What human species was Adam and Eve?

[Kate30]

I'm not agnostic about God, I'm agnostic about what happened in the early Genesis accounts, meaning I don't know what happened except that God was the force behind it (which admittingly isn't completely agnostic) but it does mean I'm not forcing a scientific view. Also, Gen 6 tells us why men's lives are shorter, what it doesn't tell us is it's from a corrupted gene pool. When we focus too much on the in between the lines information we end up warping the meaning of the text to fit a perspective it is not meant to support. leave the text alone and see how it points to God and gives him glory, not how it can be plausible in a literal vacuum (because it can't so just stop trying).

Your not agnostic about God. Just agnostic about what happened in the early Genesis account. Damian best you distinguish what uniform you wear or you may get shot by friendly fire you know, especially around here. : ) but I see your point. Though I disagree. Simply because sin has become hereditary in us all with the fall of Adam and Eve. Seems that Sin has effected our biological make up as well for we were never meant to originally die. It really doesn’t matter what part of the world we live there is always that present evil lurking somewhere within our hearts and minds. And as ennoble and wonderful as our intentions may be to better society and the world. There is always that dark desire lurking within us all that does seek out the dark side as well. And so it is within the minds and hearts of the entire human race.

 

[Brightmoon]

More like God designed the ability for human skin to adopt (i.e. change of designed configurable parameter) instead of lost/re-evolved.

Below are my answer to your old question that you didn't acknowledge.


You are confusing the topics. I am refuting you claim that 2 people can't populate the entire earth, my claim is if their genes are perfect they can. What part of making up story is there? Do you deny the scientific possibly of it? Do you realize that?

yes I am absolutely denying the possibility of 2 people being the ancestors of all humans . For some species the minimum number is 50 individuals with a lot of genetic diversity. For a lot of species it’s much more that that . This is how we lost the passenger pigeon . You get sterility and you get other problems with inbreeding . I just lost my morning glories and petunias after only a few years of successive inbreeding and there were more than 50 individuals .

If you look at skin color gene you see that the genes sometimes get permanently shut off and then they get flipped back on by another genetic change in the on/off switch ( the promoter) . The DNA can also support multiple copies of a gene. People with a lot of melanin have more copies of the genes . There are also melanin suppressor genes and you can have multiple copies of those as well. Your skin color depends on the latitude you ancestors lived at. You don’t have to insert that magic-added explanation that creationists tend to come up with

 

[Brightmoon]

How many evolutionists have lied and come up with hoaxes?

One thing I do agree with is that you can't prove creation by any scientific method. How do you show God created man out of dust with his power and breath? Not possible.

So most creationists try to show how evolution is not possible. Cause that's all the any scientific thought can do. It cannot do the impossible.

how many lied ? I can only think of one piltdown man and I really that that was a practical joke that got out of hand . The other so called frauds either were newspaper reporter hype( in other words not scientists) or deliberate disinformation by creationists about real fossils. Keep in mind that disinformation is when you spread incorrect information deliberately to confuse people. Occasionally scientists have been wrong about some little detail and creationists will blow it up out of proportion and talk about it,sometimes for centuries, long after the scientific community has corrected it and forgotten about it. They still complain about the few mistakes Darwin and Haeckel made !!!!!!

 

[DamianWarS]

Which part did I invent? God told us what happened in the Bible, I am simply trusting in Him.
And What's your idea that does not need invention? So you are saying that you don't believe in the genesis account is not invention? Do you believe that God can't keep his message straight?

The assumption your making is because there was a levitical law forbidding incest and Abraham's wife was his half sister than before that time it was a different system where there was a special exception for incest. The bible does not mention this exception and you may start to fill in blanks saying incest must of happened or this must have been the plan but forget that not once does it say these early accounts engage in incest and these are assumptions your making from the text.

I am not rejecting the idea that incest didn't happen or that it wasn't common practice but your saying it was in implicit design of God and then further go on saying our genes were more pure and have been corrupted over generations. None of that is supported in the text.

