"God" is not a reasonable response to any question requiring evidence

[Huram Abi]

If there is a name in the Bible then this is a real person. There is a lesson for us in their story that you seem to confuse with a "allegory". An allegory is a story that does not involve a real person.

He says that Adam, Cain, Seth, all the way down to Noah were not actual people but represent different hominid species.

That is an allegory, right? The story has a hidden meaning that is represented symbolically? It certainly isn't a literal interpretation.

 

[Jazer]

He says that Adam, Cain, Seth, all the way down to Noah were not actual people but represent different hominid species.

That is an allegory, right? The story has a hidden meaning that is represented symbolically? It certainly isn't a literal interpretation.

Yes the story has symbolic meaning. Remember the rules for Bible interpretation? But Adam, Cain & Seth are real people. We can prove that they are real from the DNA. But from a Scientific perspective Bible Adam in Eden descended from Science "Out of Africa" Adam they say over 100,000 years ago. So from a scientific perspective that would be Theistic Evolution. Science has a lot to say about the beginning of farming and Adam was basicly the first farmer. Although they say that there was some farming going back 9,000 years ago so that would be 3,000 years before Bible Adam. Either way it all began in the Middle East just like we read about in our Bible. Science confirms that. All we know is God put Adam in the Garden in Eden to tend the Garden that God planted there. Evolution tells us a lot about biodiversity. So evolution tells us a lot about Eden and how domesticated plants and animals came to be. All those things we read about in our Bible. Science helps us to understand even better what we read and learn about Eden in our Bible.

I realize a lot of people are not going to grasp the concept. I am perhaps years ahead of most people on this. But sooner or later some one will read and study and see what I am saying is true. Also new information and new research comes out every day. Esp in the area of population genetics. I think within 10 years they will have tested so many people that they will just about be able to map out the whole human race from the beginning on the family tree. They may not find a name for everyone on that tree. But they will find a lot of names for people going back 6,000 years in our Bible. In my family we have names and trace the family tree back to 800 ad. Before that the records were destroyed. Just in the last 600 years there are over 6 million of us. So maybe our common ancestor back in 800 ad has more then 12 million of us decended from him. That people have kept written records and genealogies. Back when pedigrees for people was so very important. Now it seems more important they like to keep them for animals. Race horses and things like that.

 

[Huram Abi]

I am pretty sure there is no DNA evidence for Adam, Cain or Seth.

As for your other points, I'm not sure what your belief is. You say out of Africa AND middle east and you give three dates.

 

[sandwiches]

You don't have diddly.

You have what you might interpret as evidence, but that can lead to phlogiston, wonder drugs and 7-man firecrackers.

If we measure your Biblist religion and science by merit alone, you're empty-handed AV.

 

[Jazer]

Just so you know "Out of Africa" comes from the 1985 movie. So the theory can not have been around for longer then 25 years. But that is long enough that they theory should be in the texts books.

I am pretty sure there is no DNA evidence for Adam, Cain or Seth.

I am pretty sure your not willing to do the work, research and study to find out.
So why do you even bring it up? We are looking at the J2B3 halpotype or group.
There is a halpogroup for both Eve with the MtDNA & for adam with the Y-DNA.

As for your other points, I'm not sure what your belief is.
You say out of Africa AND middle east and you give three dates.

If you do not know what I mean when I say: "Out of Africa" then lets stop right here. Your going to have to study population genetics before you can have a discussion. Can I suggest the Book: "The Seven Daughters of Eve". That is the book I read and I really enjoyed reading that book. Very interesting. But there are others book on the same subject. That you can get for less then five bucks used.

