Do people still believe everyone decended from Adam and Eve?

[Eyes to See]

Sorry, but twins are not clones.

You don’t understand what cloning mean.

Clones are copies.

So if god had cloned Adam, then Eve would would really be another man - hence another Adam. A clone would have the same sex as the original person.

So this Genesis 2 is definitely not involved cloning.

Are identical twins clones?

A clone is an individual that is genetically identical to another (see wikipedia > cloning). As you said, identical twins (better called monozygotic twins) are genetically identical to one another and therefore an identical twin is a clone indeed.


Question:
Are identical twins clones?

Twins:
There are two types of twins that are born. The first is identical twins which share the same DNA. The second type is fraternal twins that have different DNA. Fraternal twins come from different eggs and sperm, essentially making them siblings that just happen to be born at the same time.

There is tons of other information at your fingertips buddy. You can just look it up.

 

[Eyes to See]

This is the sort of logic that spurned on Christian eugenicists. The idea that 'sin' in some way effects genetics, therefore those who sin less corrupt their genetics less, therefore 'true Christians' are genetically superior. This is an extremely ignorant and prejudicial line of thinking. And, of course, there's no evidence that congenital defects happened slower in early hominids than in modern humans.

Eugenics was the plan of athesitc Marxists. Actually the person that actually coined the word was a relative of Charles Darwin. The occult practicing Nazi put it to real world use as well.

"In 1871, Darwin extended this thesis in his book The Descent of Man. He stated that humanity would see some of the weaker races reduced in number or even wiped out by natural selection in the form of famine, diseases, war, and other influences, while the stronger races would survive and thrive.

Francis Galton: Father of Eugenics
Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, coined the term “eugenics” in 1883, a derivation of the Greek “good birth” (it is no coincidence that the term “euthanasia,” the control of death, is derived from the Greek “good death”). Galton described eugenics as “the science of improving [human] stock…to give the more suitable races a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.”1 He founded the Eugenics Society in 1907, whose purpose was “to spread eugenic teaching and bring human parenthood under the domination of eugenic ideals.”2

Galton’s new science, which came to be known as “Social Darwinism,” held that the struggle for existence in society and evolution would inevitably lead to the “fittest” races achieving domination over the “less fit.”


You don't want to marry an immediate family member because there are very very high probabilities of genetic defects being passed on. The statement I made about Adam and Eve being perfect and losing perfection has nothing to do with the ungodly atheistic idea of eugenics.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Eugenics was the plan of athesitc Marxists. Actually the person that actually coined the word was a relative of Charles Darwin. The occult practicing Nazi put it to real world use as well.

"In 1871, Darwin extended this thesis in his book The Descent of Man. He stated that humanity would see some of the weaker races reduced in number or even wiped out by natural selection in the form of famine, diseases, war, and other influences, while the stronger races would survive and thrive.

Francis Galton: Father of Eugenics
Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, coined the term “eugenics” in 1883, a derivation of the Greek “good birth” (it is no coincidence that the term “euthanasia,” the control of death, is derived from the Greek “good death”). Galton described eugenics as “the science of improving [human] stock…to give the more suitable races a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.”1 He founded the Eugenics Society in 1907, whose purpose was “to spread eugenic teaching and bring human parenthood under the domination of eugenic ideals.”2

Galton’s new science, which came to be known as “Social Darwinism,” held that the struggle for existence in society and evolution would inevitably lead to the “fittest” races achieving domination over the “less fit.”


You don't want to marry an immediate family member because there are very very high probabilities of genetic defects being passed on. The statement I made about Adam and Eve being perfect and losing perfection has nothing to do with the ungodly atheistic idea of eugenics.

That was a lot of propaganda for one post!
Firstly, neither Nazi nor Galton were atheists (both Christian), and certainly not Marxists. Hitler rejected Darwinian evolution, which is antithetical to so-called 'social darwinism' Diversity of traits leads to better population success than any traits individual fitness. Racial purity strains the ability to adapt to myriad of environments, as well as reduced genetic variability.

If the idea is that sin has cumulative negative genetic impacts and should be selected against, then that is eugenics. But again, there's no evidence that earlier hominids had less congenital defects than modern humans.

 

[Eyes to See]

That was a lot of propaganda for one post!
Firstly, neither Nazi nor Galton were atheists (both Christian), and certainly not Marxists. Hitler rejected Darwinian evolution, which is antithetical to so-called 'social darwinism' Diversity of traits leads to better population success than any traits individual fitness. Racial purity strains the ability to adapt to myriad of environments, as well as reduced genetic variability.

If the idea is that sin has cumulative negative genetic impacts and should be selected against, then that is eugenics. But again, there's no evidence that earlier hominids had less congenital defects than modern humans.

