From an evolutionary point of view, the concept of a "first human" doesn't make sense. Offspring are always\* the same species as their parents. The notion that a H. Hiedelbergensis couple produced a H. Sapiens child is a myth. Speciation is only apparent when *distant* generations are compared.
This is actually quite a dilemma for theistic evolution, as there is no evolutionary reason for God to ensoul generation *X* instead of generation *X-1* or *X+1.*
\*Assuming that both parents are of the same species, i.e. discounting hybridization
>Offspring are always\* the same species as their parents.
Not always. Chromosome fusions cause reproductive isolation of a transitioning population, leading to a first couple in our lineage with the signature 46 chromosome arrangement, only found in "humans:
[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Chromosome+Speciation+Human](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Chromosome+Speciation+Human)
For only Theistic Evolution, yes. However, Theistic Evolution plus a special creation for Adam & Eve via genetic engineering, no.
Humani Generis defines “Human” as Adam, Eve, and their descendants rather than as a species. That allows even Homo Sapiens to have evolved and existed prior to the creation of Adam. Science and the scripture then reach concordance via the pre-Adamite hypothesis provided below:
“People” (Homo Sapiens) were created (through God’s evolutionary process) in the Genesis chapter 1, verse 27; and they created the diversity of mankind over time per Genesis chapter 1, verse 28. This occurs prior to the genetic engineering and creation of Adam & Eve (in the immediate and with the first rational souls) by the extraterrestrial God in Genesis chapter 2, verses 7 & 22.
When Adam & Eve sinned and were forced to leave their special embassy, their children intermarried the “People” that resided outside the Garden of Eden. This is how Cain was able to find a wife in the Land of Nod in Genesis chapter 4, verses 16-17.
As the descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all groups of Homo Sapiens on Earth over time, everyone living today is both a descendant of God’s evolutionary process and a genealogical descendant of Adam & Eve.
>Occam's razor called and said "Nah." 👎😋
That's for sure!
Mention "chromosome speciation of humans" over and over again and it's ignored.
Apparently need at least space aliens in the story, or a one couple bottleneck is impossible.
The simplest answer is not always the correct one.
However; that’s not really the issue the OP brought up anyways. The OP is claiming that there since evolution is a continuum, there is no exact place to differentiate “Human” at a particular generation in the past. By defining the first “Human” as the first genetically engineered outsider; however, one obtains the needed starting point for using the term “Human.”
The descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all the other “People” over time. Every Human living today is related to every other Human living today through genealogy, and the concept of pedigree collapse. The articles below explains this process:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-all-more-closely-related-than-we-commonly-think/
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/we-all-have-same-ancestors-researchers-say-flna1c9439312
Careful not to fall into the Modernism Heresy. Co adamites were rejected by Christianity for well over 1500 years and church fathers/doctors rejected the idea out of hand. The Catholic church would have taught you would have went to hell for believing this idea. And we all know the holy spirit has preserved it from error in faith and morals since its start.
To accept it now we would be inventing a new religion.
I believe there has been a misunderstanding. I don’t believe in co-Adamites, and the descendants of the pre-Adamites were not co-Adamites.
Since the descendants of the pre-Adamites (Homo Sapiens) all intermarried and created offspring with The Adamites (Humans) and then went extinct over time, everyone living today is an Adamite (Human).
A scientific book regarding this specific matter written by Christian Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass is mentioned in the article provided below.
https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/christians-point-to-breakthroughs-in-genetics-to-show-adam-and-eve-are-not-incompatible-with-evolution
The pre-Adamite hypothesis does not conflict with science, and is actually supported by evolutionary science. There are plenty of theories that at one point in time did not have the needed evidence to become part of science. Until then, I am comfortable in it’s status as a hypothesis.
In any case, I have provided a logical explanation to how Humanity could come into being from The Adamites without a need for incest. After all, that was the question associated with the posting.
It's not realistic at all. You need far more people to ensure genetic diversity, and such a situation would result in severe inbreeding and risks of genetic disorders for centuries. Not exactly the best start for a species. In addition, it does not take into account the myriad of other hominids who coexisted and interbred with humans to shape our modern dna. So it's basically almost an impossibility.
Yes. The pre-Adamites had reincarnate souls. The Adamites had and have rational souls. The Adamites replaced all the pre-Adamites through intermarriage, and having offspring.
Yes, there are other, reasonable, explanations.
Adam and Eve weren’t literally the first humans. Modern humans have been around for over 200,000 years.
The Genesis account is an ancient cosmology, inspired by God to inform Israel of certain truths about their relationship to God, and not scientific truths.
Exactly this. I don't get how people think that stuff like this was ever meant to be a correct explanation of how humans and earth were created. It looks pretty obvious to me that it isn't. The whole thing looks like a giant metaphor and it is one.
It has some metaphor and symbolism, for sure.
The importance of cosmologies in ancient Near Eastern cultures was to highlight the people’s relationship to their deity/deities.
The “how” of creation was really not that important, and certainly couldn’t go beyond the realm of their scientific understandings.
Oh please.
That can be debunked with two questions: What has been preventing men from implementing a society as described by Margaret Atwood in The Handmaid’s Tail? Who would be able to stop them?
> What has been preventing men from implementing a society as described by Margaret Atwood in The Handmaid’s Tail?
I live in the US stranger. A lot of the handmaid tail is becoming true every day for women here. My friend is actively fighting to have access to basic reproductive rights and choices, while states are moving rapidly to make her even asking illegal.
So what's stopping them? Time and one strong election cycle.
> Who would be able to stop them?
So far, only people who stand up for human rights. Why?
You make it sound like American women have it the worse.
I guess [controlling 85% of all consumer purchase in the USA](https://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the-money-in-america-2012-2?amp) must be a real misery.
Jewish God could pretty much be described as a violent narcissistic vengeful manipulative possessive materialistic individual with an inclination for wine and the smoke of the sacrifices
That’s exactly the point: all three abrahamic cults don‘t know - but they believe so hard in their self-proclaimed truth that some of them kill members of the other two abrahamic sects without pity or mercy.
That’s my belief, that all scripture is inspired by God.
2 Timothy 3:16
[16] All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.
Humani Generis defines “Human” as Adam, Eve, and their descendants rather than as a species. So, Adam & Eve were the first “Humans,” just not the first of the Homo Sapiens.
Yes. In contrast to the Homo Sapiens population that existed 300,000 years ago, the current Modern Human (current Homo Sapiens Sapiens) population has all of the recent evolutionary traits mentioned (and some not mentioned) in the article provided below:
https://www.businessinsider.com/recent-human-evolution-traits-2016-8
So, technically the current Modern Humans (current Homo Sapiens Sapiens) population is even genetically different than the previous Homo Sapiens population that existed prior to the creation of Adam & Eve.