Here is a good place to start: "One of the most hotly debated issues in paleoanthropology (the study of human origins) focuses on the origins of modern humans, Homo sapiens.9,10,3,6,13,15,14 Roughly 100,000 years ago, the Old World was occupied by a morphologically diverse group of hominids. In Africa and the Middle East there was Homo sapiens; in Asia, Homo erectus; and in Europe, Homo neanderthalensis. However, by 30,000 years ago this taxonomic diversity vanished and humans everywhere had evolved into the anatomically and behaviorally modern form. The nature of this transformation is the focus of great deliberation between two schools of thought: one that stresses multiregional continuity and the other that suggests a single origin for modern humans." http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

 

[cupid dave]

I´m sure you are trying to make a point. I just don´t know what it might be.

I am saying that science supports the literal statements found in Genesis, as Pangea is an example of "all the waters under heaven collected into one place," i.e. The Panthallassic Ocean.






Panthalassa
|ˌpanθəˈlasə|
noun
a universal sea or single ocean, such as would have surrounded Pangaea.

 

[cupid dave]

He says that Adam, Cain, Seth, all the way down to Noah were not actual people but represent different hominid species.

That is an allegory, right? The story has a hidden meaning that is represented symbolically? It certainly isn't a literal interpretation.

No allegory.
Its scripture.

Adam was a species:


Genesis 5:2Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created

 

[cupid dave]

Yes the story has symbolic meaning.

But Adam, Cain & Seth are real people. We can prove that they are real from the DNA.

But from a Scientific perspective Bible Adam in Eden descended from Science "Out of Africa" Adam they say over 100,000 years ago.

2X

However, the sceince people jumped on the idea that a common ancestor for all men alice today ,eams it refers to Adam.

Actually, it would mean Noah.

The three Racial Stocks: Shem, Japheth, and Ham were born 100,000 years before the 40,000 year flood that ended @ 10,000 years ago.


Earlier genetics reported on Eve as the mother of all men today, saying she lived 200,000 years ago.
Again, this ought be call the wife of Noah.

/////////


NOTE:
32And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

And Noah was 600 when the flood began:


6And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

 

[Huram Abi]

Just so you know "Out of Africa" comes from the 1985 movie. So the theory can not have been around for longer then 25 years. But that is long enough that they theory should be in the texts books.

I am pretty sure your not willing to do the work, research and study to find out.
So why do you even bring it up? We are looking at the J2B3 halpotype or group.
There is a halpogroup for both Eve with the MtDNA & for adam with the Y-DNA.

If you do not know what I mean when I say: "Out of Africa" then lets stop right here. Your going to have to study population genetics before you can have a discussion. Can I suggest the Book: "The Seven Daughters of Eve". That is the book I read and I really enjoyed reading that book. Very interesting. But there are others book on the same subject. That you can get for less then five bucks used.

Here is a good place to start: "One of the most hotly debated issues in paleoanthropology (the study of human origins) focuses on the origins of modern humans, Homo sapiens.9,10,3,6,13,15,14 Roughly 100,000 years ago, the Old World was occupied by a morphologically diverse group of hominids. In Africa and the Middle East there was Homo sapiens; in Asia, Homo erectus; and in Europe, Homo neanderthalensis. However, by 30,000 years ago this taxonomic diversity vanished and humans everywhere had evolved into the anatomically and behaviorally modern form. The nature of this transformation is the focus of great deliberation between two schools of thought: one that stresses multiregional continuity and the other that suggests a single origin for modern humans." Actionbioscience | Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa?

I know exactly what the out of Africa theory is. I don't need a refresher.

If you are talking about mitochondrial eve, that isn't an indication of an actual Eve.

We would have to identify Eve first, get a sample of her DNA and compare it to this other DNA.

If you've got no DNA from the known subject to compare your sample with, you've just slapped a name on an anonymous piece of data with no good reason.

 

[Huram Abi]

No allegory.
Its scripture.

Adam was a species:


Genesis 5:2Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created

"them" is a pronoun. It identifies the subject two specific individuals: A&E

Unless you have the identifier "is" and the identifier "species" in the scripture your assumption is pure conjecture.

Not scriptural.

 

[Jazer]

If you are talking about mitochondrial eve, that isn't an indication of an actual Eve.

