Is Lucy the scientific "Eve"?

[RileyG]

Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia

Did human beings all descend from her (or her relatives)?

I haven't taken a science course since 2014, so my memory is a bit fuzzy, so please bear with me.

I find evolution fascinating. I wonder what our race will look like even several centuries from now!

Riley

 

[Saucy]

No. We didn't evolve.

 

[Job 33:6]

God could have created Eve as an australopithecine like Lucy. It's possible. We don't really know though. God didn't clarify on exactly when Adam and Eve existed. So to pinpoint a precise species is difficult to do. It's also not clear what the Image of God is or what it specifically means to be created in that image, and so it is further unknown what features Eve had that would have made her human as opposed to a different human-like hominid outside of God's image.

 

[SkyWriting]

Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia

Did human beings all descend from her (or her relatives)?

I haven't taken a science course since 2014, so my memory is a bit fuzzy, so please bear with me.

I find evolution fascinating. I wonder what our race will look like even several centuries from now!

Riley

Bigger brains would be useful.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia

Did human beings all descend from her (or her relatives)?

I haven't taken a science course since 2014, so my memory is a bit fuzzy, so please bear with me.

I find evolution fascinating. I wonder what our race will look like even several centuries from now!

Riley

No, Lucy isn't an "Eve." And several centuries from now, human beings will look (and be) essentially the same to what we are now since the processes of Evolution take place very, very slowly.

 

[RileyG]

Thanks for all your responses! I am very fascinated by this area, even though I did very poorly in science when I was in high school.

 

[sfs]

Did human beings all descend from her (or her relatives)?

Certainly from her relatives since all animals are related. We can't tell for sure whether we descended directly from her species but it seems pretty likely.

 

[RileyG]

Certainly from her relatives since all animals are related. We can't tell for sure whether we descended directly from her species but it seems pretty likely.

Definitely a fascinating area of study

 

[Sir Joseph]

One of the most basic doctrines of the Christian (and Catholic) faith is that we were created in the image of God and posess a soul. Animals were created separately and differently. There is no way to theologically reconcile that with a theory of man evolving from apes.

I am dismayed to hear any Christian or Catholic confess evolutionary beliefs that oppose the Bible. I understand that a majority of people today accept evolutionary theory, but believers who embrace it don't seem to understand that it counters the Genesis creation account entirely - in methods, time frames, order of events, and salvation doctrinal implications. While its rational and consistent for an Atheist to embrace evolution, it's irrational and heretical for a believer to do so since it can only be done by rejecting Moses' specific writings that were affirmed by Jesus, Peter, Paul and other New Testament authors as real, historical events.

Might I remind all Catholics and Christians that their faith lies upon the foundational scriptures of the Bible. It doesn't make sense to reject the Genesis creation and flood account which has abundant scientific evidence to support it, while holding belief in the New Testament virgin birth which has absolutely no scientific evidence or (naturalistic) biological possibility.

Either the Bible's inspired and true or it represents a false religion. To pick and choose the parts we like or don't like is to deviate from the true religion - something that gnostics and cults have done throughout history. I'd suggest that the foundation of being a believer lies upon a faith in the Word of God - the authority of the Bible. That means the Genesis historical account of creation is to be taken literally as detailed, which fortunately (and logically) is far more consistent with the scientific evidence than current Darwinian evolutionary theory.

While the secular scientists, media, and educational system promote an evolutionary world view that opposes the Bible, specifically claiming man from ape theory, I'd counter that such claims have been permeated with frauds, mistakes, and deception - and continue to be with the current star Lucy. Lucy is just one of the many examples of evolutionists giving apes man-like features or giving man ape-like features in order to validate a presupposition of man transitioning from apes. As always, the claims far exceed the actual evidence.

I encourage anyone interested in the issue to read this article and watch this video.

Did Humans Really Evolve from Apelike Creatures?

 

[BobRyan]

Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia

Did human beings all descend from her (or her relatives)?

I haven't taken a science course since 2014, so my memory is a bit fuzzy, so please bear with me.

I find evolution fascinating. I wonder what our race will look like even several centuries from now!

Riley

yes all humans descend from real literal Eve and also from the 8 family members of Noah's family

But when it comes to lucy -- I don't think so. Eve would have been a being without physical defect - made directly by God - formed of the dust of the ground according to Gen 2.

Mitochondrial Eve would be closer to the scientific point of Eve

As we might engage in the thought experiment as if to reverse the expansion in the universe to view a smaller more compact universe - so we can imagine a sequence going back in time removing every genetic defect that has been included in our genome over time.

 

[RileyG]

One of the most basic doctrines of the Christian (and Catholic) faith is that we were created in the image of God and posess a soul. Animals were created separately and differently. There is no way to theologically reconcile that with a theory of man evolving from apes.