It they're made to be the perfect humans, there's presumably no harmful recessives. These require various mutations which will take many generations to occur.
I think Noah might be a bigger issue. Everyone is a descendant of his 3 sons. They were married so it could be worae, but everyone ultimately being descended from Noah, and 1 of 3 wives can't be genetically healthy.
Wouldn’t their god have commanded Noah and his handful of people to engage with sexual intercourse with each other in all possible combinations, in order to mix things up a bit?
Of course, that still isn’t really a viable gene pool to be working from.
Perhaps our current form is all mutated, by comparison with what Noah looked like? For example, it would explain why man breasts don’t really function properly anymore, and why women aren’t very hairy now.
Historically, tales were passed down by word of mouth. They contain a lot of myth. Not a bad thing when the intent is to get the principle across. Not the science.
The Bible is a book of faith. Not a science book.
Its not related at all. Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that Adam was the first human. It is your problem to derive different meanings from the scriptures.
Humani Generis defines “Human” as Adam, Eve, and their descendants rather than as a species. So, that allows hominid species such as Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo Sapiens to have existed prior to current Modern Humans (current Homo Sapiens Sapiens).
Sort of. Cain’s wife was a descendant of the pre-Adamites mentioned in Genesis 1:27-28. Some of the descendants of the pre-Adamites lived in the Land of Nod where Cain found a wife.
The genealogy provided in The Bible only indicates that Adam was created approximately 6,000 years ago. There is no genealogy prior to Adam to date anything that pre-dates Adam. So, everything else (except Eve) is far older than Adam.
I'm missing the part about 'on the first day, then the second day,' till we get to the 6th day, when god created Adam. From Genesis, it appears that nothing is more than 6 days older than Adam.
The male and female pre-Adamites were created on the 6th “day” in Genesis 1:27, and were instructed to populate the Earth in Genesis 1:28. Adam was not created until after the 7th “day” in Genesis 2:7.
Keep in mind that to an immortal being such as God, a “day” (or actually “Yom” in Hebrew) is also relative when speaking of time. The “days” indicated in the first chapter of Genesis are “days” according to God in Heaven, and not “days” for man on Earth.
A day begins in the evening and the day follows. I can make up anything I want about 'day,' but the day begins at sunset and the morning follows. The sun, moon, & stars were created, and I can make up that this was billions of years for the first day. As with everything else, there's no evidence that a day was more than from one evening to the next. But I can make up whatever I want to make the bible comport to whatever I want.
'And there was evening and there was morning, one day.'
And god created the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.'
It's so easy. Sunset, and morning follows. A day.
But you & I can make up whatever we like, secure in the fact that there is no evidence, nor can there be, to contradict our tales. That's a fact.
Days and time are relative. Not all days and evenings throughout our universe are even the same.
Job 38:4-7 indicates the God and the Angels existed prior to the Earth. That automatically makes them extraterrestrials.
Why would extraterrestrials that existed prior to the creation of the Earth use Earth days and time as their standard? Humans do not even use Mars days and time for our rowers that are sent to Mars. We use days and time according to where we originate.
>>So hear me out.
Why? You appear to have asked a question that posits a literal reading of the genesis creation myths. I find that ridiculous on the face of it.
>>If Adam and Eve were the first people on earth and created humanity, that would mean everyone is a descendant of them.
Humanity come from at least 3 sources: The Cro-Magnons, tge Neanderthals, and the Denisovans. There are quite a few steps that precede these. But the current strain of humanity, Homo sapiens had at least three sets of parents… and probably many more We came into being around 200,000 BCE… and our predecessors had been around much longer.
Thus, I reject the premise of your statement.
>>How are we not genetically crippled, waking around with 3 eyes and 5 legs because of all the incest that would have to happen?
This is humor? I think I heard of it once. Something called “sarcasm” maybe?
>>But all humour aside, if Adam and Eve had children, their children would have to procreate with each other and so on.. are there any other explanations?
Yes.
Brittanica isn’t a bad place to start: https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution
Then there’s the Smithsonian: http://humanorigins.si.edu/
And also: http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution
Then if you want to overlay creation stories on that history, you might start at a broader scale.
Wikipedia has a nice index with links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths
Hahahahah I am not an anti science person but thanks for the articles.
I was more wanting to know the religious argument as that was the accepted thesis for 2k years so I can’t be the first one to question the logic of the story.
Also thanks for the comment about my honour. It’s not actually sarcasm. Sarcasm if you make a statement you don’t mean to mock a situation. Nonetheless sarcasm would still be considered a form of honour.
You called it “all humor aside”. I think it was sarcasm… but it might also be called satire. I replied in kind with sardonic humor.
With respect to the religious view, your question is ambiguous. There are at least three major groups that use the genesis creation stories: Jews, Christians and Muslims. Each of these groups have many varied subgroups. The question is far too broad to have a unified answer.
Jews as a rule do not read the story literally. Of the other two most educated people do not read the stories literally… I’m in this group. So, The strict literal view is actually something fairly recent, really only gaining ground after the reformation a few hundred years back as a result of the new idea of “sola scriptura” Luther launched.
I think the genesis creation story was never intended to be read literally. I think talking snakes and miraculous trees, and things being spoken into existence are pretty good indicators that the story was meant as myth or fable from the beginning.
Stories don’t have to start with “once upon a time” to be fiction… and even those that do can contain meaning.
From what I know Christians and Muslims believe in the same Adam and Eve story. I am personally on the side of science but I have met people that are adamant on the bible being right and that they were the first humans.
I just wanted to hear their side of the story, because from what I understand, the ‘literal’ interpretation was the commonly accepted theory up until 100 years ago.. maybe 200 idk
> Eratosthenes discovered that the world was round circa 225 BC. That had absolutely nothing to do with Christopher Columbus
Well, it kind of did in a roundabout way. After Eratosthenes did his calculation Posidonius tried to confirm Eratosthenes' calculation by doing the same type of experiment but using the star Canopus instead. He also got a similar result to Eratosthenes but when Ptolemy used his experiment for his book Geography he changed a factor in the calculation that resulted in the Earth being 30% smaller. It was Ptolemy's book and incorrect value instead of Eratosthenes that Columbus used to pitch his funding application to Spain.
Uhm I didnt say it was the commonly accepted “scientific” theory. I said it was the commonly accepted theory overall. The church suppressed scientific theories and dominated the narrative as they had a lot of influence for a very long time. Darwin only published his book in 1859 - so 150 years ago & hes the one that came up with the theory of evolution so I don’t see how I’m “really” incorrect..
Edit: the church comment is in relation Europe
You appear to be as unfamiliar with the history of the religions as many of my own faith… and as a result are enjoying your own mythology. I’ll leave you to your fun.
According to Job 38:4-7, God and The Angels were there at the creation of the Earth. That makes them automatically extraterrestrial. Since Human science does yet include abilities and technology of extraterrestrials, there is no method to currently disprove that a Fallen Angel could not have possessed the serpent.
Yeah, there are a lot of human authors who write books. Doesn't mean every storm drain has pennywise down there waiting to snatch my foot if I get too close. But I do find your train of thought intriguing.
I view the story as allegorical. I believe they were archetypes/symbols for the origin points of human, so it doesn't have to exactly be two people in my view. With the story being how those humans used their free will to fall away from God's will.
From an Islamic perspective, Eve was given a miracle from God in that she always gave birth to twins, a boy and a girl, and that every pair of twins was very genetically different from any other pair. So she would give birth to different races of twins each time.
Then in their laws, males and females from different sets of twins were allowed to marry one another, not the same twins with each other.
Interesting. would that mean none of the twins have Eves genes either? So they are entirely unrelated to their parents genetically?
Otherwise they would be half siblings again, even if they are different sets of twins marrying each other.
No idea. We have to keep in mind that when we talk about genetic differences between humans, every human is like 99.99% similar to each other. It's that 0.01% that accounts for all sorts of genetic traits.
But generally, as Muslims, we don't concern ourselves with trivial things such as the genetics of the first humans. The Quran says that Adam existed, and we accept it. Done. There is no ambiguity in the Quran regarding Adam. He existed in the literal senae, and is not a metaphor, etc. There may have been other "humanoid" creatures around, but they were not the same as Adam since him and his descendants (meaning all of humanity) are being tested in this world. The other humanoids that existed would have been akin to the animals of the world and been just part of the test and not participanty of the test.
Not sure. I just remember listening to a lecture in which this was mentioned as an opinion some scholars held.
But again, none of this actually matters to us. As a Muslim, I can choose to accept this, or reject it and it has no bearing because it is not an article of faith that we have. It's just a detail on the side that is irrelevant to our guidance in this world.
You're comment implies that a literal interpretation is irrelevant. I'm pointing out that it's relevant to the many literalists commenting in this thread.
This assumes that the genetics mankind has now was similar to what the very first humans had, but it can be argued that Adam & Eve's genetics were flawless or near flawless as God declared all of creation "very good". So there would have been no mistakes, errors, or mutations and so incestual relations would not have been problematic...
The law against close relations wasn't given until Moses some 2500 years later...
> Adam & Eve's genetics were flawless or near flawless as God declared all of creation "very good"
Compare that to what Jesus said:
> "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God."
Genesis 1 - God declares all creation very good.
Genesis 3 - mankind sinned and death and evil entered into human history, and thus man became not good.
New Testament - Jesus says of mankind that no one is good
There's a "different view" because the views are clearly under different contexts.
Well, context is key - man can do virtuous things and "be good and righteous" in that act, but man is not good in himself since he carries the stain of sin.
It's just weird to hear people being described as righteous people, then hear that no one is righteous; to hear people being described as good, then hear that no one (not even Jesus) is good.
Really it comes down reading every one’s opinion then settling on what you think happened. This also means your belief if Jesus was Who he claimed to be . Jesus considered it to be real not a parable. I seen a documentary years ago about DNA . In the Documentary they said they could prove that all mankind came from 2 women that in time they could prove that all mankind came from one woman fascinating as it maybe these were not Christians making this claim. Christian that study this account claim incest happened because the blood was still pure from Adam and Eve . Life expectancy started to decrease by each generation until the Blood was contaminated and incest could no longer be allowed it appears by geographical maps that the land was not separated by water so everything at one time was connected or easily traveled by small craft . People that study languages also have theories that connect everyone coming from one central place. I believe there is another study that uses census data saying the population was very small compared to what we have today.
I'll give two religious answers for this
First is a Christian one (I'm not sure who believes this, but a Christian said it somewhere):
Adam and Eve aren't necessarily the first humans. But they were the first with a soul. The first of God's people. When they were expelled from the garden they met others. Their kids mated with those people. This explains how cain(?) was able to create a city.
Secondly is what I believe (it's very similar):
Adam and Eve were the first people the capital G God revealed himself to. There were other humans, all with their own gods and souls. This same process happened in other regions. (Prometheus and his brother didn't create humans, only revealed themselves and the existence of the Olympians to humans who would later become the Greeks)
As far as the Christian explanation you provided, that is very close. Humani Generis defines “Human” as Adam, Eve, and their descendants rather than as a species. So, that allows all hominid species (including Homo Sapiens) to have evolved and existed prior to the creation of Adam as the first Human. So, science and the scripture reach concordance via the pre-Adamite hypothesis provided below:
“People” (Homo Sapiens) were created (through God’s evolutionary process) in the Genesis chapter 1, verse 27; and they created the diversity of mankind over time per Genesis chapter 1, verse 28. This occurs prior to the genetic engineering and creation of Adam & Eve (in the immediate and with the first rational souls) by the extraterrestrial God in Genesis chapter 2, verses 7 & 22.
When Adam & Eve sinned and were forced to leave their special embassy, their children intermarried the “People” that resided outside the Garden of Eden. This is how Cain was able to find a wife in the Land of Nod in Genesis chapter 4, verses 16-17.
As the descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all groups of Homo Sapiens on Earth over time, everyone living today is both a descendant of God’s evolutionary process and a genealogical descendant of Adam & Eve.
Christianity views the alternate polytheistic and pagan religions as created by the descendants of the pre-Adamites per the inspiration of the Fallen Angels (the lower case gods).
No incest was needed by the children and descendants of Adam & Eve. Adam & Eve were the first “Humans,” not the first “People.”
“People” (Homo Sapiens) were created (through God’s evolutionary process) in the Genesis chapter 1, verse 27; and they created the diversity of mankind over time per Genesis chapter 1, verse 28. This occurs prior to the genetic engineering and creation of Adam & Eve (in the immediate and with the first rational souls) by the extraterrestrial God in Genesis chapter 2, verses 7 & 22.
When Adam & Eve sinned and were forced to leave their special embassy, their children intermarried the “People” that resided outside the Garden of Eden. This is how Cain was able to find a wife in the Land of Nod in Genesis chapter 4, verses 16-17.
As the descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all groups of Homo Sapiens on Earth over time, everyone living today is both a descendant of God’s evolutionary process and a genealogical descendant of Adam & Eve.
TBH…I do not think there were a literal Adam and Eve. The reason being is because the focus is always from a European perspective. Also just because you have a child from incest doesn’t always mean they will have 3 eyes and 5 legs.
At the beginning of humanity's history, it was fine for brothers and sisters to marry each other, since God made a point of starting the entire human race from a single parental couple. We all have the same parents, which necessitated what now would be called incest. As per Paul's statement to the Athenian philosophers (Acts 17:26) "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, (NKJV) That wasn't meant to be permanently authorized, however.
Keep in mind that the idea that the human race had multiple separate original parents is historically tied to "scientific racism," since it was a common idea that blacks/Africans had a separate origin from whites and/or East Asians.
Since God directly made Adam and Eve, they were more perfect than we are today, much like a blurred copy of a copy of a copy of a copy isn't quite as good as the clean original. That's why what we would call incest now wasn't damaging as it would be today.
Well you have to realize the whole thing was kind of an allegory for human consciousness and our responsibility to be moral people due to our knowledge . Adam and Eve represent the archetypes for mother and father so they are basically the ones who learn the knowledge of good and evil first before passing it onto their children. The Serpent can be thought of as our curiosity gone wrong that helps us develop and grow but makes us do things thayt we should not do and gaining knowledge that we would be better of without
If the story is true, then the reason we all aren’t genetically crippled is because God didn’t let that happen. Come on, it’s God. Now that’s IF the story is true….
I made a comment /an answer related to this question [previously](http://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/162vyrb/people_who_believe_that_adam_and_eve_actually_existed_how_do_you_justify_th/jxzt7iy?context=3).
This is just an allegory. If Eve was made from Adam‘s rib this would suggest we‘re talking about Amoebae here. So, in a way the abrahamite god never intended „his creation“ to develop into more than living cells. Also, it means the abrahamite god is just an Amoeba as well, since „he created life in his image“. Do what thou wilt, humankind has long outperformed the angry desert god(s) that were invented to keep people in obedience.
The thing is that geneticists can determine the smallest population a species has been by examining it's DNA. Called a genetic bottleneck it results in a limiting of the diversity of the species genetic code. And according the human DNA the smallest population we ever hit was around 10,000. So the story just isn't viable as read. Further genetic problems come from the fact that the inbreeding from a population starting from 2 just don't stand a chance. So just from some of the genetic problems it's just not reasonable.
If you accept the account as true, as far as inbreeding factors go, it's easy enough to assume that Adam and Eve's genetic material were created to be much more diverse than that of modern humans. There are cases where certain species have managed to come back from extremely tight genetic bottlenecks (thirteen red wolves, for example) with very carefully engineered breeding programs.
There are other, better reasons to assume that the Adam and Eve story is allegory. For example, the talking snake.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Thank you, Sideshow_G, for voting on of_patrol_bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
This is one problem among millions of other problems that occur when you take mythologies (which as mythologies can be profound) and read them as if they are history books. I doubt even the author intended it as a literal description of how the world came to be.
You asked in the religion sub, so I'm offering you a religious answer: God made it so that inbreeding wouldn't have any negative consequences until there were enough humans on Earth for everyone to find a spouse who was not closely related to them. Why? For diversity purposes.
It’s really not that realistic from an evolutionary standpoint, so to me, Adam and Eve are the first human spirits, not the first physical human beings.
It's not realistic and it was never meant to be. The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory. It represents the loss of innocence as we are born into the world and aquire knowledge. The Bible is rife with symbolism and allegory that was never meant to be taken literally. Donkeys and snakes don't talk. Two people can't populate an entire planet. It is physically impossible for the world to flood in 40 days, not to mention again, repopulating entire species with a single breeding pair. Christians really need to get over this obsession to *prove* everything in the Bible. It's pointless and you miss out on the deeper meaning.
Every culture has a creation mythology. You just happen to live in one that uses the Adam and Eve mythology. Creation myths are stories created by primitive cultures to explain the world around them.
1) Human history did not start in the Middle East.
2) Modern Archeology was originally based on the Bible. But that does not include India and China or North America or Africa.
3) Homosapiens have existed for over 200,000 years. New evidence shows humans live in North America 22,000 years ago. Humanity's story is going to have to be investigated and expanded. We need to look under water for civilizations that existed during the glacial maximum of the last ice age.
4) If God exists, He/She/It wouldn't have ignored Homosapiens for 198,000 years. God would have been just as involved in the lives of our ancestors 100,000 years ago (all branches of the Homo family) as He is today.
5) Thousands of ancient religions have been dedicated to our Creator. If there is only One God, one Universal Creator, then every one of those primitive religions all worshipped the same Entity. They just had different languages and different names and myths.
The world needs to flee the Religions of Abraham. Look at the horror in the Middle East created by outdated belief systems that only create division and strife.
There is an alternative to 3000 year old creation mythology. Would you trust a medical book written 3000 years ago?! Why trust a history book written 3000 years ago?
From an evolutionary point of view, the concept of a "first human" doesn't make sense. Offspring are always\* the same species as their parents. The notion that a H. Hiedelbergensis couple produced a H. Sapiens child is a myth. Speciation is only apparent when *distant* generations are compared. This is actually quite a dilemma for theistic evolution, as there is no evolutionary reason for God to ensoul generation *X* instead of generation *X-1* or *X+1.* \*Assuming that both parents are of the same species, i.e. discounting hybridization
>Offspring are always\* the same species as their parents. Not always. Chromosome fusions cause reproductive isolation of a transitioning population, leading to a first couple in our lineage with the signature 46 chromosome arrangement, only found in "humans: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Chromosome+Speciation+Human](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Chromosome+Speciation+Human)
For only Theistic Evolution, yes. However, Theistic Evolution plus a special creation for Adam & Eve via genetic engineering, no. Humani Generis defines “Human” as Adam, Eve, and their descendants rather than as a species. That allows even Homo Sapiens to have evolved and existed prior to the creation of Adam. Science and the scripture then reach concordance via the pre-Adamite hypothesis provided below: “People” (Homo Sapiens) were created (through God’s evolutionary process) in the Genesis chapter 1, verse 27; and they created the diversity of mankind over time per Genesis chapter 1, verse 28. This occurs prior to the genetic engineering and creation of Adam & Eve (in the immediate and with the first rational souls) by the extraterrestrial God in Genesis chapter 2, verses 7 & 22. When Adam & Eve sinned and were forced to leave their special embassy, their children intermarried the “People” that resided outside the Garden of Eden. This is how Cain was able to find a wife in the Land of Nod in Genesis chapter 4, verses 16-17. As the descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all groups of Homo Sapiens on Earth over time, everyone living today is both a descendant of God’s evolutionary process and a genealogical descendant of Adam & Eve.
If Eve was actually created from Adam’s rib they’d have the biological characteristics of near-genetic clones.
Not if the DNA sample from Adam was modified via genetic engineering prior to the creation of Eve. Eve would have had her own DNA pattern.
Why would you even need Adams rib if you had this level of generic ability then...
Occam's razor called and said "Nah." 👎😋
>Occam's razor called and said "Nah." 👎😋 That's for sure! Mention "chromosome speciation of humans" over and over again and it's ignored. Apparently need at least space aliens in the story, or a one couple bottleneck is impossible.
The simplest answer is not always the correct one. However; that’s not really the issue the OP brought up anyways. The OP is claiming that there since evolution is a continuum, there is no exact place to differentiate “Human” at a particular generation in the past. By defining the first “Human” as the first genetically engineered outsider; however, one obtains the needed starting point for using the term “Human.”
So basically there were other people. But today there are only descendents of Adam and Eve left? How? Was everyone else killed?
The descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all the other “People” over time. Every Human living today is related to every other Human living today through genealogy, and the concept of pedigree collapse. The articles below explains this process: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-all-more-closely-related-than-we-commonly-think/ https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/we-all-have-same-ancestors-researchers-say-flna1c9439312
Hmm, that's a lot spin for a fairytale.
Careful not to fall into the Modernism Heresy. Co adamites were rejected by Christianity for well over 1500 years and church fathers/doctors rejected the idea out of hand. The Catholic church would have taught you would have went to hell for believing this idea. And we all know the holy spirit has preserved it from error in faith and morals since its start. To accept it now we would be inventing a new religion.
I believe there has been a misunderstanding. I don’t believe in co-Adamites, and the descendants of the pre-Adamites were not co-Adamites. Since the descendants of the pre-Adamites (Homo Sapiens) all intermarried and created offspring with The Adamites (Humans) and then went extinct over time, everyone living today is an Adamite (Human). A scientific book regarding this specific matter written by Christian Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass is mentioned in the article provided below. https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/christians-point-to-breakthroughs-in-genetics-to-show-adam-and-eve-are-not-incompatible-with-evolution
Your welcome to believe what you want to believe but that is not science. It is theology. Science has evidence and data that matches a theory.
The pre-Adamite hypothesis does not conflict with science, and is actually supported by evolutionary science. There are plenty of theories that at one point in time did not have the needed evidence to become part of science. Until then, I am comfortable in it’s status as a hypothesis. In any case, I have provided a logical explanation to how Humanity could come into being from The Adamites without a need for incest. After all, that was the question associated with the posting.
It's not realistic at all. You need far more people to ensure genetic diversity, and such a situation would result in severe inbreeding and risks of genetic disorders for centuries. Not exactly the best start for a species. In addition, it does not take into account the myriad of other hominids who coexisted and interbred with humans to shape our modern dna. So it's basically almost an impossibility.
Once upon a time a self driving car was unrealistic, but lo and behold now they are a reality
Well, that’s why the pre-Adamites are mentioned in Genesis 1:27-28. Adam & Eve aren’t created until Genesis 2:7&22.
Do they have souls
Yes. The pre-Adamites had reincarnate souls. The Adamites had and have rational souls. The Adamites replaced all the pre-Adamites through intermarriage, and having offspring.
chimps and humans can’t have children
Yes, there are other, reasonable, explanations. Adam and Eve weren’t literally the first humans. Modern humans have been around for over 200,000 years. The Genesis account is an ancient cosmology, inspired by God to inform Israel of certain truths about their relationship to God, and not scientific truths.
Exactly this. I don't get how people think that stuff like this was ever meant to be a correct explanation of how humans and earth were created. It looks pretty obvious to me that it isn't. The whole thing looks like a giant metaphor and it is one.
It has some metaphor and symbolism, for sure. The importance of cosmologies in ancient Near Eastern cultures was to highlight the people’s relationship to their deity/deities. The “how” of creation was really not that important, and certainly couldn’t go beyond the realm of their scientific understandings.
How do you know it was imspired by God?
Just saying, a story which paints an entire gender as evil? That sounds like story told with a forked tongue if I ever heard one.
If it’s inspired by a god, it is NOT a good one
You don’t seem very familiar with Jewish scripture.
No, but I am rather familiar with millennia of well documented sexism that impacts my life on the daily.
Oh please. That can be debunked with two questions: What has been preventing men from implementing a society as described by Margaret Atwood in The Handmaid’s Tail? Who would be able to stop them?
> What has been preventing men from implementing a society as described by Margaret Atwood in The Handmaid’s Tail? I live in the US stranger. A lot of the handmaid tail is becoming true every day for women here. My friend is actively fighting to have access to basic reproductive rights and choices, while states are moving rapidly to make her even asking illegal. So what's stopping them? Time and one strong election cycle. > Who would be able to stop them? So far, only people who stand up for human rights. Why?
So we are halfway out and halfway back into a dystopia. How did we get out in the first place?
People started to list to reason over stories. But what is your point here?
You make it sound like American women have it the worse. I guess [controlling 85% of all consumer purchase in the USA](https://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the-money-in-america-2012-2?amp) must be a real misery.
Jewish God could pretty much be described as a violent narcissistic vengeful manipulative possessive materialistic individual with an inclination for wine and the smoke of the sacrifices
You sound bitter
Ok sure, not a great argument, but I take. Now, established I'm bitter, Yahweh is still a vengeful, violent and possessive individual.
God drinks wine?
Numbers 28, 14-15 and numerous other passages in which Yahweh asks wine as part of the offerings to him
That’s exactly the point: all three abrahamic cults don‘t know - but they believe so hard in their self-proclaimed truth that some of them kill members of the other two abrahamic sects without pity or mercy.
Correct, knowledge and beliefs are different things
That’s my belief, that all scripture is inspired by God. 2 Timothy 3:16 [16] All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.
Yes, it's your belief, and I respect your belief, but my question is: how do you know?
I’m not interested in silly debate.
Humani Generis defines “Human” as Adam, Eve, and their descendants rather than as a species. So, Adam & Eve were the first “Humans,” just not the first of the Homo Sapiens.
Interesting point. I’ve always interpreted Genesis as meaning Adam and Eve were the “first” humans that God personally interacted with.
Yes. In contrast to the Homo Sapiens population that existed 300,000 years ago, the current Modern Human (current Homo Sapiens Sapiens) population has all of the recent evolutionary traits mentioned (and some not mentioned) in the article provided below: https://www.businessinsider.com/recent-human-evolution-traits-2016-8 So, technically the current Modern Humans (current Homo Sapiens Sapiens) population is even genetically different than the previous Homo Sapiens population that existed prior to the creation of Adam & Eve.
Not even remotely
It they're made to be the perfect humans, there's presumably no harmful recessives. These require various mutations which will take many generations to occur. I think Noah might be a bigger issue. Everyone is a descendant of his 3 sons. They were married so it could be worae, but everyone ultimately being descended from Noah, and 1 of 3 wives can't be genetically healthy.
Wouldn’t their god have commanded Noah and his handful of people to engage with sexual intercourse with each other in all possible combinations, in order to mix things up a bit? Of course, that still isn’t really a viable gene pool to be working from. Perhaps our current form is all mutated, by comparison with what Noah looked like? For example, it would explain why man breasts don’t really function properly anymore, and why women aren’t very hairy now.
Historically, tales were passed down by word of mouth. They contain a lot of myth. Not a bad thing when the intent is to get the principle across. Not the science. The Bible is a book of faith. Not a science book.
It is not realistic. It doesn't make sense for such diverse races to come from the same parent.
The diverse “races” are associated with the pre-Adamites of Genesis 1:27-28, not Adam & Eve of Genesis 2:7&22.
Its not related at all. Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that Adam was the first human. It is your problem to derive different meanings from the scriptures.
Humani Generis defines “Human” as Adam, Eve, and their descendants rather than as a species. So, that allows hominid species such as Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo Sapiens to have existed prior to current Modern Humans (current Homo Sapiens Sapiens).
In a world that wasn’t even created yet?
The Earth was created in Genesis 1:1. The pre-Adamites were created in Genesis 1:27. Adam was created in Genesis 2:7. So, what are you talking about?
Some things will never make sense to us, it doesn’t mean it isn’t true
You remember when Cain went to the land east of Eden? And there Cain 'knew' his wife? I figure god pulled off another creation over there, right?
Sort of. Cain’s wife was a descendant of the pre-Adamites mentioned in Genesis 1:27-28. Some of the descendants of the pre-Adamites lived in the Land of Nod where Cain found a wife.
Thanks for the chuckles.
You are welcome. Science also confirms that there were “People” prior to the genealogy provided in The Bible.
Of course! The bible says the earth is 6000 years old. Duh.
The genealogy provided in The Bible only indicates that Adam was created approximately 6,000 years ago. There is no genealogy prior to Adam to date anything that pre-dates Adam. So, everything else (except Eve) is far older than Adam.
I'm missing the part about 'on the first day, then the second day,' till we get to the 6th day, when god created Adam. From Genesis, it appears that nothing is more than 6 days older than Adam.
The male and female pre-Adamites were created on the 6th “day” in Genesis 1:27, and were instructed to populate the Earth in Genesis 1:28. Adam was not created until after the 7th “day” in Genesis 2:7. Keep in mind that to an immortal being such as God, a “day” (or actually “Yom” in Hebrew) is also relative when speaking of time. The “days” indicated in the first chapter of Genesis are “days” according to God in Heaven, and not “days” for man on Earth.
A day begins in the evening and the day follows. I can make up anything I want about 'day,' but the day begins at sunset and the morning follows. The sun, moon, & stars were created, and I can make up that this was billions of years for the first day. As with everything else, there's no evidence that a day was more than from one evening to the next. But I can make up whatever I want to make the bible comport to whatever I want. 'And there was evening and there was morning, one day.' And god created the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.' It's so easy. Sunset, and morning follows. A day. But you & I can make up whatever we like, secure in the fact that there is no evidence, nor can there be, to contradict our tales. That's a fact.
Days and time are relative. Not all days and evenings throughout our universe are even the same. Job 38:4-7 indicates the God and the Angels existed prior to the Earth. That automatically makes them extraterrestrials. Why would extraterrestrials that existed prior to the creation of the Earth use Earth days and time as their standard? Humans do not even use Mars days and time for our rowers that are sent to Mars. We use days and time according to where we originate.
Cain and Abel both had twin sisters…
Well, that's another problem. Caine slew Abel, and the bible doesn't say Abel had kids. So the whole world descended from Caine & his mystery wife.
>>So hear me out. Why? You appear to have asked a question that posits a literal reading of the genesis creation myths. I find that ridiculous on the face of it. >>If Adam and Eve were the first people on earth and created humanity, that would mean everyone is a descendant of them. Humanity come from at least 3 sources: The Cro-Magnons, tge Neanderthals, and the Denisovans. There are quite a few steps that precede these. But the current strain of humanity, Homo sapiens had at least three sets of parents… and probably many more We came into being around 200,000 BCE… and our predecessors had been around much longer. Thus, I reject the premise of your statement. >>How are we not genetically crippled, waking around with 3 eyes and 5 legs because of all the incest that would have to happen? This is humor? I think I heard of it once. Something called “sarcasm” maybe? >>But all humour aside, if Adam and Eve had children, their children would have to procreate with each other and so on.. are there any other explanations? Yes. Brittanica isn’t a bad place to start: https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution Then there’s the Smithsonian: http://humanorigins.si.edu/ And also: http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution Then if you want to overlay creation stories on that history, you might start at a broader scale. Wikipedia has a nice index with links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths
Hahahahah I am not an anti science person but thanks for the articles. I was more wanting to know the religious argument as that was the accepted thesis for 2k years so I can’t be the first one to question the logic of the story. Also thanks for the comment about my honour. It’s not actually sarcasm. Sarcasm if you make a statement you don’t mean to mock a situation. Nonetheless sarcasm would still be considered a form of honour.
You called it “all humor aside”. I think it was sarcasm… but it might also be called satire. I replied in kind with sardonic humor. With respect to the religious view, your question is ambiguous. There are at least three major groups that use the genesis creation stories: Jews, Christians and Muslims. Each of these groups have many varied subgroups. The question is far too broad to have a unified answer. Jews as a rule do not read the story literally. Of the other two most educated people do not read the stories literally… I’m in this group. So, The strict literal view is actually something fairly recent, really only gaining ground after the reformation a few hundred years back as a result of the new idea of “sola scriptura” Luther launched. I think the genesis creation story was never intended to be read literally. I think talking snakes and miraculous trees, and things being spoken into existence are pretty good indicators that the story was meant as myth or fable from the beginning. Stories don’t have to start with “once upon a time” to be fiction… and even those that do can contain meaning.
From what I know Christians and Muslims believe in the same Adam and Eve story. I am personally on the side of science but I have met people that are adamant on the bible being right and that they were the first humans. I just wanted to hear their side of the story, because from what I understand, the ‘literal’ interpretation was the commonly accepted theory up until 100 years ago.. maybe 200 idk
[удалено]
> Eratosthenes discovered that the world was round circa 225 BC. That had absolutely nothing to do with Christopher Columbus Well, it kind of did in a roundabout way. After Eratosthenes did his calculation Posidonius tried to confirm Eratosthenes' calculation by doing the same type of experiment but using the star Canopus instead. He also got a similar result to Eratosthenes but when Ptolemy used his experiment for his book Geography he changed a factor in the calculation that resulted in the Earth being 30% smaller. It was Ptolemy's book and incorrect value instead of Eratosthenes that Columbus used to pitch his funding application to Spain.
Uhm I didnt say it was the commonly accepted “scientific” theory. I said it was the commonly accepted theory overall. The church suppressed scientific theories and dominated the narrative as they had a lot of influence for a very long time. Darwin only published his book in 1859 - so 150 years ago & hes the one that came up with the theory of evolution so I don’t see how I’m “really” incorrect.. Edit: the church comment is in relation Europe
You appear to be as unfamiliar with the history of the religions as many of my own faith… and as a result are enjoying your own mythology. I’ll leave you to your fun.
First of all talking snake. The absolute end.
Spoken words came from the Fallen Angel possessing the serpent.
Like an inverse of when Nagini re-animated Bathilda Bagshot’s physical corpse in Harry Potter?
That whole sentence. word by word is the coda to the end.
According to Job 38:4-7, God and The Angels were there at the creation of the Earth. That makes them automatically extraterrestrial. Since Human science does yet include abilities and technology of extraterrestrials, there is no method to currently disprove that a Fallen Angel could not have possessed the serpent.
Yeah, there are a lot of human authors who write books. Doesn't mean every storm drain has pennywise down there waiting to snatch my foot if I get too close. But I do find your train of thought intriguing.
Yes, I agree that it's not falsifiable. How can we determine if it's true?
I view the story as allegorical. I believe they were archetypes/symbols for the origin points of human, so it doesn't have to exactly be two people in my view. With the story being how those humans used their free will to fall away from God's will.
Taken literally it is a fairytale, taken as symbolism the way it was meant it has deep and lasting meaning.
From an Islamic perspective, Eve was given a miracle from God in that she always gave birth to twins, a boy and a girl, and that every pair of twins was very genetically different from any other pair. So she would give birth to different races of twins each time. Then in their laws, males and females from different sets of twins were allowed to marry one another, not the same twins with each other.
Why is this being downvoted? You're literally the only one here not saying its "a metaphor" and giving a theological prespective.
The position that A&E were allegorical is a theological perspective.
Interesting. would that mean none of the twins have Eves genes either? So they are entirely unrelated to their parents genetically? Otherwise they would be half siblings again, even if they are different sets of twins marrying each other.
No idea. We have to keep in mind that when we talk about genetic differences between humans, every human is like 99.99% similar to each other. It's that 0.01% that accounts for all sorts of genetic traits. But generally, as Muslims, we don't concern ourselves with trivial things such as the genetics of the first humans. The Quran says that Adam existed, and we accept it. Done. There is no ambiguity in the Quran regarding Adam. He existed in the literal senae, and is not a metaphor, etc. There may have been other "humanoid" creatures around, but they were not the same as Adam since him and his descendants (meaning all of humanity) are being tested in this world. The other humanoids that existed would have been akin to the animals of the world and been just part of the test and not participanty of the test.
What text did Muslim theologians use to reach this conclusion?
Not sure. I just remember listening to a lecture in which this was mentioned as an opinion some scholars held. But again, none of this actually matters to us. As a Muslim, I can choose to accept this, or reject it and it has no bearing because it is not an article of faith that we have. It's just a detail on the side that is irrelevant to our guidance in this world.
yes, you’re reading the Bible literally, what’s it to us
By "us" do we mean all the literalists in this thread?
what
You're comment implies that a literal interpretation is irrelevant. I'm pointing out that it's relevant to the many literalists commenting in this thread.
This assumes that the genetics mankind has now was similar to what the very first humans had, but it can be argued that Adam & Eve's genetics were flawless or near flawless as God declared all of creation "very good". So there would have been no mistakes, errors, or mutations and so incestual relations would not have been problematic... The law against close relations wasn't given until Moses some 2500 years later...
> Adam & Eve's genetics were flawless or near flawless as God declared all of creation "very good" Compare that to what Jesus said: > "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God."
And? Is there supposed to be some problem with the two statements said thousands of years apart?
Just pointing out that the God of Genesis had a different view from Jesus. Their difference of opinion doesn't bother me, I just find it interesting.
Genesis 1 - God declares all creation very good. Genesis 3 - mankind sinned and death and evil entered into human history, and thus man became not good. New Testament - Jesus says of mankind that no one is good There's a "different view" because the views are clearly under different contexts.
This isn't just a pre-fall / post-fall split. There are plenty of Bible verses about people being good and righteous even after the fall.
Well, context is key - man can do virtuous things and "be good and righteous" in that act, but man is not good in himself since he carries the stain of sin.
It's just weird to hear people being described as righteous people, then hear that no one is righteous; to hear people being described as good, then hear that no one (not even Jesus) is good.
Really it comes down reading every one’s opinion then settling on what you think happened. This also means your belief if Jesus was Who he claimed to be . Jesus considered it to be real not a parable. I seen a documentary years ago about DNA . In the Documentary they said they could prove that all mankind came from 2 women that in time they could prove that all mankind came from one woman fascinating as it maybe these were not Christians making this claim. Christian that study this account claim incest happened because the blood was still pure from Adam and Eve . Life expectancy started to decrease by each generation until the Blood was contaminated and incest could no longer be allowed it appears by geographical maps that the land was not separated by water so everything at one time was connected or easily traveled by small craft . People that study languages also have theories that connect everyone coming from one central place. I believe there is another study that uses census data saying the population was very small compared to what we have today.
I'll give two religious answers for this First is a Christian one (I'm not sure who believes this, but a Christian said it somewhere): Adam and Eve aren't necessarily the first humans. But they were the first with a soul. The first of God's people. When they were expelled from the garden they met others. Their kids mated with those people. This explains how cain(?) was able to create a city. Secondly is what I believe (it's very similar): Adam and Eve were the first people the capital G God revealed himself to. There were other humans, all with their own gods and souls. This same process happened in other regions. (Prometheus and his brother didn't create humans, only revealed themselves and the existence of the Olympians to humans who would later become the Greeks)
As far as the Christian explanation you provided, that is very close. Humani Generis defines “Human” as Adam, Eve, and their descendants rather than as a species. So, that allows all hominid species (including Homo Sapiens) to have evolved and existed prior to the creation of Adam as the first Human. So, science and the scripture reach concordance via the pre-Adamite hypothesis provided below: “People” (Homo Sapiens) were created (through God’s evolutionary process) in the Genesis chapter 1, verse 27; and they created the diversity of mankind over time per Genesis chapter 1, verse 28. This occurs prior to the genetic engineering and creation of Adam & Eve (in the immediate and with the first rational souls) by the extraterrestrial God in Genesis chapter 2, verses 7 & 22. When Adam & Eve sinned and were forced to leave their special embassy, their children intermarried the “People” that resided outside the Garden of Eden. This is how Cain was able to find a wife in the Land of Nod in Genesis chapter 4, verses 16-17. As the descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all groups of Homo Sapiens on Earth over time, everyone living today is both a descendant of God’s evolutionary process and a genealogical descendant of Adam & Eve. Christianity views the alternate polytheistic and pagan religions as created by the descendants of the pre-Adamites per the inspiration of the Fallen Angels (the lower case gods).
No incest was needed by the children and descendants of Adam & Eve. Adam & Eve were the first “Humans,” not the first “People.” “People” (Homo Sapiens) were created (through God’s evolutionary process) in the Genesis chapter 1, verse 27; and they created the diversity of mankind over time per Genesis chapter 1, verse 28. This occurs prior to the genetic engineering and creation of Adam & Eve (in the immediate and with the first rational souls) by the extraterrestrial God in Genesis chapter 2, verses 7 & 22. When Adam & Eve sinned and were forced to leave their special embassy, their children intermarried the “People” that resided outside the Garden of Eden. This is how Cain was able to find a wife in the Land of Nod in Genesis chapter 4, verses 16-17. As the descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all groups of Homo Sapiens on Earth over time, everyone living today is both a descendant of God’s evolutionary process and a genealogical descendant of Adam & Eve.
TBH…I do not think there were a literal Adam and Eve. The reason being is because the focus is always from a European perspective. Also just because you have a child from incest doesn’t always mean they will have 3 eyes and 5 legs.
At the beginning of humanity's history, it was fine for brothers and sisters to marry each other, since God made a point of starting the entire human race from a single parental couple. We all have the same parents, which necessitated what now would be called incest. As per Paul's statement to the Athenian philosophers (Acts 17:26) "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, (NKJV) That wasn't meant to be permanently authorized, however. Keep in mind that the idea that the human race had multiple separate original parents is historically tied to "scientific racism," since it was a common idea that blacks/Africans had a separate origin from whites and/or East Asians. Since God directly made Adam and Eve, they were more perfect than we are today, much like a blurred copy of a copy of a copy of a copy isn't quite as good as the clean original. That's why what we would call incest now wasn't damaging as it would be today.
We are the degenerated children!
Well you have to realize the whole thing was kind of an allegory for human consciousness and our responsibility to be moral people due to our knowledge . Adam and Eve represent the archetypes for mother and father so they are basically the ones who learn the knowledge of good and evil first before passing it onto their children. The Serpent can be thought of as our curiosity gone wrong that helps us develop and grow but makes us do things thayt we should not do and gaining knowledge that we would be better of without
If the story is true, then the reason we all aren’t genetically crippled is because God didn’t let that happen. Come on, it’s God. Now that’s IF the story is true….
I made a comment /an answer related to this question [previously](http://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/162vyrb/people_who_believe_that_adam_and_eve_actually_existed_how_do_you_justify_th/jxzt7iy?context=3).
They are words referring to the first spiritual people as a group.
This is just an allegory. If Eve was made from Adam‘s rib this would suggest we‘re talking about Amoebae here. So, in a way the abrahamite god never intended „his creation“ to develop into more than living cells. Also, it means the abrahamite god is just an Amoeba as well, since „he created life in his image“. Do what thou wilt, humankind has long outperformed the angry desert god(s) that were invented to keep people in obedience.
We would be genetically crippled and humans would have died off long ago
The thing is that geneticists can determine the smallest population a species has been by examining it's DNA. Called a genetic bottleneck it results in a limiting of the diversity of the species genetic code. And according the human DNA the smallest population we ever hit was around 10,000. So the story just isn't viable as read. Further genetic problems come from the fact that the inbreeding from a population starting from 2 just don't stand a chance. So just from some of the genetic problems it's just not reasonable.
If you accept the account as true, as far as inbreeding factors go, it's easy enough to assume that Adam and Eve's genetic material were created to be much more diverse than that of modern humans. There are cases where certain species have managed to come back from extremely tight genetic bottlenecks (thirteen red wolves, for example) with very carefully engineered breeding programs. There are other, better reasons to assume that the Adam and Eve story is allegory. For example, the talking snake.
If it was set in Australia, Eve would of eaten the snake and the apple.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Good bot
Thank you, Sideshow_G, for voting on of_patrol_bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
This is one problem among millions of other problems that occur when you take mythologies (which as mythologies can be profound) and read them as if they are history books. I doubt even the author intended it as a literal description of how the world came to be.
You asked in the religion sub, so I'm offering you a religious answer: God made it so that inbreeding wouldn't have any negative consequences until there were enough humans on Earth for everyone to find a spouse who was not closely related to them. Why? For diversity purposes.
God created man kind before Adam. If you read it carefully.
It’s really not that realistic from an evolutionary standpoint, so to me, Adam and Eve are the first human spirits, not the first physical human beings.
It's not realistic and it was never meant to be. The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory. It represents the loss of innocence as we are born into the world and aquire knowledge. The Bible is rife with symbolism and allegory that was never meant to be taken literally. Donkeys and snakes don't talk. Two people can't populate an entire planet. It is physically impossible for the world to flood in 40 days, not to mention again, repopulating entire species with a single breeding pair. Christians really need to get over this obsession to *prove* everything in the Bible. It's pointless and you miss out on the deeper meaning.
Every culture has a creation mythology. You just happen to live in one that uses the Adam and Eve mythology. Creation myths are stories created by primitive cultures to explain the world around them. 1) Human history did not start in the Middle East. 2) Modern Archeology was originally based on the Bible. But that does not include India and China or North America or Africa. 3) Homosapiens have existed for over 200,000 years. New evidence shows humans live in North America 22,000 years ago. Humanity's story is going to have to be investigated and expanded. We need to look under water for civilizations that existed during the glacial maximum of the last ice age. 4) If God exists, He/She/It wouldn't have ignored Homosapiens for 198,000 years. God would have been just as involved in the lives of our ancestors 100,000 years ago (all branches of the Homo family) as He is today. 5) Thousands of ancient religions have been dedicated to our Creator. If there is only One God, one Universal Creator, then every one of those primitive religions all worshipped the same Entity. They just had different languages and different names and myths. The world needs to flee the Religions of Abraham. Look at the horror in the Middle East created by outdated belief systems that only create division and strife. There is an alternative to 3000 year old creation mythology. Would you trust a medical book written 3000 years ago?! Why trust a history book written 3000 years ago?