"Some 2,300 years ago, the Greek philosopher Plato wrote: “The best of either sex should be united with the best as often as possible, and the inferior with the inferior as seldom as possible.” It wasn’t until more recent times, however, that efforts to upgrade the human family began in earnest. This discipline was called eugenics.

The term “eugenics” was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, a British scientist and cousin of Charles Darwin. The word comes from Greek terms meaning “good in birth” or “noble in heredity.” Galton knew that various flowers and animals could acquire certain desirable qualities through selective breeding. Might not humanity be improved by similar methods? Galton believed that it could. He reasoned that if a fraction of the cost and effort devoted to the breeding of horses and cattle were spent on “the improvement of the human race,” the result would be “a galaxy of genius.”

Influenced by the writings of Darwin, Galton reasoned that it was time for humans to take control of their own evolution. During the early decades of the 20th century, Galton’s ideas became extremely popular among politicians, scientists, and academics, in both Europe and the United States. Reflecting the popular notions of his day, the leader of a powerful nation wrote: “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind. . . . Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum. . . . Some day we will realize that the prime duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his blood behind him in the world, and that we have no business to perpetuate citizens of the wrong type.” Those words were written by the 26th president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt.

In fairs and expositions in both Britain and America, the laws of genetic inheritance were depicted, often on a vertical board displaying an array of stuffed guinea pigs. They were arranged to show the inheritance of fur color from one generation to the next generation. The point of the exhibits was made clear by accompanying text. One chart stated: “Unfit human traits such as feeblemindedness, epilepsy, criminality, insanity, alcoholism, pauperism and many others run in families and are inherited in exactly the same way as color in guinea pigs.” Another exhibit placard asked: “How long are we Americans to be so careful for the pedigree of our pigs and chickens and cattle—and then leave the ancestry of our children to chance?”-Awake! 9/22/00 p 5-6.

I am just quoting you facts. What you have done is twisted a lot of things, denied other truths, and are in fact spreading false propaganda. Why is it that you are doing what you claim I am doing falsely? To what aim?


Eugencis has always been the aim of evolution, and by means of the influence of the satanic teaching of the theory of evolution governments around the world put it into practice.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, it is reported that the Chinese have started experimenting on producing 'Super Chinese' by genetic engineering, but the process has its risks. The free world also will experiment but very carefully. Treatment by stem-cells is a reality now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Some 2,300 years ago, the Greek philosopher Plato wrote: “The best of either sex should be united with the best as often as possible, and the inferior with the inferior as seldom as possible.” It wasn’t until more recent times, however, that efforts to upgrade the human family began in earnest. This discipline was called eugenics.

The term “eugenics” was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, a British scientist and cousin of Charles Darwin. The word comes from Greek terms meaning “good in birth” or “noble in heredity.” Galton knew that various flowers and animals could acquire certain desirable qualities through selective breeding. Might not humanity be improved by similar methods? Galton believed that it could. He reasoned that if a fraction of the cost and effort devoted to the breeding of horses and cattle were spent on “the improvement of the human race,” the result would be “a galaxy of genius.”

Influenced by the writings of Darwin, Galton reasoned that it was time for humans to take control of their own evolution. During the early decades of the 20th century, Galton’s ideas became extremely popular among politicians, scientists, and academics, in both Europe and the United States. Reflecting the popular notions of his day, the leader of a powerful nation wrote: “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind. . . . Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum. . . . Some day we will realize that the prime duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his blood behind him in the world, and that we have no business to perpetuate citizens of the wrong type.” Those words were written by the 26th president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt.

In fairs and expositions in both Britain and America, the laws of genetic inheritance were depicted, often on a vertical board displaying an array of stuffed guinea pigs. They were arranged to show the inheritance of fur color from one generation to the next generation. The point of the exhibits was made clear by accompanying text. One chart stated: “Unfit human traits such as feeblemindedness, epilepsy, criminality, insanity, alcoholism, pauperism and many others run in families and are inherited in exactly the same way as color in guinea pigs.” Another exhibit placard asked: “How long are we Americans to be so careful for the pedigree of our pigs and chickens and cattle—and then leave the ancestry of our children to chance?”-Awake! 9/22/00 p 5-6.

I am just quoting you facts. What you have done is twisted a lot of things, denied other truths, and are in fact spreading false propaganda. Why is it that you are doing what you claim I am doing falsely? To what aim?


Eugencis has always been the aim of evolution, and by means of the influence of the satanic teaching of the theory of evolution governments around the world put it into practice.

I have to correct your last sentence first. Eugenics was never the aim of evolution. The theory of evolution only explains the fact of how life evolved. That is all. Denying reality may give you some odd comfort but like it or not you are still an ape.

Supporters of eugenics tend to misapply evolution and tend to have a poor understanding of it. Eugenics has nothing to do with atheism. Even your post showed that. The concept started a long time ago and was merely given a name in the late 19th century. It really has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

 

[Eyes to See]

Denying reality may give you some odd comfort but like it or not you are still an ape.

