Are Adam and Eve Incompatible with Evolution?

[Twilight Hue]

There is no need for the Bible to fit in with science 100% if science is wrong. Science does not know what happened back then.

It is by modern day science we know what such an outcome would be in the Genesis scenario.

It's not very good.

 

[AlexanderG]

Is there anything wrong with God choosing a hominid specimen and changing a couple of things to get Adam and then breathing the human spirit into Adam to bring him back to life as a human instead of an ape?
"Spirit" might not be supported by the science but that does not worry me and maybe as a "free thinker" it should not bother you also.
I don't think tigers were vegetarian btw.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that all by itself, although I doubt god would've followed an ethical framework like the Animal Welfare Act to ensure no undue harm came to them. In particular, withholding the ability from them to tell right from wrong, then punishing them for disobeying you when they didn't know it was wrong to disobey until the moment after they disobeyed, then cursing them with pain and death as the result of your own elaborate mind game that you pre-orchestrated, seems to be unethical.

And yes, as a critical thinker I don't believe any of this actually happened, because I don't believe things for which there is zero supporting evidence. Either way, none of the reinterpretation in this article really sheds light on the issue of original sin. I guess it's trying to make the surrounding claims of the story more plausible, so that the entirely unevidenced portions can be more easily accepted by people who want to believe them?

 

[Sand Dancer]

There is no need for the Bible to fit in with science 100% if science is wrong. Science does not know what happened back then.

But that is our best hope of knowing. How else could we even try to find out?

 

[PureX]

Apparently some immunologist has recently published a book arguing that evolution and the Christian belief that all humans descended from Adam and Eve are not incompatible.

Christians point to genetics breakthroughs to show Adam and Eve are not incompatible with evolution

From what I gleaned in the article, the idea is that humans descended from earlier hominids but then God also magically created Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago, and their kids Cain and Abel intermarried with other humans who had evolved naturally. So by 1CE, all living humans had some of traceable lineage back to Adam and Eve.

Personally I think this sounds like a desperate attempt to salvage a literal reading of Genesis. But I'm curious what you think? Especially those of you with more knowledge of evolution, biology, genetics, etc.

I suppose, depending on how one defines a human being, there had to have been a first pair of us, somewhere. Or I suppose a first one of us with some dominant genetic mutation that defined him/her as a human being apart from his/her's parents, and that then spread through procreation.

The thing is, though, that it's a collection of traits that define us as human beings, and those will likely have developed separately over time. So that there would not likely have been any one individual source to name "Adam" or "Eve".

 

[Colt]

Apparently some immunologist has recently published a book arguing that evolution and the Christian belief that all humans descended from Adam and Eve are not incompatible.

Christians point to genetics breakthroughs to show Adam and Eve are not incompatible with evolution

From what I gleaned in the article, the idea is that humans descended from earlier hominids but then God also magically created Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago, and their kids Cain and Abel intermarried with other humans who had evolved naturally. So by 1CE, all living humans had some of traceable lineage back to Adam and Eve.

Personally I think this sounds like a desperate attempt to salvage a literal reading of Genesis. But I'm curious what you think? Especially those of you with more knowledge of evolution, biology, genetics, etc.

Adam and Eve "materialized" on a previously evolved, populated, old earth. They were to replace the administration of the fallen "crafty beast" who defaulted.

When the Israelites wrote Genesis, they didn't know that there was life before Adam and Eve however in their edited story they left the part about Cain going to the land of Nod and finding a wife.

 

[Audie]

I suppose, depending on how one defines a human being, there had to have been a first pair of us, somewhere. Or I suppose a first one of us with some dominant genetic mutation that defined him/her as a human being apart from his/her's parents, and that then spread through procreation.

The thing is, though, that it's a collection of traits that define us as human beings, and those will likely have developed separately over time. So that there would not likely have been any one individual source to name "Adam" or "Eve".

A " first" makes no genetic sense at all,
as has ben gone over many times in this forum.

 

[PureX]

A " first" makes no genetic sense at all,
as has ben gone over many times in this forum.

Mutations in one individual's genetic code can cause a "first" characteristic that if beneficial to the individual's ability to procreate, and if genetically dominant, will then be transferred to more and more individuals within the species. Mutation is, in fact, a significant means of generating the changes responsible for species "evolving" over time. But as usual, you felt the need to protested before thinking. I guess I have that affect on people.

 

[danieldemol]

The scientists are the ones guessing, based on the scientific evidence and the naturalistic methodology of science.
The methodological presumption of no God input has imo led science astray at times.

Until science discovers any reliable evidence of God input it is better for science to operate on the null hypothesis that there isn't any.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

Adam and Eve "materialized" on a previously evolved, populated, old earth. They were to replace the administration of the fallen "crafty beast" who defaulted.

When the Israelites wrote Genesis, they didn't know that there was life before Adam and Eve however in their edited story they left the part about Cain going to the land of Nod and finding a wife.

Another attempt to post hoc rationalise the story that contradicts the original story and has no basis in evidence.

When will humanity learn that post-hoc rationalising a story does not make it true?

In my opinion.

 

[gnostic]

There is no need for the Bible to fit in with science 100% if science is wrong.

Wrong about what, exactly?

What did bible get right, in which science got wrong?

Science does not know what happened back then.

You weren’t there, back then.

And neither was the author.

According to Judaeo-Christian traditions, Moses was attributed as author of Genesis, but Moses wasn’t there at Creation of Adam.