You keep asking me if I believe God can keep his message "straight". I have asked you to unpack this word "straight" but you have yet to do this. I do believe God can keep his message straight and has in fact done just that but you seem to have a different definition than I do. Rather than use word play if you mean literal than just say it.

The literalist seems to always fall back on if God can do all things than these accounts must be literal. Well who told you they must be literal and why are you fighting so hard for them to be? If God can do all things than the accounts also can still be truth and not be literal.

 

[DamianWarS]

Your not agnostic about God. Just agnostic about what happened in the early Genesis account. Damian best you distinguish what uniform you wear or you may get shot by friendly fire you know, especially around here. : ) but I see your point. Though I disagree. Simply because sin has become hereditary in us all with the fall of Adam and Eve. Seems that Sin has effected our biological make up as well for we were never meant to originally die. It really doesn’t matter what part of the world we live there is always that present evil lurking somewhere within our hearts and minds. And as ennoble and wonderful as our intentions may be to better society and the world. There is always that dark desire lurking within us all that does seek out the dark side as well. And so it is within the minds and hearts of the entire human race.

We are all commenting in a Christian only part of CF and most, including myself, are declared as Christian in our profile. Our "uniforms" should be somewhat implicit through participating.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The thread was started in "Theistic Evolution". Discussing an evolution-related topic.

I cannot simply understand why did fundamental creationists invade the thread.

Seriously, NOT a single fundamental creationist in this thread used evidence to back their arguments up, it was mostly attacks.

Please, if you think that you want to argue fundamental creationism vs evolution then make a thread for it in the debates forum, but don't simply invade a thread that is targeted at those with an open mind to the theory and are trying to pave their way based on evidence, critical thinking and a flexible mentality.

I myself am not against creationism, I am open to both, evolution and creationism. However, I'm against dogmatic fundamentalism. The mentality that absolutely isolates itself and rejects any contradictory evidence to its beliefs without even critically analyzing that evidence.

Fundamental creationists also refuse to admit they are such people, obviously. We already have a section with threads about creationism vs. evolution in the Physical and Life Sciences forum. It is sad that people feel like they have to force their biased opinions on people like us.

As for myself, I am open to believing either humans come from chimpanzees (like dogs coming from gray wolves) or they are just very similar primates with the same ancestor, like mammoths and elephants. We may not find out in our lifetimes, but there is a definite answer because only one can be true.

 

[Brightmoon]

Humans split from the chimp lineage then the chimps split into bonobos and chimps . Scientists have been reluctant to put chimps in genus Homo because it raises other ethical questions over exploitation and because they live vastly different lives . I personally don’t have a problem with chimps being in Genus Homo but I’m also not a geneticist studying the problem either.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The fall is the start of it, i.e. when we are with God, there is no corruption. When we are without God and with sin, those copy paste errors can occur.

The genes are like software code, errors can occur during replication (or by other factors such as radiation etc). When you see a beautiful palace in a desert, you know someone build it, and when you see software code as complex as human DNA, you know someone designed it.

No part of the Bible states or implies anyone has recessive genetic traits because of the fall. No science or health study has ever concluded recessive genes are caused by corruption. Until you diprove my claim, you are totally wrong.

 

[GodLovesCats]

how many lied ? I can only think of one piltdown man and I really that that was a practical joke that got out of hand. The other so called frauds either were newspaper reporter hype( in other words not scientists) or deliberate disinformation by creationists about real fossils. Keep in mind that disinformation is when you spread incorrect information deliberately to confuse people. Occasionally scientists have been wrong about some little detail and creationists will blow it up out of proportion and talk about it,sometimes for centuries, long after the scientific community has corrected it and forgotten about it. They still complain about the few mistakes Darwin and Haeckel made !!!!!!

Another problem is people think scientists are wrong based on contradictory anecdotal evidence, which of course means nothing if you look at how many fossils were studies under microscopes by paleontology or archaeology doctors.

