Could Eve have been a female copy of Adam?

[ChetSinger]

Genesis says that Eve was taken from Adam. But what does that mean?

Believe it or not, I've heard that creation of a kind of male-to-female copy might be possible by lopping off a Y chromosome and replacing it with a copy of the X chromosome.

So given the descriptions of Eve's creation and Adam's response, it made me wonder if that's what God actually did.

Any thoughts? Is such a thing possible?

 

[Papias]

It depends. That single part of a story is in itself possible.

For instance, if we were to hypothetically take a fertilized egg, with 23 pairs of chromosomes (including 1 X and 1 Y), and remove the Y, double the X, and let things gestate from there, then yes, we'd get a female version of what would have been a male.

Or, if cloning were possible, we could take the 23 pairs from a man, remove the Y, double the X, and gestate that to term, providing a female clone of the male.

However, taking that as an Adam and Eve origin runs into all kinds of problems compared to what we know now. (and, most of these problems also apply to all ideas that have a total population of 2 at any time in the past 50,000 years). For instance, consider alleles. Alleles are different varieties of a gene - so for a gene that codes for eye color, two different alleles could be "brown eyes" and "blue eyes". In your clone situation, Eve is a copy of Adam, and hence has the same alleles for a given gene. Even if Adam had two different alleles there (the maximum possible since we all have two copies of each gene), then there could be a maximum of 2 different alleles in the gene pool.

For instance, ABO blood type is based on three alleles: A, B, and o. (remember that everyone has two copies of each gene). o is recessive, so AA, or Ao give type A, BB or Bo give type B, AB gives type AB blood, and only oo gives type o blood. So you can't get our current situation from an Adam clone, since his two genes can't cover the three alleles we have.

In fact, many genes have many more than three alleles found in the population. Many have dozenes of alleles, some have over 100.

Bottlenecks - which is when a population goes below a few dozen thousand individuals - show up clearly in DNA - that's how we know of bottlenecks in the history of, say, cheetahs. Genetic studies of many other areas of the genome show that humans went through a moderate bottleneck (down to a few thousand people) sometime around 50,000 years ago (Toba). An extreme bottleneck of 2 people - or just one in your Adam/Eve clone idea, would be very obvious, and would date to ~6,000 years ago. Yet, that's not what is seen.

There are many other reasons that we know the breeding population of our ancestors never went below about 1,000 any time in the past 100,000 years. All of them show that both the 2 person and your new 1 person ideas don't fit the data. But, at least your 1 person idea is no worse off than the standard creationist 2 person idea.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[MKJ]

Genesis says that Eve was taken from Adam. But what does that mean?

Believe it or not, I've heard that creation of a kind of male-to-female copy might be possible by lopping off a Y chromosome and replacing it with a copy of the X chromosome.

So given the descriptions of Eve's creation and Adam's response, it made me wonder if that's what God actually did.

Any thoughts? Is such a thing possible?

I suppose it depends on how we understand "taken from". Spiritually, ontologically, what?

I don't tend to think the idea is that they were clones.

 

[juvenissun]

Genesis says that Eve was taken from Adam. But what does that mean?

Believe it or not, I've heard that creation of a kind of male-to-female copy might be possible by lopping off a Y chromosome and replacing it with a copy of the X chromosome.

So given the descriptions of Eve's creation and Adam's response, it made me wonder if that's what God actually did.

Any thoughts? Is such a thing possible?

Copy means the same or identical. Are man and woman the same or identical? This is one of the reasons that homosexuality is wrong.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The literal wording of Genesis says Eve was fashioned from a rib of Adam.

If we follow that wording as literal and exact, then Eve had exactly the same DNA as Adam. Except of course, Adam was a male and Eve was female. So - again following the wording of literal and exact - God had to have changed a Y to an X somewhere not mentioned in the text.

To some extent, all humans are 'copies' of prior humans. Otherwise, we wouldn't all be humans and could not reproduce as we do. However, there are a wide variety of DNA combinations that all fall within the viable human definition.

Actually, I've never considered this question about Eve. Nor am I a knowledgable 'genetic' student. However - and someone with better knowledge correct me if I'm wrong -

Adam and Eve HAD to have 'perfect' genetic coding. Birth defects due to genetic errors happen in reproducing pairs too closely related (which is why one cannot marry their natural sibling or cousin). The 'improper genes' are too likely to be reinforced rather than over-ridden when the genetic coding is too close.

The only way to insure viable, proper genetic codes in offspring is to start with a perfect genetic slate (so to speak).

Since Adam and Eve were the only children on Earth, the second generation had to reproduce with their siblings. Third generation had to reproduce with either siblings or cousins. And so on...

