A Question About The Diversity In Mankind...

[Bushido216]

I'm wondering how it is that mankind is so different. I cannot seem to find my answers in Genesis, so I came here.

If I accept that Adam and Eve were the first two humans, then I must accept that we are all descendants of those two people. Yet, if that's the case, then the same genes would always be represented in their offspring (which, ultimately, are you, me, and everyone else), and eventually that'd just lead to bad recessive traits being expressed over, and over, and over. Then again, if there weren't any bad recessive traits, where did the ones we get now come from?

So, my question is, how?

 

[Bushido216]

If I could please get an answer...?

 

[notto]

A few resources that might help you learn more about the mainstream scientific understanding of your question would be:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
This covers different types of mutations and how new information and traits can be added to genes and express in future generations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/stringermdl.html
This discusses the current understanding of how differences became to be expressed in modern humans and gives the history of human evolution and migration based on genetic evidence and anthropology.

No mainstream scientific evidence can point to humans being decended from two humans only a short time ago (under 10,000 years). The evidence just doesn't support it.

Hope that helps.

 

[Bushido216]

But doesn't the addition / deletion of genes require there to be a defect in the first place?

 

[Bushido216]

And that still doesn't explain why the children of Adam and Eve weren't all deformed.

 

[notto]

But doesn't the addition / deletion of genes require there to be a defect in the first place?

There are random mutations at every generation. If by 'defect' you mean differences, then yes, there are defects. The genes we inherit from our parents are not perfect copies of them.

As far as if the mutation is harful or not, some are, some are not, most would seem to be neutral (not enough of a change to harm or help).

If a mutation is harmful and affects the health or ability of a person to reproduce, that mutation won't be passed on to the next generation.

If a mutation is beneficial and helps the person care for their young or support more children, that mutation may be passed on to their offspring and over time, it will become part of the population.

You'll have to ask someone else about the Adam and Eve thing. There is no evidence that they actually existed.

 

[Bushido216]

Hmm... figures.

So, then, assuming the evolutionary model is correct, then Genesis cannot be taken literally.

Well, I was thinking, and here's a way that the Genesis could fit evolution... the idea is that Adam & Eve fell from grace after eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

If that's the case, then couldn't it be a metaphor for the evolution of man, and our "concious spark". Once we left the blissful ignorance of being animals, and we began to do things that we knew were wrong, we fell away.

Afterall, God must have a plan for animals. At least I hope he does, I'd like to know that I'll get to see all my pets when I reach the pearly gates (if I do). Perhaps the spread of mankind through Nod and the like is merely a metaphor for our evolutionary spread through the genepool?

Just wondering.

 

[notto]

Hmm... figures.

So, then, assuming the evolutionary model is correct, then Genesis cannot be taken literally.

Well, I was thinking, and here's a way that the Genesis could fit evolution... the idea is that Adam & Eve fell from grace after eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

If that's the case, then couldn't it be a metaphor for the evolution of man, and our "concious spark". Once we left the blissful ignorance of being animals, and we began to do things that we knew were wrong, we fell away.

Afterall, God must have a plan for animals. At least I hope he does, I'd like to know that I'll get to see all my pets when I reach the pearly gates (if I do). Perhaps the spread of mankind through Nod and the like is merely a metaphor for our evolutionary spread through the genepool?

Just wondering.

Many Christians understand exactly what you are trying to convey. The truth of the bible isn't in its literal description of the physical but in the knowledge, lessons, and theology of the spiritual.

Whether literal or metaphor, Genesis identifies the creator, identifies the sins of man against God, and identifies our purpose moving forward.

 

[Vance]

There are a number of possibilities here and I just don't know if we will ever know for sure which it is. We do know that there is a line of hominids leading in a VERY well-documented developmental line right up to h. Sapiens. This would SEEM to indicate that h. Sapiens is, indeed, right in this line (and Lucaspa would say that if it is NOT so, then God would be deceiving us, and I understand that argument and agree that the evidence is, indeed, that strong). BUT, and yet, however . . .

