Genetics and Adam and Eve

[amortalman]

I began to wonder about this after reading a post by rikuoamero wherein he made mention of it. It sounded like a worthy subject to explore.

So the question for debate is:

Does genetics disprove a literal Adam and Eve?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 97 by John Bauer]

Indeed, that's precisely why genetics doesn't (and can't) disprove a literal Adam and Eve.

Sure ... if you define Adam and Eve as two random people who happened to live in the Middle East some 7000 years ago. But that is NOT how Genesis describes them (see comment in your other OP). If you take the biblical description literally, which is that Adam and Eve were the first humans and "creation" happened only ~7000 years ago, then genetics can and does answer that question and the answer is that they were not the first humans. Anatomically modern humans first appeared some 300,000 or so years ago, give or take about 100,000 years, based on the most recent fossil finds in Morocco:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06 ... nd-morocco

and the Omo remains:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omo_remains

and others in Israel and other places. 7,000 years ago is not remotely close to these numbers, and the other comments about some event where god came into the scene 7000 years ago isn't science or supported by science so is a little out of place in this Science and Religion section.

Second, denying that they were the first humans doesn't break the story at all because, so far as I know, the story never included such a thing. You claim otherwise but without any substantiation.

My substantiation is the first book of the Christian bible called Genesis (see comments in the other thread).

Huh? What are you asking here? I mean, "some generic couple" would be constituted by "two specific individuals," right? That isn't necessarily two different things. So yeah, how you are expressing yourself is very confusing to me.

Why is this confusing? I'm asking if Adam and Eve, in your view, are specifically the couple described in Genesis, or if they are only representations of humans in general and NOT that specific couple. These are different things entirely.

The natural history of evolution happened over hundreds of millions of years until, around 7,000 years ago, the dawn of redemptive history rose on the scene of natural history as God entered into covenant relationship with mankind in Adam.

Pure speculation and not a science issue, and not consistent with the Genesis creation myth if that is taken literally, which I thought was the whole point of this discussion viz a viz genetics disproving a literal Adam and Eve. If this story is not taken literally, then what does the term "literal Adam and Eve" even mean?

Second, there was indeed a literal Adam and Eve as described in the Bible.

Sorry, but science has shown that this is wrong. The entire creation myth of Genesis is wrong in every detail. That is not how things happened.

P.S. Could you do me a favor and translate this sentence of yours into English? Try as I might, I simply cannot figure out what you're trying to say here:

"Since genetics cares nothing about what someone's name is, I don't see how any kind of connection could be made between genetics studies with respect to these two people, and whether or not they literally existed."

I don't know how I could make that any clearer or simpler. The original question was whether genetics disproved a literal Adam and Eve. But you seem to be defining an Adam and Eve that are not the two described in the bible (reading Genesis literally, of course) so there is no way to apply genetics to determine whether they existed or not because their definition is too ambiguous. If they are taken to be as described in Genesis ... ie. the first humans created by god ... then genetics can be applied and it shows that they are not.

As far as I can tell, you are making up a new definition of Adam and Eve that is not consistent with the biblical description (ie. the first humans), but instead are a generic couple living in the Middle East who god happened to choose to make some kind of covenant with where Adam represents mankind. That removes any chance to answer the original question in the OP, which appears to refer explicitly to the version of Adam and Eve described in Genesis as the first humans, and not some generic couple who lived 7000 years ago. Genetics can address one case (the one described in Genesis), but not the other (your particular definition of Adam and Eve).

[John Human]

The original question was whether genetics disproved a literal Adam and Eve. But you seem to be defining an Adam and Eve that are not the two described in the bible (reading Genesis literally, of course) so there is no way to apply genetics to determine whether they existed or not because their definition is too ambiguous. If they are taken to be as described in Genesis ... ie. the first humans created by god ... then genetics can be applied and it shows that they are not.

As far as I can tell, you are making up a new definition of Adam and Eve that is not consistent with the biblical description (ie. the first humans), but instead are a generic couple living in the Middle East who god happened to choose to make some kind of covenant with where Adam represents mankind. That removes any chance to answer the original question in the OP, which appears to refer explicitly to the version of Adam and Eve described in Genesis as the first humans, and not some generic couple who lived 7000 years ago. Genetics can address one case (the one described in Genesis), but not the other (your particular definition of Adam and Eve).