Under modern conditions with modern geneticists, this would be a horror story. This is sometimes used as a argument against the literal Biblical account in the early part of Genesis. I find using 'current conditions' as a basis for judging long ago events somewhat short-sighted.

My apologies if this derails the thread. It seems a logical departure from the main stream of discussion.

 

[gluadys]

The literal wording of Genesis says Eve was fashioned from a rib of Adam.

If we follow that wording as literal and exact, then Eve had exactly the same DNA as Adam. Except of course, Adam was a male and Eve was female. So - again following the wording of literal and exact - God had to have changed a Y to an X somewhere not mentioned in the text.

To some extent, all humans are 'copies' of prior humans. Otherwise, we wouldn't all be humans and could not reproduce as we do. However, there are a wide variety of DNA combinations that all fall within the viable human definition.

Actually, I've never considered this question about Eve. Nor am I a knowledgable 'genetic' student. However - and someone with better knowledge correct me if I'm wrong -

Adam and Eve HAD to have 'perfect' genetic coding. Birth defects due to genetic errors happen in reproducing pairs too closely related (which is why one cannot marry their natural sibling or cousin). The 'improper genes' are too likely to be reinforced rather than over-ridden when the genetic coding is too close.

The only way to insure viable, proper genetic codes in offspring is to start with a perfect genetic slate (so to speak).

Since Adam and Eve were the only children on Earth, the second generation had to reproduce with their siblings. Third generation had to reproduce with either siblings or cousins. And so on...

Under modern conditions with modern geneticists, this would be a horror story. This is sometimes used as a argument against the literal Biblical account in the early part of Genesis. I find using 'current conditions' as a basis for judging long ago events somewhat short-sighted.

My apologies if this derails the thread. It seems a logical departure from the main stream of discussion.

This is where Papias post on alleles becomes important.

I don't know just what "perfect" DNA would be, but if the species is going to remain healthy, even with perfect DNA, it has to allow for variation in traits.

We are ok, sort of, with the X chromosome since Eve has two of them and Adam has one. So for any active DNA sequence, we can start off with 3 versions (aka alleles) of any gene on the X chromosome. Eve's daughters will get whatever is on Adam's X chromosome and one of those on Eve's two X chromosomes. Her sons will get one of those on Eve's two X chromosomes. Through Eve's daughters, Adam's X chromosome can be passed to their sons and daughters, so after a few generations both men and women will have an assortment of three alleles for each gene on the X chromosome.

As for non-sex chromosomes, Adam and Eve have two each allowing for four possible combinations in each of their children Adam1/Eve1, Adam2/ Eve1, Adam1/Eve2 & Adam2/Eve2. And these can also be passed on to the next generation.

So we have to assume that "perfect" DNA must come in 3-4 varieties. Or there would be no potential for variation at all.

But for many traits there are many more than 3-4 alleles. These would have to enter the hereditary stream via mutations. And most of them have no harmful effect. (Otherwise we might be able to pick out the originals from the subsequent variants.)

However, the Y-chromosome has, in the first couple, only one form since Adam alone possesses the sole male chromosome. So any and all differences in the Y-chromosome must be due to mutations. If Cain, Abel and Seth had differences in alleles on their Y-chromosomes, only one could have inherited Adam's Y chromosome unchanged. Since the Y chromosome is one of the most varied chromosomes in humans, there must be many such changes which do no harm. So how many forms can perfect DNA take? Would there not have to be some new DNA subsequent to the Fall which is as perfect as what existed in Eden? Especially in the Y chromosome?

 

[SkyWriting]

There are many other reasons that we know the breeding population of our ancestors never went below about 1,000 any time in the past 100,000 years. All of them show that both the 2 person and your new 1 person ideas don't fit the data. But, at least your 1 person idea is no worse off than the standard creationist 2 person idea.
In Christ-
Papias

There is no "2 person" theory.

We don't "Know" any past events. We can just draw up a list of assumptions about what we believe is likely to have happened.

You look at how DNA works now and assume all process were the same at the beginning of time.
Not real Science. Check my signature for real science.

 

[ChetSinger]

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. I find it interesting sometimes to push for literalness and see how far it can be taken.

I've done a little reading and have learned that blood type (ABO) has three versions and so is an argument against this idea. But also that many people who carry O also carry what looks like a mutated A.

It looks like I don't know enough about genetics to pursue this much farther. But it's one of those ideas I may ponder in the back of my head for a while.

For anyone who's interested, I found a page at creation.com that addresses the subject, among other things. The author appears to consider the idea intriguing, but inconclusive.

 

[Papias]

I looked at the article linked to.

