Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

[John Bauer]

In the thread "Genetics and Adam and Eve," DrNoGods claimed that the creation narrative in Genesis describes Adam and Eve as the first humans. He said that

• Adam and Eve have an "explicit role in the biblical creation myth as being the first humans."
• "Their explicit role as the first humans [is] described in Genesis."
• "According to the biblical creation myth there was (...) only two" people originally.
• "Genesis very clearly does describe Adam and Eve as the first humans that this God created."

I would appreciate DrNoGods substantiating this claim of his, for I don't agree that Genesis says this. I would like to see this explored further.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #68]

The writer is entitled to his opinion but his opinion does not change the FACT that "All humans can trace their mtDNA to one female."

That is not true, because "all" humans include those that lived at the same time as Mito Eve, as well as all the humans that lived before Mito Eve (and there were many in both categories). So not "all" humans can trace their mtDNA to one female, only those that were born well after Mito Eve, and all of the other women simultaneously alive with her, had died (as well as their children). The biblical Eve would not have this characteristic, because she was supposedly the very first human female and had no contemporary females, unlike Mito Eve. So there is no analogy between the concept of Mito Eve, and the biblical Eve. Creationism and evolution, as usual, do not even remotely agree on this point.

Their position is not that the world is 4.6 billion years old but that God accelerated the decay rate of the radioactive elements during creation week.

An explanation that is pulled straight from their hind end. There is no evidence to support this actually being the case, not to mention that there is also no evidence to support the existence of this God character to perform these feats.

All of the creation week was a series of miracles (God creating energy and then transforming it into matter) one after the other. So yes God could have accelerated the decay rate to produce the radioactive elements and all of the daughter elements that we observe on the Earth and out in space.

The ever convenient miracle explanation. I've always wondered why creationists even bother trying to force science to be compatible with their beliefs and the biblical stories when everything can be explained by god magic. What's the point? If you're going to allow for miracles, then you may as well throw science out the window and say you believe creationism simply because the bible says so.

Uranium has a density of 19 and granite has a density of around 2 g/cm3

Uranium is an element, and granite is an igneous rock composed of many elements, including uranium. So I don't see the point of those comments. But uranium isn't just sitting around as a pure element ... it is present in relatively low concentrations (parts per million) in rock, soil and water.

So it does not take much imagination to predict if the crust of the earth was put under compressional forces electric current in the crust could produce fusion.

This sounds like the crazy "Z-pinch" stuff again. If that process did naturally occur it could not produce anywhere near (by many orders of magnitude) the volume of radioactive elements that we have on Earth.

And the third has 21 points. I prefer not to go through all 21 points so could you pick a few of your favorite.

My favorite, independent of the links, would be that geology alone tells us that a global flood covering the entire Earth to a few meters above Mt. Everest positively did not happen 4400 years ago, or at any time Homo sapiens have been on planet Earth. Add in implications from all the other "-ologies" and you have an iron clad case against the Genesis flood myth. If you want to allow for miracles and god magic, then anything is on the table. But restricting the discussion to actual science ... the story is nothing but a myth.

[Clownboat]

What are you talking about? Would you mind explaining why your perceive my argument has been shot dead?

This was done by others.
Much appreciation to the others!

Evolutionism does believe that there is a mitochondrial Eve.

This may be true, but it takes religious followers to deceive their subjects into believing this means what it doesn't mean.

What it doesn't mean is what you claimed it means:
Earthscienceguy: "All humans can trace their mtDNA to one female."

To say this is to misunderstand or to deceive. What was your reasoning? A misunderstanding that has been corrected, or were you hoping to deceive some religious people into thinking Mito Eve means something it doesn't? Like that all humans can trace their mtDNA to one female which is not a true statement?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

That is not true, because "all" humans include those that lived at the same time as Mito Eve, as well as all the humans that lived before Mito Eve (and there were many in both categories). So not "all" humans can trace their mtDNA to one female, only those that were born well after Mito Eve, and all of the other women simultaneously alive with her, had died (as well as their children). The biblical Eve would not have this characteristic, because she was supposedly the very first human female and had no contemporary females, unlike Mito Eve. So there is no analogy between the concept of Mito Eve, and the biblical Eve. Creationism and evolution, as usual, do not even remotely agree on this point.