I am dismayed to hear any Christian or Catholic confess evolutionary beliefs that oppose the Bible. I understand that a majority of people today accept evolutionary theory, but believers who embrace it don't seem to understand that it counters the Genesis creation account entirely - in methods, time frames, order of events, and salvation doctrinal implications. While its rational and consistent for an Atheist to embrace evolution, it's irrational and heretical for a believer to do so since it can only be done by rejecting Moses' specific writings that were affirmed by Jesus, Peter, Paul and other New Testament authors as real, historical events.

Might I remind all Catholics and Christians that their faith lies upon the foundational scriptures of the Bible. It doesn't make sense to reject the Genesis creation and flood account which has abundant scientific evidence to support it, while holding belief in the New Testament virgin birth which has absolutely no scientific evidence or (naturalistic) biological possibility.

Either the Bible's inspired and true or it represents a false religion. To pick and choose the parts we like or don't like is to deviate from the true religion - something that gnostics and cults have done throughout history. I'd suggest that the foundation of being a believer lies upon a faith in the Word of God - the authority of the Bible. That means the Genesis historical account of creation is to be taken literally as detailed, which fortunately (and logically) is far more consistent with the scientific evidence than current Darwinian evolutionary theory.

While the secular scientists, media, and educational system promote an evolutionary world view that opposes the Bible, specifically claiming man from ape theory, I'd counter that such claims have been permeated with frauds, mistakes, and deception - and continue to be with the current star Lucy. Lucy is just one of the many examples of evolutionists giving apes man-like features or giving man ape-like features in order to validate a presupposition of man transitioning from apes. As always, the claims far exceed the actual evidence.

I encourage anyone interested in the issue to read this article and watch this video.

Did Humans Really Evolve from Apelike Creatures?

Thank you for your input. I am kindly reminding you that Catholics are Christian. I think its perfectly reasonable for a Christian to believe in evolution from a theistic perspective. Some do not take the Genesis account of a six creation day literally.

 

[RileyG]

yes all humans descend from real literal Eve and also from the 8 family members of Noah's family

But when it comes to lucy -- I don't think so. Eve would have been a being without physical defect - made directly by God - formed of the dust of the ground according to Gen 2.

Mitochondrial Eve would be closer to the scientific point of Eve

As we might engage in the thought experiment as if to reverse the expansion in the universe to view a smaller more compact universe - so we can imagine a sequence going back in time removing every genetic defect that has been included in our genome over time.

I do not take a literal account of Genesis, but I do believe there was the first man and woman made in the image of God.

 

[Job 33:6]

Uniquely Unique | Image of God - Podcast-episodes

The question of what it means to be made in the image of God is an interesting one. One still investigated today. God could very well make us unique while still using evolution as a mechanism or component of our unique being.

 

[BobRyan]

I do not take a literal account of Genesis, but I do believe there was the first man and woman made in the image of God.

So a literal Adam and Eve but not a literal Genesis account of it?

In the Bible there is a hard-wired link in "legal code" between the literal days of Ex 20 and the 7 days of Gen 1- Gen 2.

In Ex 20:8-11 we have legal code - very clear, exact and precise.
9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2:1-3
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

And in Gen 1 each day is one single "evening and morning" rather than one eon or one age.

 

[Sheila Davis]

Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia

Did human beings all descend from her (or her relatives)?

I haven't taken a science course since 2014, so my memory is a bit fuzzy, so please bear with me.

I find evolution fascinating. I wonder what our race will look like even several centuries from now!

Riley

According to scientific evidence all of modern-day mankind are descendants from Lucy. Either she or her daughter would be considered the biblical Eve.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...d-closest-link-to-eve-our-universal-ancestor/
Is Lucy humanity's real mother? Or is it Australopithecus deyiremeda? | DW | 27.05.2015

We don't know what Adam and Eve looked like, we don't know even as an absolute when they were created, ministers teach the Earth is 6,000 years old, but the Earth is billions of years old. Ministries teach Adam and Eve's sinned almost the day they were created 6,000 years ago, forgetting the fact that they had access to the Tree of Life, who's fruit gave them instant healing, therefore a form of immortality and once they sinned that tree was taken from mankind and death entered into the world, God put them out of the garden so they wouldn't eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.
Genesis 6 _ it seems to indicate that at one point the daughters of man did not look good to the Sons of God.