When the very first sentence includes three falsehoods, it's hard to take the article seriously. That first sentence said that:

the whole human race comes from two people (Adam and Eve) who lived "a few thosand years ago". False. This reference to Mt Eve and Y Adam misses on several levels. Mt Eve and Y Adam would never have seen each other - they lived 10s of thousands of years apart, one being the ggggg+ grandparent of the other. They both lived at least dozens of thousands of years ago, not "a few thosand", and the whole population at the time of either of them was much more than 2.

The human bottleneck was at the time of the flood. False. A literal reading of scripture puts the flood at around 4,500 years ago. The bottleneck is around 70,000 years ago. The actual bottleneck reduced the population down to several thousand or so, not to the < 5 described in Genesis (<5, not 8, due to sibling relations).

The single dispersal of humans corresponds to the tower of Babel. False - the Babel story is placed in the Middle east, while the human dispersal was from central Africa. The T o Babel story posits the recent origin of languages, which is not related to the dispersal from Africa. The ToB story is placed around 4,000 years ago (and after the flood "bottlneck"), while the actual history has the dispersal at ~100,000 years ago, long before the actual bottleneck. The ToB story involves a tower, absent from the dispersal from Africa.

This reads as if an article on car repair started with "Because cars run using water as fuel, and are structurally made of titanium alloy, putting gravel in the exhaust pipe will allow the car to fly." Starting off with three absurdities shows that either the author is clueless, is trying to deceive you, or both. The fact that the article tried to deal with just the ABO case (when there are plenty of other with many more alleles, as described earlier), shows this as well.

That's why the creation article is only going to hinder, not help, your search for truth on this topic.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

I looked at the article linked to.

When the very first sentence includes three falsehoods, it's hard to take the article seriously. That first sentence said that:

the whole human race comes from two people (Adam and Eve) who lived "a few thosand years ago". False. This reference to Mt Eve and Y Adam misses on several levels.

The Bible explains that only Adam was Created and Eve was formed from him.
There is no need for scientific confirmation.

The human bottleneck was at the time of the flood. False. A literal reading of scripture puts the flood at around 4,500 years ago.

There are no time frames in scripture intended for scientific confirmation.

The single dispersal of humans corresponds to the tower of Babel. False - the Babel story is placed in the Middle east, while the human dispersal was from central Africa.

History is created by historians and supported by fictional imaginings about the past.

 

[ChetSinger]

I looked at the article linked to.

When the very first sentence includes three falsehoods, it's hard to take the article seriously. That first sentence said that:

Thanks for your thoughts, but I already know we disagree about timelines because I take the Biblical ones literally.

I'm more interested in the technical aspects of whether such a thing would be possible, and I found the article helpful in that regard.

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by Papias View Post

I looked at the article linked to.

When the very first sentence includes three falsehoods, it's hard to take the article seriously. That first sentence said that:

Thanks for your thoughts, but I already know we disagree about timelines because I take the Biblical ones literally.

I'm more interested in the technical aspects of whether such a thing would be possible, and I found the article helpful in that regard.

About our timelines disagreement:

Yes, understood - though you might notice that some falsehoods in that first sentence are not timeline issues, and hence still show the lack of reliability of the article even if timelines are ignored.

That's why if you are interested in the technical aspects described in the same article, the article is not a reliable source of information about technical aspects - even if timelines are ignored. You can see this also in the multiple allele issue - the article only mentions ABo, when in reality that's an easy case of just 3 alleles, while the article ignores the many cases where there are many more than 3, often hundreds. If that's out of ignorance, than the article is unreliable due to ignorance. If they know about those and are hiding that, then the article is unreliable because it's deceptive. The same goes for the non-timeline related howlers in the first sentence.

'just trying to help you find the truth-

Papias

 

[Archie the Preacher]

... once again, thank you for your knowledge and willingness to share.

Genetics is not my strong suit. I do know - at least think I know - some genetic 'codings' that are not good come from reproducing with a sexual partner 'too close' genetically. ('Too close' reproduction tends to allow mutated or damaged genes to become dominant.) In my youth, 'club feet' was understood to be a result of 'inbreeding'. Not to mention the high incidence of insanity and mental weakness found in old European Royalty.

My understanding is genetic mutations - or 'damage' if one prefers - can be caused by sickness, some forms of food poisoning and exposure to radiation. (Probably some others, but as I said, I'm not a geneticist.) All these sorts of things only happened after the Fall.

That sort of thing is conspicuously absent from what is recorded in the early part of Genesis, regarding the descendants of Adam and Eve.

That was what I meant by a 'perfect' DNA profile. No 'bad' (incorrect, distorted) genes.

 

[ChetSinger]

Also, I've read that copying mistakes have been measured to occur from parent to child at a rate of around 50 per human generation.

So if Adam and Eve were perfectly engineered, their immediate descendants would have accumulated few such mutations. Their children could've interbred with little chance of damaging the line. Even Abraham married his half-sister with no documented ill effects.