I am NOT talking about the Out of Africa Eve. I am talking about the Eve that we read about in our Bible that is the Clam mother for the Hebrew People today. The theory of evolution requires this Clan Mother to be a real historical person. I think it is absurd that people suggest that this real Historical person is not the one tradition & the Bible tells us is the Clan Mother for the Hebrew people. Maybe they get confused by the story of the forbidden fruit and the snake. You would think that if the Hebrew people were going to make up a story they would try and make their Clam Mother look more noble then to say she was a fallen women that ate the forbidden fruit from the tree God told her not to eat. Actually my mom use to use the term: "matriarch". I suppose there are lots of terms you can use.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you accept that the Big Bang essentially marks the 'beginning" as found in Gen 1:1,...

No. The writers of Genesis had no knowledge of modern astrophysics, so it was obviously not based on the Big Bang theory.

 

[Huram Abi]

The theory of evolution requires no historical person to exist. The specifics of the events of a person's life are no way to identify genetic material.

Identifying the "clan mother" of the jewish people or even all humanity as a specific person is impossible without material evidence.

You are making a presuppositional argument. I'm fine with that, but the second you do, science has no part of the conversation for you because you have eliminated the scientific process to reach your conclusion.

I am not saying that Eve is not this clan mother. I am saying that there is no scientific methodology to confirm your assumption.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am pretty sure your not willing to do the work, research and study to find out.
So why do you even bring it up? We are looking at the J2B3 halpotype or group.
There is a halpogroup for both Eve with the MtDNA & for adam with the Y-DNA.

How many times have I gone over this, John? MRCA's are not produced by a founding father or mother. They are produced by distant cousins marrying and lineages going extinct. MRCA's, be it the MRCA of the J haplotype or another, are not an indication that an entire population was founded by a single person. To claim otherwise is to lie about the scientific evidence.

 

[Jazer]

I am not saying that Eve is not this clan mother. I am saying that there is no scientific methodology to confirm your assumption.

Yes there is, the MtDNA confirms who the Clam Mother is for the Hebrew People. We know where she lived and when she lived. Science and the Bible both say Even lived in the same place at the same time. There is a ton of scientific evidence that proves the Bible is true when it comes to the Adam and Eve we read about in Chapter Two of Genesis.

Of course we can not verify that God made Eve from the rib of Adam. But from a scientific bases you could get all the DNA you need from the bone marrow in Adam to make Eve. Science tells us this COULD be true. Eve then would have the MtDNA from Adams Mother. That would be the only MtDNA available to Adam to pass onto his wife.

 

[Jazer]

They are produced by distant cousins marrying and lineages going extinct.

I guess you never heard of Noah and Noah's flood.

MRCA of the J haplotype or another, are not an indication that an entire population was founded by a single person.

You can study the DNA of the Hebrew People for yourself. The point is that the Bible is true and the DNA research and evidence proves the Bible is true. Once again you have failed to show otherwise. But at least from what you claim your suppose to be able to do just that so produce your evidence that either the Bible is not true or it can not be true. This is your golden opportunity to falsify the Bible once and for all with all your vast knowledge in Biology and with DNA and population genetics. Bring on your best PHd to give us the Genetic Evidence to establish once and for all that the Eve in the Bible was not a real person and she could not have existed from a Biological Scientific perspective. Don't be shy.

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess you never heard of Noah and Noah's flood.

I guess you never heard of DRB1 alleles, of which there should only be less than 20 if Noah's flood story is true. Instead, there are hundreds of DRB1 alleles. This demonstrates that the human population never dipped to the numbers you are claiming. Period.

You also claim that MRCA's demonstrate that a single mating pair founded an entire population. This is false.

"Someone you come across who claims that the bible (or the book of Genesis) has been validated by the discovery of the Mitochondrial Eve, is talking cr*p -you should feel free, and even obligated, to tell them so."
http://javier-carrete.com/post/5453237140/the-mitochondrial-eve-misconceptions

Please, read that site. It will hopefully shed some light on why you are wrong.

