Theistic evolutionists: was Adam a specific person?

juvenissun · May 12, 2015

sfs said:
In the case of white tigers, it is a single mutation. But take a real case like skin pigmentation in humans. Lighter skin has been selected for as humans have moved away from the tropics, and multiple mutations in multiple genes have spread in the population. In fact, different genes were involved in Asia and in Europe (with some overlap).

In this kind of situation, there's no reason at all that the same mutation would have to occur in different individuals. (Sometimes it does happen, e.g. the sickle cell mutation has occurred multiple times, as has the mutation conferring lactose tolerance.) Instead, one person has one mutation that makes skin somewhat lighter. That's selected for and spreads in his descendants. Someone else, at a different time, has a different mutation in another gene that also makes skin somewhat lighter. That one spreads through her descendants. Eventually, some individuals inherit both new variants, and their skin is even lighter and their descendants do even better than those with the single mutation.

So the exact same mutation could take place in multiple people of different lineage. I would say this must be driven by the same environmental factors.

So, we have this situation:

Environment A --> drives mutation A --> make individuals fits better to environment A --> the mutation A gets higher frequency.

I guess it should be correct.

If so, why would the original population be a problem? What is the difference between 1 individual and 1000 individuals at the very beginning? As long as the environment is stable, the frequency will steadily increase anyway.

sfs · May 12, 2015

juvenissun said:
So the exact same mutation could take place in multiple people of different lineage.

Could, but usually doesn't.

I would say this must be driven by the same environmental factors.

So, we have this situation:

Environment A --> drives mutation A --> make individuals fits better to environment A --> the mutation A gets higher frequency.

The environment doesn't drive the mutation to occur; it just makes it more likely to stick around so you'll see it later.

If so, why would the original population be a problem? What is the difference between 1 individual and 1000 individuals at the very beginning? As long as the environment is stable, the frequency will steadily increase anyway.

For reasons I previously explained: you will not find millions of rare to very rare variants if the population has expanded very rapidly from a small number of founders.

sfs · May 12, 2015

juvenissun said:
If so, why do we have a number of cases of white tiger, but zero case of red tiger green tiger or black tiger? I would think a green tiger is even more environmentally advantageous.

Because white tigers are easy to get biologically. If a mutation disrupts the production of skin pigment, you have a white tiger. Red, green or black would require the production something new, which usually requires more than a single, simple mutation.

Paul of Eugene OR · May 12, 2015

juvenissun said:
Thanks for the patience. But I still do not understand the idea of "frequency".

The mutations passed to you from your father would be totally different from the mutations you passed to your child. Right? Because the same mutation seldom or never repeats itself (right?).

According to what you said, the above understanding must be wrong. But why? What is the chance to have two DNA mutated exactly the same way?

Well, if my father had a mutation, I have the mutated gene. Without further mutation, that mutated gene goes on to the next generation.

Because that mutation makes me . . . and subsequently my kids . . . to be very very smart, it improves the chances they will have kids themselves and take good care of them.

Or perhaps the opposite.

You seem to imply that if no mutation occurs in me, that my father's mutation doesn't make it to his grandkids. Well, it does, because the mutation, once it happens, takes its place as part of what our family transmits in its DNA.

Does that help make it more clear?

Willtor · May 12, 2015

juvenissun said:
m

I don't care how people use log scale to shrink the apparent value of number, the fact is it is a big number, and it means the chance is not only "less likely", but is very very unlikely. The emphasis must be given.

You should care. This is kind of important. It's all about relative likelihoods. It isn't that they want to shrink the apparent value of the numbers -- it's that comparing the numbers becomes increasingly hard to do for computers as the numbers approach zero.

juvenissun said:
If so, why do we have a number of cases of white tiger, but zero case of red tiger green tiger or black tiger? I would think a green tiger is even more environmentally advantageous.

sfs has a good response.

juvenissun said:
Now, back to the old question: Why should "Adam" represent a large number of humans, rather than a single human? I don't see a reason for that from the genetic (mutation) point of view.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think sin is a genetic thing. If it were, we could eventually just use gene therapy to remove it. But I don't think that's how things work. Genetics seems like an irrelevant issue to the matter.

juvenissun · May 14, 2015

sfs said:
Because white tigers are easy to get biologically. If a mutation disrupts the production of skin pigment, you have a white tiger. Red, green or black would require the production something new, which usually requires more than a single, simple mutation.

Pretty good answer. Thanks.

juvenissun · May 14, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Well, if my father had a mutation, I have the mutated gene. Without further mutation, that mutated gene goes on to the next generation.

Because that mutation makes me . . . and subsequently my kids . . . to be very very smart, it improves the chances they will have kids themselves and take good care of them.

Or perhaps the opposite.

