Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
AV1611VET said:I see --- and how would you explain the sudden appearance of a whole race of humans, without not one person engaging in incest?
Well, if there was a sudden appearance of humans as the Creationist viewpoint would suggest, incest would be mandatory for the human population to continue. But, thankfully, real evolution doesnt act on individuals and requires an entire population to change so we never find ourselves in the dire situation where the breeding population consists of only a handful of individuals.
Well, I'm not going to go in-depth with questions on this subject anymore, as there is way too much denial, with none of my questions getting answered. (ex. Who were Eve's parents?) The rhetoric is enough to make me sick --- and I'm just happy to leave it with the fact that evolution is built upon beastiality and/or incest --- despite your rhetorical denials.
There is no sudden appearance. It is a gradual process*. There is no simultaneous evolution in different places needed. If you get populations evolving in different places, they will diverge and likely refuse/not be able to mate with each other when they do meet. So how do you get incest from that?
Questions like these simply show that you have not grasped that evolution is a process that occurs at a population level. You don't find individuals in a breeding population that are a different species from each other, so bestiality is not an issue. And you do find a whole population gradually evolving--not single individuals closely related to each other--so incest is not a necessity.
*Some exceptions to be noted in the case of speciation via hybridization. However, there is no indication of speciation by hybridization in the human lineage.
Gluadys, I'm not going to go into this a third (or fourth) time. I have begged and begged and begged and begged for an explanation, and just get answers like you give me.
Scientifically, you can't single out the first human being. By the time you can discriminate H. sapiens from its ancestral population, many generations have passed since any conceivable first human being was born.
Speciation is not an event such that you can pinpoint even a generation as the first human generation. Applying the label H. sapiens to a population--in distinction from other hominins, can only be done in hindsight, and only rather arbitrarily.
Singling out a particular individual in a group as H. sapiens would be even more arbitrary. Taxonomically H.sapiens are those individuals who meet the morphological criteria which taxonomists have decided will be determinative for the species.
But no individual is actually a different species than its parents, siblings, extended family or tribal group. No taxonomist's label changes that.
So it wouldn't really matter what name was put on the taxon. The first human was the same species as the population it belonged to. And any marital relations it has with another member of the population outside its nuclear family is neither bestial nor incestuous.
You ask for an explanation, yet when lemmings and gluadys go to the trouble of explaining it to you, you dismiss it as rhetoric. You did the same over in C&E and dismissed the explanations you were given there as rhetoric too. Don't you want to understand evolution before you keep making your silly claims about incest and bestiality?AV1611VET said:What kind of sentence is this?The first human was the same species as the population it belonged to.
It's this kind of rhetoric that tells me even you guys don't know what you're saying.
The first Ford ever built was like every other Ford in existence at the time?
And then you go and end it with a rhetorical question.You ask for an explanation, yet when lemmings and gluadys go to the trouble of explaining it to you, you dismiss it as rhetoric. You did the same over in C&E and dismissed the explanations you were given there as rhetoric too. Don't you want to understand evolution before you keep making your silly claims about incest and bestiality?
Absolutely not --- I'm not asking for a dissertation on evolution --- I'm asking for a very simple answer to a very simple question --- and am expecting the answer in the format of Genera-species. In other words, I'm looking for: "Homo __________ ".Don't you want to understand evolution before you keep making your silly claims about incest and bestiality?
No --- I want a straightforward answer --- what gave birth to the first Homo sapien?I am afraid your 'simple answer to a simple question' requires you dropping you misconceptions behind your simple question first. Go back over what lemmings and gluadys said and try to understand what they are saying before you try to pick holes in it.
Well, they also have lots of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen. But, the real issue is the digital code that is the genome.
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24.
They cant mate. Thats the point. Its not morphology (genitals), its not the incompatible genome that is the issue.
What kind of sentence is this?
It's this kind of rhetoric that tells me even you guys don't know what you're saying.
The first Ford ever built was like every other Ford in existence at the time?
Absolutely not --- I'm not asking for a dissertation on evolution --- I'm asking for a very simple answer to a very simple question --- .
No --- I want a straightforward answer --- what gave birth to the first Homo sapien?
... and a mammal.A hominin.