Ancient Demon speaks: [font=Courier New]"There was a tradition among the leading families in the Hebrew land. Jesus was the reincarnation of Adam. The sin of Adam would be paid for by Jesus. The families understood that Jesus accepted. The families also understood that Jesus had a claim to be the king. The families knew that the Romans would kill. Jesus knew. There was no doubt. Jesus accepted and acted. Ancient Demon observed and helped, as has been described."[/font]

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 98 by DrNoGods]

I suspect that consciously or unconsciously John Bauer is attempting to make the identification of Adam and Eve as far removed from any attempt at falsification as possible. If we go with what you say, DrnoGods, we have something to go on, and we can investigate to see if the literal Adam and Eve ever existed, if there's evidence out in the real world to support their existence. We not only lack that evidence, we find evidence that negates any possibility of such.
However, if we go with John's approach...we can't prove or disprove the existence of this specific couple. They're generic, nameless individuals about whom virtually nothing is known about or can be known about. There's nothing to tie them down to any particular place or time period.
Theologically speaking, John apparently (at least he's made no mention of it) has forgotten about the doctrine of original sin. All humans are supposedly descended from Adam and Eve, and have inherited their sin, and thus, this is why Jesus had to die on the cross. However...if John is saying that his A&E couple lived about 7,000 years ago AND he's supportive of an old earth...then his couple are not ancestors of all humans on Earth. They'd probably have some descendants, but Mitochrondial Eve or Y-chromosomal Adam (not to be confused with John's couple) lived tens of thousands years before John's couple.

[John Bauer]

Sure, [genetics can't disprove a literal Adam and Eve] if you define [them] as two random people who happened to live in the Middle East some 7000 years ago. But that is NOT how Genesis describes them (see comment in your other OP). If you take the biblical description literally, which is that Adam and Eve were the first humans and "creation" happened only ~7000 years ago [...]

That is your claim, yes. And I suspect that it's baseless for reasons that will be shown in that other thread.

The other comments about some event where God came into the scene 7000 years ago isn't science or supported by science so is a little out of place in this Science and Religion section.

I'm sorry, but ... *chuckle* ... in the Science and what section?

Ah, right.

None of this is any more out of place in Science and Religion than your biblical claims about interpreting Genesis.

(Re: "two specific individuals" vs. "some generic couple")

Why is this confusing? I'm asking if Adam and Eve, in your view, are specifically the couple described in Genesis, or if they are only representations of humans in general and NOT that specific couple. These are different things entirely.

It's confusing, sir, because I thought we were discussing a "literal" Adam and Eve. You see, the very subject matter of our discussion had already precluded a "symbolic" couple that represents humans in general. So there was no way that you could be asking about a symbolic Adam and Eve. Hence my confusion.

Except maybe you were, which would be bad form.

(Re: Natural history in the context of redemptive history)

Pure speculation and not a science issue [...]

No, it's a Science and Religion issue, as I understand it. The point of contact between natural history (science) and redemptive history (religion) seems entirely appropriate.

Just out of curiousity, if what I had said was "pure speculation," what are we to make of your claims about Genesis?

[...] and not consistent with the Genesis creation myth if that is taken literally, which I thought was the whole point of this discussion viz a viz genetics disproving a literal Adam and Eve. If this story is not taken literally, then what does the term "literal Adam and Eve" even mean?

You think that's a literal interpretation of Genesis, is that it? This other thread is going to be a lot of fun, then.

In the context of this discussion, I took "literal" to mean an Adam and Eve that actually existed, as opposed to non-literal or mythological or symbolic. A literal Adam and Eve, a couple who actually existed, does not require their being the first humans. Some people believe they were (e.g., Ken Ham), others believe they were not (e.g., John Bauer), but in both cases they are held to be a literal, historical, flesh-and-blood couple.

The entire creation myth of Genesis is wrong in every detail. That is not how things happened.

Maybe. You'll get your chance in that other thread.

The original question was whether genetics disproved a literal Adam and Eve. But you seem to be defining an Adam and Eve that are not the two described in the Bible (reading Genesis literally, of course) [...]

I am talking about a literal Adam and Eve, which therefore relates directly to the original question. Conversely, you seem to be maintaining an invalid conclusion that if they weren't the first humans then they were non-literal. That is an argument whose conclusion is not supported by its premises (non-sequitur).

(We'll get to Genesis in that other thread.)

As far as I can tell, you are making up a new definition of Adam and Eve that is not consistent with the biblical description (ie. the first humans), but instead are a generic couple living in the Middle East who God happened to choose to make some kind of covenant with where Adam represents mankind.