The observation is that all humans today can trace their mtDNA to one woman. That is what was observed. The idea that other humans were around during that time is a hypothesis we have no observations that support that idea. Besides where would have these other humans come from? If you are speaking of the great monkey split that split would have had to have started 66 million years ago which would have been before monkeys evolved according to evolutionism.

Now using OBSERVED mutation rates not made up mutation rates from computer-generated make-believe mtDNA Eve would have had to have lived 6000 years ago.

Their position is not that the world is 4.6 billion years old but that God accelerated the decay rate of the radioactive elements during creation week.
An explanation that is pulled straight from their hind end. There is no evidence to support this actually being the case, not to mention that there is also no evidence to support the existence of this God character to perform these feats.

I never said there was any evidence observable evidence of God accelerating the decay rate of radioactive elements. In fact, by definition, it was a miracle so there would not be any observable evidence of God accelerating the decay rate because God would have been acting outside of the laws of physics that we observe. Creationists understand that and accept that.

But what those that believe in pantheism, naturalism, scientism, or whatever "ism" atheist what to believe is the miracles that they believe in.

By faith, those that believe in scientism have to believe that there is an all-powerful mother universe out there that has created not just this universe but an infinite number of universes. This universe must be all-powerful because it is eternal and it can spawn an infinite number of universes without losing any energy.

By faith, those that believe in scientism have to believe that this all-powerful universe can create quantum bubbles that are perfectly balanced between positive and negative energy.

By faith, those that believe in scientism have to believe that random chance created the constants in our universe to support life.

By faith, those that believe in scientism have to believe that random chance is a greater force than entropy and believe that we are individual entities and not part of a Boltzmann Brain.

By faith, those that believe in scientism have to believe that random chance had creative power in the past even though we do not see this creative power today.

Those that believe in scientism have not gotten rid of God they have simply exchanged God for the god of random chance. In scientism, random chance can perform all kinds of miracles that we do not see random chance do today. So do not ack like you do not believe in miracles, you say you believe that science will come up with answers to the universe and life. Well, it has and probability is the name of its god. Sorry, I do not have enough faith to believe in your god.

Uranium has a density of 19 and granite has a density of around 2 g/cm3
Uranium is an element, and granite is an igneous rock composed of many elements, including uranium. So I don't see the point of those comments. But uranium isn't just sitting around as a pure element ... it is present in relatively low concentrations (parts per million) in rock, soil, and water.

When it is not present in large deposits like we find in specific locations all over the Earth. Uranium when rock is in its molten state should sink unless it is chemically attracted to molecules as we find in basalt. Granite on the other hand has about a whole magnitude more of uranium than basalt does and we also find veins of uranium ore in granite but not in basalt.

So it does not take much imagination to predict if the crust of the earth was put under compressional forces electric current in the crust could produce fusion.
This sounds like the crazy "Z-pinch" stuff again. If that process did naturally occur it could not produce anywhere near (by many orders of magnitude) the volume of radioactive elements that we have on Earth.

The piezo-induced effect of the quartz in granite is a well known and observed effect. (https://earth-planets-space.springerope ... 20-01237-8)

Sandstone in which uranium ore can be found has a very high piezoelectric effect. (https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/msa/am ... lastic-and)

The piezoelectric effect in both granite and sandstone is well known and documented.