There IS something special about Man: we have a soul. We were made in His image, which separates us from all other creatures and means that SOMETHING happened along the way which is beyond what evolutionary models can tell us. There are a number of possibilities, and I will list a few going from most traditional to most "evolutionary", but it is very possible (likely?) that none of these are correct:

1. God did create a single Adam and a single Eve at some point, and the literal reading in Genesis is correct on this point. This would leave us to wonder why God would create a whole series of hominid species whose development seem to lead right into h. Sapiens, but who are we to judge God's reasoning. If he wants to allow for the evolution of A, B, C, D and then specially create what would naturally be "E", fine with me. He is God, I would not presume to question His actions. I might be curious, though.

1(a) would be that all h. Sapiens then descended from those two individuals, who were the ONLY h. Sapiens alive to begin with. There are a LOT of problems with this traditional reading.

1(b) would be that, after God created this first Adam and Eve, He created other h. Sapiens. Also has problems.

2. God allowed h. Sapiens to develop as evolution has described, then chose two "exemplars" from the group, or even specially created two more of them, infused them with a soul and placed them in a separate place (Eden). Don't know what God did with the rest of them, though, let them remain soulless and all die out? Infuse them as well? All very speculative, but I have heard it bandied about.

3. God allowed h. Sapiens to evolve as evolution has described, but at some point infused, or uplifted the entire species, and "Adam and Eve" are allegorical models of this first group of God's chosen creations: Man. The stories about Adam and Eve would be metaphors of the actions of the whole group. This would explain a lot, and is very popular, but it is also very speculative. One supporting piece of evidence from Scripture is the use of the word Adam, which we all know means simply Man. Also the Scripture which states that the man and woman collectively were called Man (Adam). Another is the "Eve" theory of DNA genetics which shows that all humans can trace their lineage back to a single female. This does not mean that she would have to be the ONLY female of her species alive at the time, only that eventually only one female line would survive. Simple mathematics (not so simple, really, but it works out that way). This would mean that a chosen EVE could be the "mother of all who live" even if she was not the only woman alive at the time.

4. God allowed h.Sapiens to evolve as evolution has described, and did not need to infuse a soul or do any type of uplift since He had built right into the process the fact that at some particular point in that evolution, it would all come together into that point of self-awareness which exemplifies the soul, when the species reached that critical mass and became in the likeness of God.

Again, I have no idea what actually happened, and in truth it doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things.

 

[Bushido216]

I like 4 quite a bit. Perhaps he chose to reveal himself to us because a.) we would want to know how we started and b.) since he did love all his creatures, he wanted to make sure there was a way for us to be saved.

Again, alot of people will point to Genesis and say that while superconductors aren't in the Bible, a creation is.

Well, think of it like this. God is going to reveal himself. What are we most curious about? Superconductors, or where we came from?

 

[Ark Guy]

And that still doesn't explain why the children of Adam and Eve weren't all deformed.

That answer is quite simple. Think about it. God created Adam and eve genetically perfect.
After the fall the genetics began to become corrrupted.

Adams an Eves children were from pure genes and therefore their genes were almost perfect...unlike ours of todays time. That is why they were not deformed.

I hope that helps

 

[Bushido216]

The problem with that answer is that then we'd have no variation in people.

The response to that is the random addition / deletion of bits of D.N.A., since we don't inherit exact copies from our parents.

But then we get to mutations (which is what those additions / deletions are), so they would eventually be deformed, since the recessive or dominant traits would almost definitely show up in a population of 20 people.

 

[Lillithspeak]

Anyone who's studied Mendel knows about breeding and re-breeding and what happens down the road.

What amazes me is that the creationists are so tied to the Adam and Eve mythology that they can't see what's much more likely; that there were several different experiments with humanity, some didn't continue, some lead to Neanderthals, some led to homosapians.

Why is that so difficult? Why wouldn't they all have souls and return to God at death? Why not try different types of societies, appearances, etc? God can't be creative in the artistic sense?