You will be able to defend this claim of yours (that Genesis describes them as the first humans) in the other thread. In the meantime, you have described my view fairly accurately. I appreciate that.

That removes any chance to answer the original question in the OP, which appears to refer explicitly to the version of Adam and Eve described in Genesis as the first humans

No, the OP referred to a literal Adam and Eve—as opposed to a non-literal (mythological, symbolic, metaphorical) couple. And my view does answer the question, in the negative: Genetics disproves a single mating pair of humans but it does not disprove a literal Adam and Eve.

[rikuoamero]

The original question was whether genetics disproved a literal Adam and Eve. But you seem to be defining an Adam and Eve that are not the two described in the bible (reading Genesis literally, of course) so there is no way to apply genetics to determine whether they existed or not because their definition is too ambiguous. If they are taken to be as described in Genesis ... ie. the first humans created by god ... then genetics can be applied and it shows that they are not.

As far as I can tell, you are making up a new definition of Adam and Eve that is not consistent with the biblical description (ie. the first humans), but instead are a generic couple living in the Middle East who god happened to choose to make some kind of covenant with where Adam represents mankind. That removes any chance to answer the original question in the OP, which appears to refer explicitly to the version of Adam and Eve described in Genesis as the first humans, and not some generic couple who lived 7000 years ago. Genetics can address one case (the one described in Genesis), but not the other (your particular definition of Adam and Eve).

Ancient Demon speaks: [font=Courier New]"There was a tradition among the leading families in the Hebrew land. Jesus was the reincarnation of Adam. The sin of Adam would be paid for by Jesus. The families understood that Jesus accepted. The families also understood that Jesus had a claim to be the king. The families knew that the Romans would kill. Jesus knew. There was no doubt. Jesus accepted and acted. Ancient Demon observed and helped, as has been described."[/font]

Why do you post "Ancient Demon Speaks" when it is obvious it is an invention of yours? There's no point to writing what this "demon" "says" as though you're trying to convince people that this is an actual demon who's very old, who was there in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago and can give us first hand information. Even the other Christians on this site are very unlikely to give any credibility to this.

[John Human]

The original question was whether genetics disproved a literal Adam and Eve. But you seem to be defining an Adam and Eve that are not the two described in the bible (reading Genesis literally, of course) so there is no way to apply genetics to determine whether they existed or not because their definition is too ambiguous. If they are taken to be as described in Genesis ... ie. the first humans created by god ... then genetics can be applied and it shows that they are not.

As far as I can tell, you are making up a new definition of Adam and Eve that is not consistent with the biblical description (ie. the first humans), but instead are a generic couple living in the Middle East who god happened to choose to make some kind of covenant with where Adam represents mankind. That removes any chance to answer the original question in the OP, which appears to refer explicitly to the version of Adam and Eve described in Genesis as the first humans, and not some generic couple who lived 7000 years ago. Genetics can address one case (the one described in Genesis), but not the other (your particular definition of Adam and Eve).

Ancient Demon speaks: [font=Courier New]"There was a tradition among the leading families in the Hebrew land. Jesus was the reincarnation of Adam. The sin of Adam would be paid for by Jesus. The families understood that Jesus accepted. The families also understood that Jesus had a claim to be the king. The families knew that the Romans would kill. Jesus knew. There was no doubt. Jesus accepted and acted. Ancient Demon observed and helped, as has been described."[/font]

Why do you post "Ancient Demon Speaks" when it is obvious it is an invention of yours?

You have no basis for your false supposition that Ancient Demon's words were an invention of mine. The words that I quoted were not my own words. Ancient Demon is not an invention of mine. It is the sole remaining demon of the royal demons of ancient Israel. There is also a single remaining ancient Hebrew temple demon, who paid a terrible price to survive. The lengthy stories of both demons are here: http://earthwarning.org/index.php/here-be-demons/

Of course you and others are welcome to question and/or disbelieve all of that. However, the stories exist, and I did not create them. I simply typed, as I do with the stories of dozens of deceased ancestors, which I have also posted online. Of course you are welcome to question the origin of those stories also, but the simple fact is that I did not create them.