And the third has 21 points. I prefer not to go through all 21 points so could you pick a few of your favorite.
My favorite, independent of the links, would be that geology alone tells us that a global flood covering the entire Earth to a few meters above Mt. Everest positively did not happen 4400 years ago, or at any time Homo sapiens have been on planet Earth. Add in implications from all the other "-ologies" and you have an iron clad case against the Genesis flood myth. If you want to allow for miracles and god magic, then anything is on the table. But restricting the discussion to actual science ... the story is nothing but a myth.

Well, gee so much for narrowing the focus.

Ok, since you started with geology first let's start with geology.

For a fossil to form it has to do so in an adiabatic environment. The only way to get an adiabatic environment on the surface of the Earth is to cover something with mud and water. This is why all fossils are found in what were once water environments and then covered over with a layer of mud. So the only reason we have a fossil record all over the water is that it was once covered by water.

The Grand Canyon is a testament to Noah's flood.

The Grand Canyon was said to be carved by the Colorado River but elevations should tell anyone that it is impossible for that to be true. The head of the Colorado River is at an elevation of 12,000 feet it then flows down to the river to an elevation of 5000 feet right before the Grand Canyon. The rim of the canyon is at an elevation of 8000. Unless you know of some scientific principle I do not know of it is impossible for water to flow uphill, especially a 1/2 mile uphill. The reason we know that it had to cut through the plateau when it was at 8000 feet in elevation is because of a basalt layer that is at the top of the Colorado plateau that is dated according to evolutionism at 5.5 million years.

Which some say is one of the greatest geological evidence that there was not a flood is the Coconino Sandstone at the Grand Canyon. It is normally assumed that this layer of sandstone was once a desert. But is that what the observations indicate.

1 Modern deserts the sand dunes are at an angle of 32 degrees the Coconino the dunes are at 20 degrees this is more consistent with underwater dunes. P. Reiche, “An Analysis of Cross-Lamination; the Coconino Sandstone,” Journal of Geology 46 (7): 905–932.

2. Leonard Bran who has done the most field work on these footprints, has also done laboratory studies of salamanders walking on various types of sand—dry, wet, and underwater. The experimental tracks that best matched the Coconino tracks were made underwater. Flowing water would also explain the sudden appearance and disappearance of many tracks, as the currents picked up animals and they landed in new places. L. R. Brand, “Footprints in the Grand Canyon, Origins 5 (2): 64–82; L. Brand, “Field and Laboratory Studies on the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) Vertebrate Footprints and Their Paleoecological Implications,” Palaeogeography, Paleaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25–38; L. R. Brand and T. Tang, “Fossil Vertebrate Footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of Northern Arizona: Evidence for Underwater Origin,” Geology 19: 1201–1204

3. The observable facts. Experiments and observations in laboratories and deserts show mechanical frosting happens more often to larger sand grains than smaller ones like those found in the Coconino.14 Smaller sand grains can’t gain enough momentum to strike one another with sufficient force to cause frosting. The sand grains of the Coconino are frosted (Figure 9), but their average size is so small that a mechanical cause is unlikely. K. Pye and H. Tsoar, Aeolian Sand and Sand Dunes (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2009); P. H. Kuenen and W. G. Perdok, “Experimental Abrasion 5: Frosting and Defrosting of Quartz Grains,” Journal of Geology 70 (6): 648–658.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/gr ... nst-flood/

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #70]

The reason that there's a mitochondrial Eve is that mitochondrial DNA is inherited differently than nuclear DNA. With very few exceptions, all of an individual's mitochondrial DNA is inherited from one's mother. That means that any given woman's opportunity to pass on mitochondrial genes is absolutely dependent on having a daughter. I am male and have four grandparents. My nuclear DNA is a roughly even mix of the genes from those four individuals, but my mitochondrial DNA was inherited only from my maternal grandmother.

The observation is that all humans alive today come from one female mtDNA Eve. You can hypothesis all you want about there being other lines but there is no observational evidence to support your hypothesis.