 

[Kate30]

Fundamental creationists also refuse to admit they are such people, obviously. We already have a section with threads about creationism vs. evolution in the Physical and Life Sciences forum. It is sad that people feel like they have to force their biased opinions on people like us.

As for myself, I am open to believing either humans come from chimpanzees (like dogs coming from gray wolves) or they are just very similar primates with the same ancestor, like mammoths and elephants. We may not find out in our lifetimes, but there is a definite answer because only one can be true.

I never realised it was a theistic evolution only thread. I’m sure others never realised it was either. Christianforcats enjoy your thread.

 

[dcalling]

yes I am absolutely denying the possibility of 2 people being the ancestors of all humans . For some species the minimum number is 50 individuals with a lot of genetic diversity. For a lot of species it’s much more that that . This is how we lost the passenger pigeon . You get sterility and you get other problems with inbreeding . I just lost my morning glories and petunias after only a few years of successive inbreeding and there were more than 50 individuals .

Do you realize what's the real problem of inbreeding is? It is bad recessive traits that affect the offspring adversely, for example bad tooth or mental issues. If the parents does not have those bad traits (that are hidden or not), then there is no issue with offspring. When you have perfect genes, you don't need genetic diversity. The reason you want genetic diversity so that parents with such bad recessive genes can have those gaps as wide as possible.

Can you understand that?

 

[dcalling]

The assumption your making is because there was a levitical law forbidding incest and Abraham's wife was his half sister than before that time it was a different system where there was a special exception for incest. The bible does not mention this exception and you may start to fill in blanks saying incest must of happened or this must have been the plan but forget that not once does it say these early accounts engage in incest and these are assumptions your making from the text.

I am not rejecting the idea that incest didn't happen or that it wasn't common practice but your saying it was in implicit design of God and then further go on saying our genes were more pure and have been corrupted over generations. None of that is supported in the text.

You keep asking me if I believe God can keep his message "straight". I have asked you to unpack this word "straight" but you have yet to do this. I do believe God can keep his message straight and has in fact done just that but you seem to have a different definition than I do. Rather than use word play if you mean literal than just say it.

The literalist seems to always fall back on if God can do all things than these accounts must be literal. Well who told you they must be literal and why are you fighting so hard for them to be? If God can do all things than the accounts also can still be truth and not be literal.

But don't you think you are filling the gaps even more then me? So if Adam/Eve's offspring are not having kids from each other, where did the other humans come from?

 

[dcalling]

No part of the Bible states or implies anyone has recessive genetic traits because of the fall.

God clearly changed something when He stated that human's years will be 120 (much lower than the 930 years Adam lived). I would thinking it is the genes. Remember how scientists found the bio clock in the telemors?

No science or health study has ever concluded recessive genes are caused by corruption. Until you diprove my claim, you are totally wrong.

That is an amazing blank statement.
Now do you have source to prove it?

 

[klutedavid]

seems orderly and intelligent to me too that humans are apes . Anatomically, genetically , developmentally , socially and behaviorally humans are apes. We differ in that we have weaker jaw muscles that attach on the side of our head . Put your hand by your temple and chew you can feel these muscles . In the other apes they attach at the top of the head and in gorillas it attaches to a ridge of bone at the top of the skull . Humans smaller jaw muscles allowed the bone at the top of our heads to expand . This is one reason we have a larger brain .
We also have long legs and hairless skin ( which the other apes don’t have) because we evolved as long distance running animals View attachment 257751

We have long legs for running.

Our children don't develop the ability to run for nearly a decade.Running animals in the wild are on their feet and running in days or weeks.

So how does man survive in the wild?

By the way man does not run very fast and the female is even slower. So who is carrying the infants?

 

[GodLovesCats]

God clearly changed something when He stated that human's years will be 120 (much lower than the 930 years Adam lived). I would thinking it is the genes. Remember how scientists found the bio clock in the telemors?

That is an amazing blank statement.
Now do you have source to prove it?