Ancient Demon asked me to share its view regarding the believed link between Jesus and Adam. I think it is well worth considering, in light of John Bauer's supposition that Adam was not the genetic original human. My own view on this subject is related but different:

Adam had a son Seth who married a woman (as recorded in the Bible). There is no reason to suppose that the wife of Seth was his sister. Therefore, the Adam of the Bible, while he might conceivably have been the progenitor of the group that eventually descended to the Hebrews, was not the very first human to exist, as implied in the Bible by the fact that Seth had a wife.

Regarding the genetics of the matter, I have discussed this on another thread: If there was a single genetic "Adam and Eve" couple who magically appeared through matching speciation events, their offspring would die out within a few generations because inbreeding leads to sterility. Therefore, disproving silly Darwinian "speciation by means of natural selection" fantasy, there must have been an adequate gene pool at the very beginning of the human species, sufficient to maintain the genetic diversity necessary to prevent the new species from simply snuffing itself out through inbreeding.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 100 by rikuoamero]

I suspect that consciously or unconsciously John Bauer is attempting to make the identification of Adam and Eve as far removed from any attempt at falsification as possible.

Yes, that seems to be the standard tactic for unusual ideas that can't be supported (in this case that there were millions of other people around at the time of Adam and Eve in early Genesis ). Take an all defensive approach and avoid the primary issue, or deflect the conversation in some way to avoid it.

So JB ... what support can you offer for your claim that Adam and Eve where just two among millions of humans, and not the pair described in Genesis? You can't twist the Genesis narrative so much that it allows for millions of other people at the time, or at least you haven't tried.

But this is the crux of your argument ... that they were just 2 of millions and god chose them (or at least Adam) for some kind of covenant. As Riku said ... this situation is not available for genetics to weigh in on, while the biblical description is (ie. they were the first humans on this planet). Your "millions of people" idea has no basis in Genesis, which is the defining text for the Adam and Eve story.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 103 by John Human]

Ancient Demon asked me to share its view regarding the believed link between Jesus and Adam.

Really? This demon spoke to you? How did that happen?

My own view on this subject is related but different:

Of course it is. What you guys (you and JB here) are missing is that the creation story of Genesis, and other stories like Noah's flood, are MYTHS! THey didn't actually happen. When you're creating a mythical story you can make up any parts that you like and it is fine, because it is not real. The nature of Seth's wife is irrelevant because Seth was not a real person, and neither was his wife, or Adam, or Eve.

These are mythical people that are part of a creation narrative from a 2000+ year old text when science knowledge was nearly nonexistent. There's no point trying to justify the details, or make them compatible with modern science. It is fiction.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 101 by John Bauer]

I'm sorry, but ... *chuckle* ... in the Science and what section?

From the Forum Guidelines for this section:

"This subforum is designed to foster debate on issues which intersect science and religion"

Note the word "intersect."

[John Human]

[Replying to post 103 by John Human]

Ancient Demon asked me to share its view regarding the believed link between Jesus and Adam.

Really? This demon spoke to you? How did that happen?

My own view on this subject is related but different:

Of course it is. What you guys (you and JB here) are missing is that the creation story of Genesis, and other stories like Noah's flood, are MYTHS! THey didn't actually happen. When you're creating a mythical story you can make up any parts that you like and it is fine, because it is not real. The nature of Seth's wife is irrelevant because Seth was not a real person, and neither was his wife, or Adam, or Eve.

These are mythical people that are part of a creation narrative from a 2000+ year old text when science knowledge was nearly nonexistent. There's no point trying to justify the details, or make them compatible with modern science. It is fiction.

Gee, I referred to the "myth" and Dr. NoGods skipped a groove. However, I am open to the thought that there really was a progenitor of sorts named Adam, based on the supposition that some spiritually evolved people (like Jesus, the alleged reincarnation of Adam) are able to recall past lives. And regarding Noah's flood, one speculative explanation is that, with the melting of glaciers at the end of an ice age, the sea level in the Mediterranean Sea eventually rose high enough to flow through the Dardanelles into the then-dry Black Sea basin, slowly and inevitably flooding the people there. Of course that's just speculation, but there might be a way to test it.

In response to your other question, Ancient Demon will speak:

"Demons communicate by causing words to appear, as if heard, in the mind of a human. Ancient Demon attempted to communicate with the man who calls himself NoGods. Demon is aware that NoGods heard and dismissed. Demon will try again. When NoGods hears "demon," that will be Ancient Demon attempting to communicate, unless a human, reading this message or listening as John Human receives from Ancient Demon, pretends to be a demon in a way that NoGods has not been trained to observe."