Chromosome 2 is the result of a Robertsonian translocation, 1 in a thousand people have this mutation and as a result they only have 45 chromosomes, because no genetic material was lost in the process, they can still reproduce with normal individuals with 46 chromosomes and their children may have either 45 or 46 chromosomes as a result.
Moses [and then Joshua] also wrote the [real] Book of Jasher =the Upright Record- a history of the Patriarch's, from the beginning up to the time of Joshua entering Canaan, and any details of the events are made clear in the reading of that book. Cain wandered east of Eden. Adam and Eve had sons and daughters as commanded, and multiplying of the Adam kind continued as the males and females were born, grew up, and married and had sons and daughters and so on and so forth.
And you omit or are unaware of the human genome (secular) studies which prove that the human race had a single mother some 10 - 20 k years ago.
Secular evidence will confirm no such thing. The mtDNA extracted from Mungo man shows that he was not descended from Mitochondrial Eve, and yet he was a modern human.
But even if the evidence did support your position, it's hypocritical to use science when it suits you but completely ignore it when it doesn't.
Like Downs syndrome, a red herring. This is not speciation.
Secular evidence will confirm no such thing. The mtDNA extracted from Mungo man shows that he was not descended from Mitochondrial Eve, and yet he was a modern human.
But even if the evidence did support your position, it's hypocritical to use science when it suits you but completely ignore it when it doesn't.
So you want to keep asking for a straight forward answer, instead of trying to understand why your question does not make sense. That is sad.No --- I want a straightforward answer --- what gave birth to the first Homo sapien?I am afraid your 'simple answer to a simple question' requires you dropping you misconceptions behind your simple question first. Go back over what lemmings and gluadys said and try to understand what they are saying before you try to pick holes in it.
The straightforward reading of Genesis 4:13-15 has Cain being sent to another land, and fearing a group of people who were unrelated to him.
If the only other people who existed were Adam and Eve, then who was Cain afraid of?
And more specifically, where did Cain's wife come from?
Normally, creationists will point out that because Adam was 130 when he begat Seth, the time period from Cain's birth to Abel's death may have been 100 years, allowing for plenty of time for other children of Adam and Eve to marry and have children. Thus by the time Abel was killed, there existed many descendants of Adam. Yet this completely mangles the Biblical chronology. The only other children that Adam and Eve are said to have had came after Seth (Genesis 5:4).
Furthermore, the creationist interpretation has Adam being 30 years old when Cain was born --
which is atypical of that era. Seth was 105 before he had his first child; Enosh 90, Jared 162 and Methusaleh 187. Based on this evidence, one can reasonably speculate that Adam was over 100 when he begat his first child. This would render the creationist assumption that before Seth, Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain and Abel, to be wishful thinking at best.
Creationists will further point out that Eve "was the mother of all living." However, the fire of Sodom is also said to have "destroyed them all." The fire did not wipe out everyone in the world, but only those in Sodom. Likewise, Eve did not mother everyone in the world, only those in Eden (or whichever region she was located). A similar refutation can be made for "there was not a man to till the ground".
When Paul said that through one man sin came into the world, presumably he meant that Adam was the first man to sin by disobeying God. Once again, it does not mean that sin was biologically transmitted to every human being who now exists.
the definition is as stands she was the mother of all things, now you are twisiting definitions to prove your point.
I take your point but the idea that I meant to convey, was, the Bible does not always speak in a universal context whenever it uses the words "all", "whole" and "every."
If Moses did have the YEC narrative in mind then he must've been extremely incompetent. I say this because so many intelligent people (including Francis Collins in his book) have arrived at the same conclusions as the OP.
IF evolution was the way it was done all the disciples, all the church fathers, all the true christian leaders from time beginning would have written about it. AND all people owul dhave the ooportunity to study it and see it in actual action.
they didn't and God did not turn to darwin and wallace to correct an error. that would have been unjust and unfair. Which is why we do not see evolution in action today but see the results of creation taking place every hour of the day.
what christians have to realize is that they are in disobedience to God if they try to marry a secular idea with spiritual truth.
IF evolution was the way it was done all the disciples, all the church fathers, all the true christian leaders from time beginning would have written about it. AND all people owul dhave the ooportunity to study it and see it in actual action.
they didn't and God did not turn to darwin and wallace to correct an error. that would have been unjust and unfair. Which is why we do not see evolution in action today but see the results of creation taking place every hour of the day.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?