[jimtatertayte]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #70]

The reason that there's a mitochondrial Eve is that mitochondrial DNA is inherited differently than nuclear DNA. With very few exceptions, all of an individual's mitochondrial DNA is inherited from one's mother. That means that any given woman's opportunity to pass on mitochondrial genes is absolutely dependent on having a daughter. I am male and have four grandparents. My nuclear DNA is a roughly even mix of the genes from those four individuals, but my mitochondrial DNA was inherited only from my maternal grandmother.

The observation is that all humans alive today come from one female mtDNA Eve. You can hypothesis all you want about there being other lines but there is no observational evidence to support your hypothesis.

So then how do you account for all them human beings that
by your own scientist predate the time of Eve on earth?

[Diagoras]

I never said there was any evidence observable evidence of God accelerating the decay rate of radioactive elements. In fact, by definition, it was a miracle so there would not be any observable evidence of God accelerating the decay rate because God would have been acting outside of the laws of physics that we observe. Creationists understand that and accept that.

If someone accepts a lack of physical evidence as somehow proof of a miracle occurring, then they could accept literally anything as ‘fact’. We’re in ‘invisible unicorns’ territory with this one - it’s possibly the most ridiculous post I’ve seen on this board yet, which is certainly saying something.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to jimtatertayte in post #75]

So then how do you account for all them human beings that
by your own scientist predate the time of Eve on earth?

Creation scientists classify neanderthals as modern humans. They do not predate anything before humans except animals.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #76]

If someone accepts a lack of physical evidence as somehow proof of a miracle occurring, then they could accept literally anything as ‘fact’. We’re in ‘invisible unicorns’ territory with this one - it’s possibly the most ridiculous post I’ve seen on this board yet, which is certainly saying something.

As always you seem to have missed the rest of my statement.

But what those that believe in pantheism, naturalism, scientism, or whatever "ism" atheist what to believe is the miracles that they believe in.

By faith, those that believe in scientism have to believe that there is an all-powerful mother universe out there that has created not just this universe but an infinite number of universes. This universe must be all-powerful because it is eternal and it can spawn an infinite number of universes without losing any energy.

By faith, those that believe in scientism have to believe that this all-powerful universe can create quantum bubbles that are perfectly balanced between positive and negative energy.

By faith, those that believe in scientism have to believe that random chance created the constants in our universe to support life.

By faith, those that believe in scientism have to believe that random chance is a greater force than entropy and believe that we are individual entities and not part of a Boltzmann Brain.

By faith, those that believe in scientism have to believe that random chance had creative power in the past even though we do not see this creative power today.

Those that believe in scientism have not gotten rid of God they have simply exchanged God for the god of random chance. In scientism, random chance can perform all kinds of miracles that we do not see random chance do today. So do not ack like you do not believe in miracles, you say you believe that science will come up with answers to the universe and life. Well, it has and probability is the name of its god. Sorry, I do not have enough faith to believe in your god.

And thanks for letting share this again.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #78]

As always you seem to have missed the rest of my statement.

You prove my point. The absence of quoting your entire post can’t be used as evidence of me having ‘missed’ it. You cannot possibly know whether or not I read it, how long I took to do so, and what I might or might not have first written in a draft post before editing and hitting ‘reply’. But a lack of facts doesn’t seem to bother you.

In a similar vein, you happily make up plenty of stuff like everything following on from “those that believe in scientism have to believe that...”

Feel free to repost if you like, if it makes you feel better. It certainly strengthens the evidence that you don’t actually have a cogent argument to make.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #79]

You did not say anything contradicting my argument. That all humans are decent from one female eve.

All men are also descendants of one man.

All men living now, then, would have a Y chromosome descended from that one man — identified as Y-chromosome Adam. https://www.nature.com/news/genetic-ada ... me-1.13478

Those are the observations. Now men may like to say that there were other 'humans' around at the time but that would not be an observation that would be a hypothesis at best and in actuality more like hopeful thinking.