Theistic evolutionists: was Adam a specific person?

[sfs]

So, your saying that my great great.......x10000 granddaughter could not have children with my neighbors son?

Depends. If your neighbor's son moves to a different continent and nobody else travels between the continents for the next 10,000 generations ... well, that still probably won't be long enough. But if it's 100,000 generations? Yes, I'm saying that your very distant offspring and my very distant offspring would probably not be able to mate successfully, if the two populations they're in had been isolated for that many years.

If it is that easy to be non compatible, sexually, with another ancestor, how did two humanoids evolve, separately, from two other humanoid beings and be compatible enough to mate? Your telling me that a generation of human ancestor beings in one area, had offspring that could not mate with their own kind, however, two of these new beings could mate with each other?

Everyone in a single population is related to one another, so they mostly share the same genetic changes. That means they're biologically similar to one another to mate. And no, I'm not telling you that in one generation you become unable to mate with one another. But 100,000 generations? You bet. We each have ~75 new mutations. Every single generation. After 100,000 generations, that means two descendants in isolated populations will differ from one another by 15 million changes in their DNA. You don't think 15 million genetic differences might have some effect on their ability to breed? Please explain your reasoning.

Sorry, I'm not taking those odds on any day. Here, in my opinion, evolution has painted itself in a corner.

Since your opinion seems to be based on knowing just about nothing about evolution, I find it hard to believe that even you take yourself seriously on the subject.

Just the way it did when it stated that two asexual beings separately evolved to having offspring that one was a male and one was a female that were compatible with each other......even if one asexual being evolved by having two of its offspring being one male and one female that were sexually compatible.... boggles the mind.

Case in point. You've just made up something about evolution out of whole cloth, and based your opinion on it. Does it bother you that your opinion is based on fiction?

 

[Willtor]

Given enough time, would it be reasonable to assume that Adam and Eve are real persons?

In principle, yes. Practically, from the evidence, no. What you're talking about is called a "genetic bottleneck" where the population becomes tiny for a while. Humanity is thought to have had a genetic bottleneck ~70,000 years ago. However, the population was probably on the order of 10,000, not 2.

Now, none of this negates an historical Adam and Eve -- merely, it negates the possibility that they were the only two of their species.

 

[Willtor]

So, your saying that my great great.......x10000 granddaughter could not have children with my neighbors son?

If it is that easy to be non compatible, sexually, with another ancestor, how did two humanoids evolve, separately, from two other humanoid beings and be compatible enough to mate? Your telling me that a generation of human ancestor beings in one area, had offspring that could not mate with their own kind, however, two of these new beings could mate with each other?

Sorry, I'm not taking those odds on any day. Here, in my opinion, evolution has painted itself in a corner. Just the way it did when it stated that two asexual beings separately evolved to having offspring that one was a male and one was a female that were compatible with each other......even if one asexual being evolved by having two of its offspring being one male and one female that were sexually compatible.... boggles the mind.

This is called speciation, and we observe it both in the laboratory and in nature. You say you don't like the odds: Is that just an off-handed comment, or are you actually performing calculations with numbers you can share?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

OK. Let me turn back to some basics:

Suppose we have 10 mutations took place in 10 individuals who live in a community: Mutation A, Mutation B .... etc.
With the increase of descendants on each individual, let's assume 5 mutations gained increase on its frequency: Mutation A, B, C, D, and E.

First question: It seems you suggested that the effect of these five mutations could be "combined" to manifest an overall change of characteristics of the population. If this is correct, then how is it done? For example, if one inherited mutation A mated with another one inherited mutation B, would their offsprings start to show the effect of mutation A or mutation B, AND/or mutation (A+B), which is a NEW character in the population? Could we call the mutation(A+B) a new mutation and labelled it as Mutation F, and may start to gain increase on its frequency?

A + B would combine, sometimes, in the generations following and it depends what they are. Does one change the skin color while the other changes the length of the fingers? In that case, they each do their thing without interfering with each other. Does one change the skin color while the other makes the skin thicker? Those mutations might interact somehow. In any case, while every mutation begins in a single individual, some mutations are lucky enough to be represented more and more in the generations to come, especially if they promote reproduction somehow.