But by the time of the Law, meant to last for many generations, mutations had accumulated to the point that close breeding would damage the line. So it makes sense to me that God would've eventually forbidden it.

As an aside, if a generation is 30 years and we accumulate about 50 mutations per generation, then I've accumulated more than 6,000 mutations since my ancestor of Abraham's time. Yikes.

 

[SkyWriting]

Also, I've read that copying mistakes have been measured to occur from parent to child at a rate of around 50 per human generation.

So if Adam and Eve were perfectly engineered, their immediate descendants would have accumulated few such mutations. Their children could've interbred with little chance of damaging the line. Even Abraham married his half-sister with no documented ill effects.

But by the time of the Law, meant to last for many generations, mutations had accumulated to the point that close breeding would damage the line. So it makes sense to me that God would've eventually forbidden it.

As an aside, if a generation is 30 years and we accumulate about 50 mutations per generation, then I've accumulated more than 6,000 mutations since my ancestor of Abraham's time. Yikes.

Scientific "facts" are almost never complete, or conclusions fully correct.
My brother and I don't look at all alike. Changes in the "50" DNA
result in two different looking people, neither of us consider
ourselves to be mutants. Genetic changes allow for natural
variation within a range of usable variation. Most of that variation
is useful to the group.

Yes, harmful variations do accumulate in the population.
As one example cancer will be found in 1 out of 2 males
and 1 of 3 females.

 

[SkyWriting]

Genesis says that Eve was taken from Adam. But what does that mean? Believe it or not, I've heard that creation of a kind of male-to-female copy might be possible by lopping off a Y chromosome and replacing it with a copy of the X chromosome. So given the descriptions of Eve's creation and Adam's response, it made me wonder if that's what God actually did. Any thoughts? Is such a thing possible?

God made Adam as a material being and he pulled the pattern from that
being to make a second one. There are no further details given to us.
Science cannot view historical events, as much as people insist on it
because they just can't stand not knowing something. But all past events
that we "know" are outside of scientific examination.

We can recreate events and observe what we imagine to be what has
happened in the past weeks. But that still doesn't prove it happened that way.

 

[gluadys]

Scientific "facts" are almost never complete, or conclusions fully correct.
My brother and I don't look at all alike. Changes in the "50" DNA
result in two different looking people, neither of us consider
ourselves to be mutants. Genetic changes allow for natural
variation within a range of usable variation. Most of that variation
is useful to the group.

Yes, harmful variations do accumulate in the population.
As one example cancer will be found in 1 out of 2 males
and 1 of 3 females.

Genetic changes = mutations.

Perhaps you are working with a false understanding of what mutations are.

btw, your example does not show that harmful mutations accumulate in the population. All it shows is that cancers occur at that rate in the population--not why they occur at that rate. And it most certainly does not show that the cancer is inherited.

Some genetic factors do predispose toward cancer, but this example does not show that those factors accumulate (i.e. become more common) in the population generation over generation.

 

[ChetSinger]

Scientific "facts" are almost never complete, or conclusions fully correct.
My brother and I don't look at all alike. Changes in the "50" DNA
result in two different looking people, neither of us consider
ourselves to be mutants. Genetic changes allow for natural
variation within a range of usable variation. Most of that variation
is useful to the group.

Hello! I'm not sure we're speaking of the same thing. The 50 mutations I'm speaking of are not related to the natural genetic shuffling that occurs from parents to their children (which is why brothers are not identical unless they're twins). Instead, these are genuine mutations, verified as copying mistakes from one generation to the next.

By modern reckoning, our present generation has accumulated about 6,000 mutations since Abraham's generation. Most mutations appear to be neutral. Of the ones that aren't, the deleterious ones outnumber the beneficial ones.

 

[gluadys]

Hello! I'm not sure we're speaking of the same thing. The 50 mutations I'm speaking of are not related to the natural genetic shuffling that occurs from parents to their children (which is why brothers are not identical unless they're twins). Instead, these are genuine mutations, verified as copying mistakes from one generation to the next.

By modern reckoning, our present generation has accumulated about 6,000 mutations since Abraham's generation. Most mutations appear to be neutral. Of the ones that aren't, the deleterious ones outnumber the beneficial ones.

All variation (other than a maximum of 4 newly-created alleles in Adam and Eve) goes back to mutations. The standing variation in a population (which may or may not be what Skywriter is referring to) exists because of an accumulation of past mutations.

 

[Smidlee]

Genetic changes = mutations.

.

Not necessary as God is the ultimate programmer. He could easily spoken or type in Eve's code just like I'm typing this post. I don't believe man invented anything that haven't already been invented. There really isn't anything new under the sun.