You seem to imply that if no mutation occurs in me, that my father's mutation doesn't make it to his grandkids. Well, it does, because the mutation, once it happens, takes its place as part of what our family transmits in its DNA.

Does that help make it more clear?

Not sure. I learned (in this thread) that once the frequency becomes zero, then that particular mutation disappeared. So if your father's children do not inherit one of his particular mutation, the effect of that mutation is ended and will not show up again in your children or grand children.

Right? sfs or Willtor?

Colter · May 14, 2015

Aggie said:
There's something I'm curious about this forum's Christian theistic evolutionists: do you consider Adam to have been a specific person? As I understand it, there are two points of view about this, and I'm curious which of the two is more popular.

The first view is that Adam was not a specific person, and instead is meant as a metaphor for all of humanity. This is the view presented in Peter Enns' book The Evolution of Adam. The shortcoming of this view is that Paul clearly refers to Adam as having been a specific person in a few of his epistles, especially in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. If one accepts this view about Adam, it seems necessary to say either that Paul was mistaken about the meaning of this part of Genesis, or that he used an argument that he didn't personally believe because he felt it would be persuasive to his audience (which is Enns' view).

The second view is that Adam and Eve were specific people, but were descended from earlier hominids, and that they were the first primitive humans to be subject to God's laws. Tim Keller argues for that view in this paper. The shortcoming of this view is that seems to clash with what we know about human history and genetics. There's no point in human history when our ancestors consisted of a single pair of individuals, so Adam and Even would've had to not be the only people alive at the time. A more difficult issue is the genetic evidence that humans interbred with Neanderthals, and that Neanderthal DNA makes up a few percent of the human genome. Would humans and Neanderthals both be descended from Adam and Eve (meaning Adam and Eve were Homo heidelbergensis or something more primitive), or did Adam and Eve's descendants interbreed with a species that God considered non-human?

My goal for raising this question is not to criticize Christian theistic evolutionists; I'm genuinely curious how they answer it. Also note that although I know this topic would probably be better suited for Origins Theology, in my understanding that section is Christians-only, so as a Deist I can only ask this question here rather than there.

Yes, In my theology Adam & Eve preexisted in heaven, they incarnate (materialized) on our evolutionary world long after the Lucifer insurrection had taken place, they were on a mission of redemption, they were the new leaders, visible representatives of the universe government. Adam and Eve were of a unique genetic composition which was an additional race for our fallen world. Tragically after a period of time the former and disgraced high administrator, who had fallen, the "crafty beast" was able to outflank Eve and thwart the mission. The story of those ancient times was carried by oral tradition for tens of thousands of years up until it was incorporated into the Hebrews narratives in Babylon, a time when all the OT books were redacted.

Traces of these things can be seen in the fragmented records of the creation story.

juvenissun · May 14, 2015

sfs said:
↑

So the exact same mutation could take place in multiple people of different lineage.

Click to expand...

Could, but usually doesn't.

Now, some questions of imagination:

It would take many mutations, one after another, for a human to be evolved. Is that a general understanding?

That means: it would take mutation A --> mutation B --> etc. --> mutation N to make the first human appear.

If so, how many "original" human were there? One or many?

sfs · May 14, 2015

juvenissun said:
Not sure. I learned (in this thread) that once the frequency becomes zero, then that particular mutation disappeared. So if your father's children do not inherit one of his particular mutation, the effect of that mutation is ended and will not show up again in your children or grand children.

Right? sfs or Willtor?

Right. Unless the identical mutation occurs again at exactly the same spot, it's gone forever.

sfs · May 14, 2015

juvenissun said:
Now, some questions of imagination:

It would take many mutations, one after another, for a human to be evolved. Is that a general understanding?

That means: it would take mutation A --> mutation B --> etc. --> mutation N to make the first human appear.

If so, how many "original" human were there? One or many?

There was no original human, because there is no sharp dividing line between humans and pre-humans. There was a population of animals that became more and more human with time, but each member had a slightly different set of traits, as we still do today. It's like asking who the first speaker of French was. Was it one person or a group?

juvenissun · May 14, 2015

sfs said:
There was no original human, because there is no sharp dividing line between humans and pre-humans. There was a population of animals that became more and more human with time, but each member had a slightly different set of traits, as we still do today. It's like asking who the first speaker of French was. Was it one person or a group?

Finally. Now tell me this: What do you mean by that Adam represents a group of people? Quote your words: a large number of people.

Papias · May 15, 2015

Juvi wrote:

juvenissun said:
Finally. Now tell me this: What do you mean by that Adam represents a group of people? Quote your words: a large number of people.