Evolution as it's taught is man's way of trying to understand what God did without giving him the credit.
There is a design in all of God's creations and there are some animals, primates, who have the same type of physical design as man.
Isn't it possible when God formed man he just changed a little bit of the design and chromosomes between man and primates _ *after all the primates were first.*
And if you actually think about it, people feel that when God said let us make man in our image - it means the form of the body. Well primates have the same form - with slight variation - the length of arms - how they stand - the size - strength - etc. and fur, even though there are some hairy (in a sence furry) people.
Man is made in God's image because of the brain _ man has the capability to know good and evil, right and wrong, just an unjust - and a degree of intelligence over animals - plus man is the only one of God's creations from this Earth that has that type of knowledge. Animals don't know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil nor will they ever.
Animals can be trained to respond to certain commands, they have sense enough to know when a person is happy or dissatisfied with what they do. Out in the wild animals have a system of government, primates know how to use simple tools and build simple living areas - but a sense of Good and evil all animals lack except man. And man was the only one God breathed the breath of life into.

Yes it is possible Lucy is the mother of mankind or she is a first daughter - a few years back they named her as such. Now ???
Mitochondrial Eve: The Mother of All Human Beings

Lucy: Mother of Us All……..and Mitochondrial Eve!


A question I can't find an answer to _ she's over three million years old - is she considered the mother of the Neanderthal and the homo erectus also, as well as all hominoids/humanoids - both of which migrated from Africa before the homosapien and continue their evolutionary phase in the northern lands.
Every now and then I can find an article who will say directly the ancestor of the Neanderthal migrated from Africa - most don't, only that they evolved in Europe.
In the article from Live Science below under Origin of Caveman it states the neanderthal migrated from Africa....
Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives

The homo erectus originated in Africa too
The first migrations out of Africa

Biblically - the sons of God took the daughters of man all of which they choose. They spliced their DNA with that of humans.

So it's possible that Lucy is the mother of us all created by God and her offspring tampered with.

 

[BobRyan]

According to scientific evidence all of modern-day mankind are descendants from Lucy. Either she or her daughter would be considered the biblical Eve.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...d-closest-link-to-eve-our-universal-ancestor/
Is Lucy humanity's real mother? Or is it Australopithecus deyiremeda? | DW | 27.05.2015

That first link does not point to Lucy -

"A man who died in 315 BC in southern Africa is the closest relative yet known to humanity’s common female ancestor – mitochondrial Eve".
​

All it does is add that there has to be a mitochondrial Eve due to the way that mitochondrial DNA is preserved.

That second link says this

"Lucy has been regarded as the likely "mother of mankind" for decades, but scientists now say she might be something more like an aunt to modern humans. Our maternal respects could be owed to a newly found set of bones."​

Another "set of bones" rather than "matching mitochondrial DNA set for those bones and modern humans"? And it adds -

"However, four years ago, anthropologists found a 3.3-3.5 million-year-old lower jaw, fragments and teeth from at least three individuals - just 50 kilometers (30 miles) from where a dig had found the Lucy bones."​

So then a whole lot of "guessing" being "inserted here" to get that to be replace the historic account in the Word of God.

 

[BobRyan]

Biblically - the sons of God took the daughters of man all of which they choose. They spliced their DNA with that of humans.

humans are called "the sons of God" according to the Bible.

Rom 8:14 "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God."

Luke 4 says Adam is considered to be the "son of God" - since he has no other father but rather was directly created by God.

In both of those examples -- it is "humans"

In Matt 22 Jesus said that angels do not have the biological function of forming family units even within their own species much less across other species.

===========

So then "humans" as the "sons of God" in Gen 6 -- cannot be ruled out offhand.

 

[BobRyan]

deleted

 

[RileyG]

So a literal Adam and Eve but not a literal Genesis account of it?

In the Bible there is a hard-wired link in "legal code" between the literal days of Ex 20 and the 7 days of Gen 1- Gen 2.

In Ex 20:8-11 we have legal code - very clear, exact and precise.
9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2:1-3
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

And in Gen 1 each day is one single "evening and morning" rather than one eon or one age.

Basically yes. I cannot ignore the massive evidence for evolution, sorry. I do not believe the day and evening in Genesis were literal 24 hours.

 

[GenemZ]

God could have created Eve as an australopithecine like Lucy. It's possible. We don't really know though. God didn't clarify on exactly when Adam and Eve existed. So to pinpoint a precise species is difficult to do. It's also not clear what the Image of God is or what it specifically means to be created in that image, and so it is further unknown what features Eve had that would have made her human as opposed to a different human-like hominid outside of God's image.

God created (out from nothing) male and female in His image.

Created = 'bara' in the Hebrew.

In Genesis 2, providing the bodies used different words in the Hebrew.
Gen 2 = "Jatsar and bana." Not bara.

The bodies were not created [bara] - out from nothing, like what was created in Genesis 1:27.

It was the male and female souls that were created in His image, but not the bodies.