And like Adam, Moses don’t even exist as a historical person, hence Moses couldn’t have written Genesis, nor the Exodus.

Everything points to the Genesis and Exodus being written in the 6th century BCE, since there are no Genesis or Exodus texts in the Late Bronze Age (c 1550 - c 1050 BCE). There are no stone or clay tablets, no scrolls, no manuscripts in this period of the Bronze Age...there are not even any inscriptions of biblical texts on walls of any buildings or tombs or stone stele in these times.

 

[Left Coast]

Adam and Eve "materialized" on a previously evolved, populated, old earth. They were to replace the administration of the fallen "crafty beast" who defaulted.

Are you talking about a different planet? Where is it?

 

[Audie]

Mutations in one individual's genetic code can cause a "first" characteristic that if beneficial to the individual's ability to procreate, and if genetically dominant, will then be transferred to more and more individuals within the species. Mutation is, in fact, a significant means of generating the changes responsible for species "evolving" over time. But as usual, you felt the need to protested before thinking. I guess I have that affect on people.

Im not the one needing to attend intro to remedial biology.
Maybe someone else will have the patience to explain your mistakes.

 

[Harel13]

A certain rabbi whose classes I attend weekly once recounted to us that he had attended some kind of convention of clergymen from Judaism, Christianity and Islam that worked in university campuses. There was a group of Christian priests there who were trying to get clergymen to join their cause of fighting off the concept of Evolution which was taking up campuses by storm (evolution is no longer a new theory so I don't know what exactly made it more popular at the time). They were very surprised and dismayed to discover that he had no trouble with the concept of evolution because it doesn't really contradict anything within Judaism. Not only that, but there are sources, including ancient ones, that appear to allude to such a concept.

I myself am not troubled by this issue, even before I heard this story, but it's a nice anecdote. Whether there was evolution or not is not a topic that keeps me up at night.

 

[Colt]

Im a stud

Are you talking about a different planet? Where is it?

I'm a student of the 1955 Urantia Book revelation which explains where the Planetary Adams come from and what their purpose is. They are the "biologic uplifters" that are dispatched for service once an evolutionary world reaches a certain point in its development. Our world was one of 38 inhabited worlds that fell into rebellion roughly 200,000 years ago when Lucifer launched his attempted coup d'état.

Sounds crazy I know but so does the story in Genesis wherein 2 full grown educated adults "suddenly appear" in ancient history and played an important enough roll that the Israelites sought to trace their blood lines back to them.

The Planetary Adams - TruthBook

 

[Colt]

Another attempt to post hoc rationalise the story that contradicts the original story and has no basis in evidence.

When will humanity learn that post-hoc rationalising a story does not make it true?

In my opinion.

Whoever Adam and his mate are, they were important enough for the Israelites to attempt to construct an authoritative line of descent all the way back to. There is an enormous amount of lost history for our world. Like about 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of our worlds 4+ billion-year-old history was lost.

 

[Left Coast]

Im a stud

Way to be confident, I guess?

I'm a student of the 1955 Urantia Book revelation which explains where the Planetary Adams come from and what their purpose is. They are the "biologic uplifters" that are dispatched for service once an evolutionary world reaches a certain point in its development. Our world was one of 38 inhabited worlds that fell into rebellion roughly 200,000 years ago when Lucifer launched his attempted coup d'état.

Fascinating.

Sounds crazy I know but so does the story in Genesis wherein 2 full grown educated adults "suddenly appear" in ancient history and played an important enough roll that the Israelites sought to trace their blood lines back to them.

The Planetary Adams - TruthBook

In fairness they do both sound pretty crazy and I don't believe either of them.

 

[exchemist]

The scientists are the ones guessing, based on the scientific evidence and the naturalistic methodology of science.
The methodological presumption of no God input has imo led science astray at times.

Methodological naturalism is key to the scientific method. Without it there would be no science at all.

A theory based on objective evidence is not a "guess".

 

[GardenLady]

A certain rabbi whose classes I attend weekly once recounted to us that he had attended some kind of convention of clergymen from Judaism, Christianity and Islam that worked in university campuses. There was a group of Christian priests there who were trying to get clergymen to join their cause of fighting off the concept of Evolution which was taking up campuses by storm (evolution is no longer a new theory so I don't know what exactly made it more popular at the time). They were very surprised and dismayed to discover that he had no trouble with the concept of evolution because it doesn't really contradict anything within Judaism. Not only that, but there are sources, including ancient ones, that appear to allude to such a concept.

I myself am not troubled by this issue, even before I heard this story, but it's a nice anecdote. Whether there was evolution or not is not a topic that keeps me up at night.

This reminds me of a story I cannot confirm. A friend told me about a school board meeting she attended in Kansas abut 10 years ago. Someone commented, "You can't teach evolution in Kansas schools." A Catholic priest said, "You can in Catholic schools."

 

[exchemist]

Is there anything wrong with God choosing a hominid specimen and changing a couple of things to get Adam and then breathing the human spirit into Adam to bring him back to life as a human instead of an ape?
"Spirit" might not be supported by the science but that does not worry me and maybe as a "free thinker" it should not bother you also.
I don't think tigers were vegetarian btw.

Yes. If the whole human race were really descended from one couple, via incest over many generations, the effects of inbreeding would have destroyed mankind before it got going.

 

[Colt]

Way to be confident, I guess?



Fascinating.



In fairness they do both sound pretty crazy and I don't believe either of them.

That doesn't mean there isn't truth in the story, you just don't believe it.