How do we know that there haven't been many different expressions of sentient life? We don't know everything that God has done, heck we don't even know how many other planets exist that have life on them, let alone how many different types of life forms have existed that resemble us.

Lillith

 

[Ark Guy]

The problem with that answer is that then we'd have no variation in people.

Says who? Are you claiming that all variation is a process of mutations?

The response to that is the random addition / deletion of bits of D.N.A., since we don't inherit exact copies from our parents.

Or a different combination of already established genes...or do you also claim that can't happen?

But then we get to mutations (which is what those additions / deletions are), so they would eventually be deformed, since the recessive or dominant traits would almost definitely show up in a population of 20 people.

If evolution is true, then these deformations that you mention should keep things from evolving in a fashion that is benificial to a species.

 

[Bushido216]

Says who? Are you claiming that all variation is a process of mutations?

Yes

Or a different combination of already established genes...or do you also claim that can't happen?

It can, if those already established gene's existed. However, the likelihood of them showing up is minimal, and the gene's required for massive changes in skin / hair colour are monumental.

If evolution is true, then these deformations that you mention should keep things from evolving in a fashion that is benificial to a species.

I'm sorry... what? Yes, that's my point. Those deformaties would end up creating 20, very deformed people. Not much to start a species with, no?

 

[Ark Guy]

Did you ever see a family where both parents have black, blond or brown hair...and a red head shows up?

I think you need to do your homework prior to continuing.

 

[wblastyn]

Did you ever see a family where both parents have black, blond or brown hair...and a red head shows up?

I think you need to do your homework prior to continuing.

The red allele would have been recessive.

 

[Bushido216]

Did you ever see a family where both parents have black, blond or brown hair...and a red head shows up?

I think you need to do your homework prior to continuing.

Since we are descending to the level of ad hominem attacks I wish to pull this conversation back up to the level of human discourse. However, in most formal debates, the insulted is allowed to respond.

I think that you need to do your homework. Anyone claiming to be a creationist obviously has no understanding of the basic science of evolution or is too clingy to a falsified creation story that they can't see the evidence in front of them.

Now that we've got that out of the way...

Ark Guy, you're making me chase my tail, and that's rather annoying. I see what you're doing: you're hoping I'll slip up.

Anyway, my point is that yes, a red-haired person can come from two parents without red-hair, but it's almost impossible for two people to hold all of those gene's.

This is fairly simple. I've basically devised a question that no one ever thought to ask, and which no one can create a simple explaination for.

 

[Vance]

Another thing to remember is that mutations are not "deformities" with the negative implications that implies. I think sometimes YEC's latch onto the words used and apply other commonly used meanings to those words. A mutation is simply an unusual variation on the standard. Most do nothing to benefit the gene pool and end up having no impact, a few are beneficial and are more likely to be retained and passed on.

We are not talking about "mutants" when we talk about "mutations". Just like we are not talking about "might makes right" when we discuss natural selection.

 

[lucaspa]

Hmm... figures.

So, then, assuming the evolutionary model is correct, then Genesis cannot be taken literally.

Well, I was thinking, and here's a way that the Genesis could fit evolution... the idea is that Adam & Eve fell from grace after eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

If that's the case, then couldn't it be a metaphor for the evolution of man, and our "concious spark". Once we left the blissful ignorance of being animals, and we began to do things that we knew were wrong, we fell away.

Afterall, God must have a plan for animals. At least I hope he does, I'd like to know that I'll get to see all my pets when I reach the pearly gates (if I do). Perhaps the spread of mankind through Nod and the like is merely a metaphor for our evolutionary spread through the genepool?

Just wondering.

Yes, you could do this. I hadn't thought of it before, but it seems to work. This isn't the detail the author intended, of course, since the author didn't know about evolution.

You can also look at it that natural selection is inevitably going to result in a selfish organism that is going to do what it wants and not what God wants. And isn't that disobedience what the Garden story is saying?