You are still ignoring the fact that our physical appearances are just that. If the original sins were why we have recessive genes there would be no dominant genes to inherit. All other animals, which are innocent, would only have dominant genes. Charles Darwin proved in his study on evolution no genetic mutation or defect is caused by an acquired condition in a parent's lifetime. This is exactly the opposite of your claims partly because some of those mutations affect recessive genes.

 

[DamianWarS]

But don't you think you are filling the gaps even more then me? So if Adam/Eve's offspring are not having kids from each other, where did the other humans come from?

an agnostic view is just another way of saying "I don't know". So where did they come from.... I don't know

I read the account, I know there was about a 2500 year gap since it was written (assuming it was written by Moses) and the text implies the presence of other people. For example, Cain is banished and takes his wife with him to Nod and their Son Enoch makes a city. You need people to make a city.

These type of inconsistencies are typical in ancient stories like these and they point to non literal accounts.

 

[dcalling]

You are still ignoring the fact that our physical appearances are just that. If the original sins were why we have recessive genes there would be no dominant genes to inherit. All other animals, which are innocent, would only have dominant genes.

You keep missing my answers. As I said again and again, some traits are like parameters in software configuration, i.e. skin color, looks etc. They will keep changing as God designed (i.e. like your website branding)

Once we sinned, God simply stopped maintain our genes (my guess), so that copy paste errors start to occur and accumulate. Once sin is in the world, the whole world is under sin.

Charles Darwin proved in his study on evolution no genetic mutation or defect is caused by an acquired condition in a parent's lifetime. This is exactly the opposite of your claims partly because some of those mutations affect recessive genes.

1. I doubt it is Darwin who claimed that, because Darwin don't even know about DNAs etc. The various trait inheriance characters were discovered much later. So you have to cite your source on this one.
2. Your claim is simply wrong, because it is a known fact that people who have been affected by raditaion have higher chance to produce defective offspring.
3. Even if your claim is right, it does not affect my claim at all (i.e. our initial DNA when created by God is perfect).


And in case you forgot, you have not responded to any of my request to cite sources. You do understand to by scientific (as you claim you are), you need sources that can produce repeatable, verifiable tests right?

No science or health study has ever concluded recessive genes are caused by corruption. Until you diprove my claim, you are totally wrong.

That is an amazing blank statement.
Now do you have source to prove it?

 

[dcalling]

an agnostic view is just another way of saying "I don't know". So where did they come from.... I don't know

I read the account, I know there was about a 2500 year gap since it was written (assuming it was written by Moses) and the text implies the presence of other people. For example, Cain is banished and takes his wife with him to Nod and their Son Enoch makes a city. You need people to make a city.

These type of inconsistencies are typical in ancient stories like these and they point to non literal accounts.

Well, you claim that you don't know, and yet you are making conclusions (i.e. the account is wrong, how can there be people etc).

All I am saying is that, if you don't know, you should be consistent, and claim that you don't know, and don't claim that because you don't know, and you see something that is easily explainable (of course you reject the explainations), you should not just claim we should not take them literally.

You are literally claiming something is guilty without concrete evidence.

 

[Radagast]

Neanderthals ( H neanderthalensis) were a different species of human but they were so closely related that they could produce fertile hybrids with H sapiens .

On most definitions of "species," that makes them the same species.

 

[Brightmoon]

We have long legs for running.

Our children don't develop the ability to run for nearly a decade.Running animals in the wild are on their feet and running in days or weeks.

So how does man survive in the wild?

By the way man does not run very fast and the female is even slower. So who is carrying the infants?

My kids could definitely run at two years old

On most definitions of "species," that makes them the same species.

not really, as hybrids can be bred from closely related species all of the time . Usually the offspring will just mate with one parent species or the other . Occasionally they’ll form a completely new species .

Neanderthals had different bone growth rates . Unlike humans they were fully adult at around age 15 as opposed to H sapiens at around age 21 . Their brain was actually different they had that occipital bun and that elongated head. They were a different species -H neanderthalensis