Now Juvi, as we've discussed many times, Adam could be seen as a group, or a single person. If you are interested in how Adam works as a single person, then I described in great detail for you how Adam as a single, real, historical person works (and is fully consistent with the evidence) in posts #43 and #70 in this thread. If you are unclear on those, then go back and read them.

If you are interested in Adam as representing a group of people (sfs's position), then he'll clarify that. However, if you don't like that for some reason, there are always posts #43 and #70 for you.

In Christ-

Papias

JacksBratt · May 15, 2015

sfs said:
There was no original human, because there is no sharp dividing line between humans and pre-humans. There was a population of animals that became more and more human with time, but each member had a slightly different set of traits, as we still do today. It's like asking who the first speaker of French was. Was it one person or a group?

So, I'm a bit confused. If there were no "original humans", how did two different evolved humanoids end up being able to mate if they came from a species that we cannot mate with. The odds are way out there that two separately mutating beings from one kind (meaning that they can mate) ending up, somehow, mutating or "changing" to beings that can mate with each other but not with their original ancestor?

sfs · May 15, 2015

juvenissun said:
Finally. Now tell me this: What do you mean by that Adam represents a group of people? Quote your words: a large number of people.

I don't think that Adam represents a group of people. What other people mean by that I could guess, but you're better off asking them. I think Adam is a some combination of mythical, legendary and literary; I don't think of him as historical at all.

sfs · May 15, 2015

JacksBratt said:
So, I'm a bit confused. If there were no "original humans", how did two different evolved humanoids end up being able to mate if they came from a species that we cannot mate with. The odds are way out there that two separately mutating beings from one kind (meaning that they can mate) ending up, somehow, mutating or "changing" to beings that can mate with each other but not with their original ancestor?

How did you calculate those odds? I'm a differently evolved humanoid from my wife, but we've managed to mate successfully and produce two offspring. We have different collections of mutated genes, but all of the differences are quite small. And the differences between us and our children are small. But if you let small differences every generation accumulate for a hundred thousand generations, then yes, the total difference will be large. Large enough that it would be surprising if they could still successfully mate.

juvenissun · May 15, 2015

sfs said:
I don't think that Adam represents a group of people. What other people mean by that I could guess, but you're better off asking them. I think Adam is a some combination of mythical, legendary and literary; I don't think of him as historical at all.

It does not matter how to interpret the meaning of Adam. You suggested that when humans were evolved, the population of the evolving group is not an individual, but is much more than an individual. They all evolved together into human.

How would this idea fit the nature of mutation? Every lineage mutated its own way. How many of these lineages should be there? How to they merge and/or diverge? How many human species would be the consequence? What are the controlling factors? (Sorry, it seems to be too many big questions. You may pick the question to answer).

sfs · May 15, 2015

juvenissun said:
It does not matter how to interpret the meaning of Adam. You suggested that when humans were evolved, the population of the evolving group is not an individual, but is much more than an individual. They all evolved together into human.

How would this idea fit the nature of mutation? Every lineage mutated its own way. How many of these lineages should be there? How to they merge and/or diverge? How many human species would be the consequence? What are the controlling factors? (Sorry, it seems to be too many big questions. You may pick the question to answer).

Unfortunately, I don't really understand what any of your questions mean. What do you mean by a lineage here? We've already explained how mutations work in an evolving population; I thought you now understood that. Lots of mutations happen, all the time. Some of them are lost by chance, or because they're deleterious. Some of them spread through the descendants, and eventually take over the population. At any given time, there are lots of mutations that are distributed across all of the individuals in the population. Because the genetic information in the population keeps changing, the population's characteristics keep changing too.

juvenissun · May 16, 2015

sfs said:
Unfortunately, I don't really understand what any of your questions mean. What do you mean by a lineage here? We've already explained how mutations work in an evolving population; I thought you now understood that. Lots of mutations happen, all the time. Some of them are lost by chance, or because they're deleterious. Some of them spread through the descendants, and eventually take over the population. At any given time, there are lots of mutations that are distributed across all of the individuals in the population. Because the genetic information in the population keeps changing, the population's characteristics keep changing too.

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?

driewerf · May 16, 2015

juvenissun said:
For ALL Jewish people 2000 years ago, Adam was a REAL person. There is not a single verse in the OT or NT (or in ANY other literature of that time) which says or implies otherwise.

So what? For the next 2000 years the Jews believed and still believe Jesus was not the Messiah, the son of god. Believing something for 2000 years (even with a lot of people believing it) doesn't make something true

Paul was not a TE.

Neither was he a republican or an abolitionist. He didn't quit smoking or drank pesi coke....

Theistic evolutionists: was Adam a specific person?

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Member

Senior Member

Finally Old Enough

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Member

Senior Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Listening to TW4

Searching for Truth

Senior Member

Senior Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Member

... and God saw that it was good.

a day at the Zoo

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency