Adam & Eve And Evolution

[Badran]

Badran, you are asking us to explain the reasoning of a group of unnamed people who have argued that evolution disproved the story of Adam and Eve. It is hard to say why they raised that particular issue, not being familiar with the context in which they raised the argument.

My apologies for any vagueness in the OP. What i was having in mind is that the people who make this claim (here in the forum) would mainly weigh in, and that others will see and comment on the issue, as well as share any other relevant information they think is important to note.

In other words, i'm not trying to burden everybody who doesn't accept the story or think its a myth to explain why evolution negates such an idea, but only trying to get information from those who hold or agree with that specific claim, and get feedback from others in general.

If I were to argue against that story, bringing up evolution would be way down the list of my objections to it. It is an internally inconsistent story, as others have pointed out. That is, it does not explain how Adam's progeny were able to find other people to mate with. It appears to combine elements of an older Semitic folktale epic, the Gilgamesh myth, into a newer myth. And the story of God's behavior and reasoning just doesn't make any sense, given his perfect foreknowledge of what Adam and Eve would have done under the circumstances that he supposedly created. You have to get past all of that before it makes sense to even raise the question of whether the story fits in with evolution.

Thats why i tried to emphasize that i'm not talking about it through any particular theology or scripture, but as a general idea. I'm not trying to make any judgement on the story in its entirety (since it varies). I understand that there are other reasons based on which people find problems with the story through some scriptures, but thats not what i'm talking about. I'm only talking about the specific claim that through evolution, we supposedly know that scientifically its not possible for such an idea to be the case.

My guess is that some people may think evolution relevant to the discussion, because it provides a more credible alternative theory to the origin of the human race. The Adam and Eve just-so story claims that those two individuals were directly created by God. They had no parents, so it makes no sense that they had a common ancestor with apes, let alone other animals. The theory of evolution claims that humans had a common ancestor with apes and other animals. Indeed, it provides an explanation of how the common descent of all living things on the planet came about.

Thats another thing i tried to clarify in the OP. That i'm not addressing the "god just put them there" type of idea. I am accepting evolution as the explanation, and based on so, seeking clarification regarding that stage which we can call "the beginning" or something along those lines. Whether or not its possible that we can trace to two people.

Does evolution disprove the story of Adam and Eve? It does not rule out the logical possibility. God could have created all living things all at once with DNA that made it appear that they all had common ancestry. He could have seeded the Earth with layers of sediment containing fake fossil remains that made it appear that there had been hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary development in living species. Is that logical possibility plausible? No.

I agree actually.

 

[Badran]

it is impossible for a single pair to sustain a breeding population


Adam and Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In terms of human genetics, the concept that all humans descended from two historical persons is impossible.[18] Genetic evidence indicates humans descended from a group of at least 10,000 people due to the amount of human genetic variation.[18] If all humans descended from two individuals several thousand years ago, as Young Earth creationism supposes, it would require an impossibly high mutation rate to account for the observed variation.[18] This has caused some religious practitioners to move away from a literal interpretation and belief in the Adam and Eve creation myth.[18] Other literalists continue to believe in what they see as a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.[18]

Thanks for clarifying. It says in the article:

If all humans descended from two individuals several thousand years ago, as Young Earth creationism supposes, it would require an impossibly high mutation rate to account for the observed variation.

If that is what the impossibility is based upon (as i understood), its still addressing a specific theological claim, rather than the general idea that i'm trying to discuss. Meaning that it addressed YECs claims in particular, not the idea in general. As also indicated by this:

This has caused some religious practitioners to move away from a literal interpretation and belief in the Adam and Eve creation myth.[18] Other literalists continue to believe in what they see as a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.[18]

but you asked this

so my statements all apply as they do negate the creation myth's by showing the problems of trying to shove mythology into reality, which is what a literal interpretation of adam and eve does

I asked this in regards to evolution. As indicated by the title and the explanation in the OP. IOW, what information do we have through biology that negates such an idea. Not a certain interpretation of a certain text, and not general information that opposes that certain interpretation of a text.

 

[outhouse]

this may help you with the impossibility of a single breeding pair

Minimum viable population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minimum viable population


An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored.[3][4] When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the 1,000s. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.[5]

 

[Badran]

this may help you with the impossibility of a single breeding pair

Minimum viable population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minimum viable population


An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored.[3][4] When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the 1,000s. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.[5]

Thanks, i'll read up on that and come back with any questions if i have any.

 

[Copernicus]

Thats another thing i tried to clarify in the OP. That i'm not addressing the "god just put them there" type of idea. I am accepting evolution as the explanation, and based on so, seeking clarification regarding that stage which we can call "the beginning" or something along those lines. Whether or not its possible that we can trace to two people.

But was my response not the kind of answer you were looking for? Since the story of Adam and Eve is a story about the first humans, who according to the story had no parents, then it contradicts the idea that humans had apes for ancestors. You can't have ancestors, if you don't have parents. Hence, if you accept the theory of evolution, then you cannot accept the story of Adam and Eve.

I agree actually.

As always, you are maddeningly agreeable and polite.

 

[Badran]

But was my response not the kind of answer you were looking for?

In its entirety it fits with what i was looking for, even though that some parts were addressing things that i was excluding. But even those parts actually made me realize that i made a silly mistake, in not noticing that the claim i referred to could in fact be only addressing the story under certain parameters, or as proposed in a certain way.

Since the story of Adam and Eve is a story about the first humans, who according to the story had no parents, then it contradicts the idea that humans had apes for ancestors. You can't have ancestors, if you don't have parents. Hence, if you accept the theory of evolution, then you cannot accept the story of Adam and Eve.

As far as i know, that proposition does not go for all 'versions' of the story. What i mean is, as i learned it for example, that part was never actually addressed. We don't know how they came to earth. There are two stages, the stage where they 'come' to earth was not explained.

They were supposedly the first of humans, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily didn't come from anything. IOW, it doesn't oppose that they had ancestors, it just proposes that they were the first of their kind. It might state explicitly in the biblical story that they came from nothing (i'm not sure personally), in the stage where they 'come' to earth, but like i said that as far as i know doesn't go for other theologies.

As always, you are maddeningly agreeable and polite.

Its hard not to be so when responding to someone like you.

 

[outhouse]

They were supposedly the first of humans, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily didn't come from anything. IOW, it doesn't oppose that they had ancestors, it just proposes that they were the first of their kind. It might state explicitly in the biblical story that they came from nothing (i'm not sure personally), in the stage where they 'come' to earth, but like i said that as far as i know doesn't go for other theologies.

gods breath into dirt made Adam

Adams rib made Eve

according to the mythology

 

[Vultar]

The fact that brothers and sister mating causes a very high probability of birth defects should let you know that civilization could not have started with two people. Not that it matters anyways as they were all wiped out by the flood
But the Noah Clan wouldn't be enough either, not to mention only two of each animal (not genetically possible)

 

[crystalonyx]

The Adam and Eve story in the bible is like the rest of the stories in the bible - a myth written for some teaching purpose.

 

[idav]

gods breath into dirt made Adam

Adams rib made Eve

according to the mythology

According to the mythology humans were made from dirt man and women.

Genesis 1
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Too bad their descendants died in the flood.

 

[shawn001]

Badran

some info for you

But somethings to know. We can trace evolution back to the big bang before any stars or galaxies existed at all.

Humans are also carbon based life forms. The carbon came from huge stars that exploded and seeded the universe with the heavy elements, like carbon in a process called nucleosynthesis, our entire solar system is made up of recycled material and elements from earlier star explosions billions of years before the solar system formed.

Have you looked at these?

The new human evolution website from the new 20+ million dollar museam hall at the smithsonian.

Evidence of Evolution
Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.

Exciting scientific discoveries continually add to the broader and deeper public knowledge of human evolution. Find out about the latest evidence in our What’s Hot in Human Origins section.
Behavior
Explore the evidence of early human behavior—from ancient footprints to stone tools and the earliest symbols and art – along with similarities and differences in the behavior of other primate species.
3D Collection
Explore our 3D collection of fossils and artifacts.
Human Fossils
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. Look into our digital 3-D collection and learn about fossil human species.
Genetics
Our genes offer evidence of how closely we are related to one another – and of our species’ connection with all other organisms.
Dating
The layers that contain fossils and archeological clues can be dated by more than a dozen techniques that use the basic principles of physics, chemistry, and Earth sciences. Some techniques can even estimate the age of the ancient teeth and bones directly. Advances in dating have made human evolution very exciting!

Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
One Species, Living Worldwide
The billions of human beings living today all belong to one species: Homo sapiens.
As in all species, there is variation among individual human beings, from size and shape to skin tone and eye color. But we are much more alike than we are different. We are, in fact, remarkably similar. The DNA of all human beings living today is 99.9% alike.
We all have roots extending back 200,000 years to the emergence of the first modern humans in Africa, and back more than 6 million years to the evolution of the earliest human species in Africa. This amazing story of adaptation and survival is written in the language of our genes, in every cell of our bodies—as well as in the fossil and behavioral evidence.
This ancient heritage is yours.
Explore the origins of modern humans in Africa about 200,000 years ago and celebrate our species’ epic journey around the world in this video: "One Species, Living Worldwide."
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/one-species-living- worldwide


New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

Homo sapiens originated in Africa 150,000 years ago and began to migrate 55,000 to 60,000 years ago. It is thought he arrived in Australia around 45,000 years before present (BP). Australia was, at the time, already colonised by homo erectus. This dispersal, from Africa to Australia through Arabia, Asia and the Malay peninsula, could have occurred at a rate of 1km per year. (Credit: Image courtesy of University Of Cambridge)
New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right
Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time


One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control life’s physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change. These days, Carroll also devotes increasing energy to telling the public about his field’s remarkable discoveries through a series of books—Endless Forms Most Beautiful, The Making of the Fittest, and the brand-new Remarkable Creatures. He spoke with DISCOVER senior editor Pamela Weintraub about what his work has taught him about Darwin, the nature of evolution, and how life really works.
It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?

It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but they’re not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. It’s a blindness. I think this is a phase that we’ll eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I don’t know how many decades or centuries it’s going to take us.
DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine


They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To
Our species—and individual races—have recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures.

They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine

Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving
A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.

Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving | LiveScience


You should also read this from the National Academy of Sciences.

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."


Evolution Resources from the National Academies


a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The Adam and Even "story" has nothing to do with Biological Evolution. Eve being genetically manipulated from the DNA of Adam is highly unlikely. The story is not original. It's an adapted story that was told before the Genesis author plagiarized it.

 

[shawn001]

There was also Lilith yes?

 

[Badran]

Badran

some info for you

But somethings to know. We can trace evolution back to the big bang before any stars or galaxies existed at all.

Humans are also carbon based life forms. The carbon came from huge stars that exploded and seeded the universe with the heavy elements, like carbon in a process called nucleosynthesis, our entire solar system is made up of recycled material and elements from earlier star explosions billions of years before the solar system formed.

Have you looked at these?

The new human evolution website from the new 20+ million dollar museam hall at the smithsonian.

Evidence of Evolution
Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.

Exciting scientific discoveries continually add to the broader and deeper public knowledge of human evolution. Find out about the latest evidence in our What’s Hot in Human Origins section.
Behavior
Explore the evidence of early human behavior—from ancient footprints to stone tools and the earliest symbols and art – along with similarities and differences in the behavior of other primate species.
3D Collection
Explore our 3D collection of fossils and artifacts.
Human Fossils
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. Look into our digital 3-D collection and learn about fossil human species.
Genetics
Our genes offer evidence of how closely we are related to one another – and of our species’ connection with all other organisms.
Dating
The layers that contain fossils and archeological clues can be dated by more than a dozen techniques that use the basic principles of physics, chemistry, and Earth sciences. Some techniques can even estimate the age of the ancient teeth and bones directly. Advances in dating have made human evolution very exciting!

Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
One Species, Living Worldwide
The billions of human beings living today all belong to one species: Homo sapiens.
As in all species, there is variation among individual human beings, from size and shape to skin tone and eye color. But we are much more alike than we are different. We are, in fact, remarkably similar. The DNA of all human beings living today is 99.9% alike.
We all have roots extending back 200,000 years to the emergence of the first modern humans in Africa, and back more than 6 million years to the evolution of the earliest human species in Africa. This amazing story of adaptation and survival is written in the language of our genes, in every cell of our bodies—as well as in the fossil and behavioral evidence.
This ancient heritage is yours.
Explore the origins of modern humans in Africa about 200,000 years ago and celebrate our species’ epic journey around the world in this video: "One Species, Living Worldwide."
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/one-species-living- worldwide


New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

Homo sapiens originated in Africa 150,000 years ago and began to migrate 55,000 to 60,000 years ago. It is thought he arrived in Australia around 45,000 years before present (BP). Australia was, at the time, already colonised by homo erectus. This dispersal, from Africa to Australia through Arabia, Asia and the Malay peninsula, could have occurred at a rate of 1km per year. (Credit: Image courtesy of University Of Cambridge)
New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right
Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time


One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control life’s physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change. These days, Carroll also devotes increasing energy to telling the public about his field’s remarkable discoveries through a series of books—Endless Forms Most Beautiful, The Making of the Fittest, and the brand-new Remarkable Creatures. He spoke with DISCOVER senior editor Pamela Weintraub about what his work has taught him about Darwin, the nature of evolution, and how life really works.
It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?

It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but they’re not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. It’s a blindness. I think this is a phase that we’ll eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I don’t know how many decades or centuries it’s going to take us.
DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine


They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To
Our species—and individual races—have recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures.

They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine

Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving
A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.

Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving | LiveScience


You should also read this from the National Academy of Sciences.

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."


Evolution Resources from the National Academies


a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin

Thanks a lot shawn.

I'm still reading through all the sources. I'm pretty ignorant about this so its taking some time to make sure i don't keep asking questions that have been shared in one of the sources.

 

[Badran]

The Adam and Eve story in the bible is like the rest of the stories in the bible - a myth written for some teaching purpose.

The Adam and Even "story" has nothing to do with Biological Evolution. Eve being genetically manipulated from the DNA of Adam is highly unlikely. The story is not original. It's an adapted story that was told before the Genesis author plagiarized it.

There was also Lilith yes?

Guys, like i said i'm not talking about any particular 'version' of the story, the biblical one or otherwise.

Take my question in general, as to whether or not its possible for humanity to trace to two people, and thats it. Any details based on any particular version of the story are a non-issue here for me.

So for example the part i emphasized in Dirty Penguin's post is not something i'm necessarily basing my question on.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So for example the part i emphasized in Dirty Penguin's post is not something i'm necessarily basing my question on.

The Abrahamic creation myth is the more popular one. All of the myths that meet your OP criteria are virtually the same. Genetically two humans that are "clones" (i.e. Adam and Eve) can not produce the diversification of life as we know it to be on this planet. There are many (man and woman) creation myths and none are consistent with the current data.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But somethings to know. We can trace evolution back to the big bang before any stars or galaxies existed at all.

WOW!

​

 

[Badran]

The Abrahamic creation myth is the more popular one. All of the myths that meet your OP criteria are virtually the same. Genetically two humans that are "clones" (i.e. Adam and Eve) can not produce the diversification of life as we know it to be on this planet. There are many (man and woman) creation myths and none are consistent with the current data.

(Sorry about the late reply)

The Abrahamic version of the story (the one found in Abrahamic religions that is) is not actually one to begin with. There are considerable differences between the Islamic version and the Biblical one, thats not to mention the interpretations that are gotten out of said stories.

In short, again, this is precisely why i'm trying to make it in general. I don't want to keep arguing details that are irrelevant to my actual question. Details such Eve being made 'out' of Adam, for example, so to speak. Which is something not shared in all versions of the story.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Abrahamic creation myth is the more popular one. All of the myths that meet your OP criteria are virtually the same. Genetically two humans that are "clones" (i.e. Adam and Eve) can not produce the diversification of life as we know it to be on this planet. There are many (man and woman) creation myths and none are consistent with the current data.

According to Scripture we all trace back to one of Noah's three sons.
Noah then traces back to Adam.

 

[Thief]

This is mostly an educational thread, which is why i didn't put it in the Evolution Vs. Creationism forum. Basically i'm pretty ignorant regarding evolution, but understand some very little basic ideas, and generally accept it, based on that limited understanding (as i have no reason or ground based upon which i would choose to not accept it, or treat it any differently).

My question here is regarding the idea which i've seen proposed as a fact in many threads, regarding evolution negating the possibility for the Adam and Eve story. The reason i'm wording it that way ("proposed as a fact") is that i haven't actually yet read or seen the basis or justification behind it. So what i'm trying to know here, is the basis for that statement, whether or not its really a fact, and whether or not any aspect of the issue is debatable. Feel free to post relevant links, explain in your own words or a combination of both. The one thing i would ask to put in mind is what i said above, that i'm pretty ignorant about the issue, so i guess put that in mind please while explaining or sharing links.

Finally, please also take care that i'm not addressing the story from one particular theology, but as a general idea (since it varies a little bit between the religious scriptures that contain the story). I'm also not addressing it based on simplistic ideas such as god 'just putting them here on earth' or things along those lines. I'm essentially asking what is the other supposed scenario that negates the one where its two people in the beginning. IOW, i'm not trying to see whether or not the literal understanding of a certain scripture can work, as much as i'm curious about the alternate scenario, and in what way it supposedly negates one along the lines of Adam and Eve.

Thanks in advance.

In other threads I've attempted to address the garden event more to theology, than anything else.
And it would be difficult to leave God out of it.
He would be the principle Initiator.

We humans are well aware that we are not like the rest of the animal world.
We are very focused about the differences.
To say we are animal is correct.
To say 'that is all we are'.... is shallow.

So, according to the story a selected specimen is placed into ideal living conditions, is altered in mind and spirit, surgery is performed and he is cloned...and given his twin sister for a bride. Eve had no navel.
Sounds like science to me.
It has all the earmarks of an experiment.

As much would not be evolution.

Believers and non-believers alike, don't much care the way I point this out.
But I didn't write Genesis.