 

[Huram Abi]

Yes there is, the MtDNA confirms who the Clam Mother is for the Hebrew People. We know where she lived and when she lived. Science and the Bible both say Even lived in the same place at the same time. There is a ton of scientific evidence that proves the Bible is true when it comes to the Adam and Eve we read about in Chapter Two of Genesis.

Of course we can not verify that God made Eve from the rib of Adam. But from a scientific bases you could get all the DNA you need from the bone marrow in Adam to make Eve. Science tells us this COULD be true. Eve then would have the MtDNA from Adams Mother. That would be the only MtDNA available to Adam to pass onto his wife.

I need several peer-reviewed sources from legitimate scientific journals to confirm these claims: "the MtDNA confirms who the Clam Mother is for the Hebrew People. We know where she lived and when she lived. Science and the Bible both say Even lived in the same place at the same time"

If you say this is true, you should provide rock-solid evidence for it.

Regarding DNA from a man to make a woman... no.

Using DNA to replicate another living thing does just that: replicates. The best you could do is an exact clone. Now, if you are proposing that from 2 clones, we get two exact gene pools that over millions of years one lineage evolves to have a vagina and breasts, this is actually theoretically plausible if they perform a useful function for an asexual lifeform.

Whether the two lines can then mate is a statistical impossibility, but that is no matter since no one who has looked at the data would ever conclude that this is how gender originated in primates. It does make for interesting science fiction, though.

 

[Huram Abi]

Yes there is, the MtDNA confirms who the Clam Mother is for the Hebrew People. We know where she lived and when she lived. Science and the Bible both say Even lived in the same place at the same time. There is a ton of scientific evidence that proves the Bible is true when it comes to the Adam and Eve we read about in Chapter Two of Genesis.

Of course we can not verify that God made Eve from the rib of Adam. But from a scientific bases you could get all the DNA you need from the bone marrow in Adam to make Eve. Science tells us this COULD be true. Eve then would have the MtDNA from Adams Mother. That would be the only MtDNA available to Adam to pass onto his wife.

I need several peer-reviewed sources from legitimate scientific journals to confirm these claims: "the MtDNA confirms who the Clam Mother is for the Hebrew People. We know where she lived and when she lived. Science and the Bible both say Even lived in the same place at the same time"


If you say this is true, you should provide rock-solid evidence for it.


Regarding DNA from a man to make a woman... no.

Using DNA to replicate another living thing does just that: replicates. The best you could do is an exact clone.

Now, if you are proposing that from 2 male clones, we get two competing gene pools that over millions of years one lineage evolves to have a vagina and breasts, this is actually theoretically plausible if they perform a useful function for an asexual lifeform.


Whether the two lines can then mate is a statistical impossibility, but that is no matter since no one who has looked at the data would ever conclude that this is how gender originated in primates. It does make for interesting science fiction, though.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can study the DNA of the Hebrew People for yourself. The point is that the Bible is true and the DNA research and evidence proves the Bible is true.

No, it doesn't. You are misrepresenting the science, John.

Once again you have failed to show otherwise.

I have continually shown that MRCA's are not the product of a single founder. They are the product of pedigree collapse and lineage extinction. That is what the science has always shown. Any mtDNA Eve was one of many women alive in that population. Any Y-haplotype Adam was one of many men alive at the same time in that population. That is what the science shows. It is contradictory to your biblical claims.

Bring on your best PHd to give us the Genetic Evidence to establish once and for all that the Eve in the Bible was not a real person and she could not have existed from a Biological Scientific perspective. Don't be shy.

We are not saying that the mtDNA Eve did not exist. What we are saying is that she was one of many women alive in that population, and that she was no different than the rest of them. The DNA from those other women still exist in the modern population. You would not have been able to pick mtDNA Eve out of the crowd. This women only became mtDNA Eve well after her death as the mtDNA lineages of her female cohorts died off. mtDNA Eve's, and Y-Adams, are produced by elimination over time, not by a single founder of an entire population.