently it is blue, but deciding on one point as the borderline between green and blue is going to be arbitrary.