I am a human being. The very fact I am able to understand written language, think about it, and respond in kind gives that away. If you are under some mistaken idea that apes are able to, and I happen to be one of them, someone has to do some explaining about the education you were given.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I find this hard to accept. If evolution has shown us anything, it has shown us that populations evolve.
With that said even before modern humans there were groups evolving and breeding.
Unless there was a time, when only one female was/is to produce offspring like say wolves and parrie dogs do, then I find it hard to accept that we all can be traced back to one female.

Sorry my time is short. I read through many posts and decided to reply to this one.
Thanks evreryone for your reply's. I hope to be back on this weekend and to have more time to read and reply to more.

Yes, fascinating, isn't it?
I'm glad science is 'willing enough' to interpret the evidence in that light, aligning itself more closely w/ what the Bible states. ("All living humans have descended from two common ancestors -- from one woman dubbed Mt-Eve, and from one man, called Y-MRCA -- though apparently centuries apart".) Could she be the real Eve (Genesis 3:20), and the "later" man be Noah?

Scientists still have a lot to learn about DNA, and ancestral effects on it.

As Live Science put it:
"Our human family tree will have to remain, for now, a tangled messy bush."
(Excerpt from World's oldest human DNA found in 800,000-year-old tooth of a cannibal | Live Science )

Of course, it's still waahay far off from 100% compatibility with Scripture, but as more is learned, maybe the two histories will become even more similar?

 

[gnostic]

Are identical twins clones?

A clone is an individual that is genetically identical to another (see wikipedia > cloning). As you said, identical twins (better called monozygotic twins) are genetically identical to one another and therefore an identical twin is a clone indeed.


Question:
Are identical twins clones?

Twins:
There are two types of twins that are born. The first is identical twins which share the same DNA. The second type is fraternal twins that have different DNA. Fraternal twins come from different eggs and sperm, essentially making them siblings that just happen to be born at the same time.

There is tons of other information at your fingertips buddy. You can just look it up.

You are forgetting one thing in all this about identical twins.

Unless there are mutations during fertilization of the egg, which can only happen unusual and rare circumstances, under normal circumstances, identical twins are of same sex.

First you claim that Adam and Eve were clones, but if that's true, then there would be another Adam, no Eve.

Now you are claiming that Adam and Eve were identical twins. But if that was true, they should both be male twins.

It seem that you not only not understanding cloning, you don't understand identical twins.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am a human being. The very fact I am able to understand written language, think about it, and respond in kind gives that away. If you are under some mistaken idea that apes are able to, and I happen to be one of them, someone has to do some explaining about the education you were given.

Of course you are a human being. You are also an ape. And you should be the last one to make any claims about the education of others. As a human being you should be able to understand why you are an ape. Superstitious beliefs that have been refuted for over one hundred years are not a valid excuse.

The OP was rather amazed that there are still those that believe the clear myths of the Bible.

Speaking of education are you interested in improving yours?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, fascinating, isn't it?
I'm glad science is 'willing enough' to interpret the evidence in that light, aligning itself more closely w/ what the Bible states. ("All living humans have descended from two common ancestors -- from one woman dubbed Mt-Eve, and from one man, called Y-MRCA -- though apparently centuries apart".) Could she be the real Eve (Genesis 3:20), and the "later" man be Noah?

Scientists still have a lot to learn about DNA, and ancestral effects on it.

As Live Science put it:
"Our human family tree will have to remain, for now, a tangled messy bush."
(Excerpt from World's oldest human DNA found in 800,000-year-old tooth of a cannibal | Live Science )

Of course, it's still waahay far off from 100% compatibility with Scripture, but as more is learned, maybe the two histories will become even more similar?

I don't understand what you think that they have to learn. The names Mt Eve and YC Adam were chosen only because of their weak similarity to the myths of the Bible. The two never knew each other. They were many thousands of years apart. And they were nowhere close to being the only human beings alive during the times that they lived. This is an example of grasping at straaws.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am a human being. The very fact I am able to understand written language, think about it, and respond in kind gives that away. If you are under some mistaken idea that apes are able to, and I happen to be one of them, someone has to do some explaining about the education you were given.

A specific species of ape is able to do that. That specific species of ape is called Homo Sapiens.

In the exact same way, a specific species of mammal can do that too. That specific species of mammal, is an ape known as Homo Sapiens.

I bet you don't have any problems acknowledging that humans are mammals, right?
So why do you have problems acknowledging that humans are apes?

It's the exact same underlying reasoning.

Humans are apes. And mammals. And tetrapods. And vertebrates. And eukaryotes.

Acknowledging these facts, doesn't diminish your humanity in any sense of the word.

 

[gnostic]

I am a human being. The very fact I am able to understand written language, think about it, and respond in kind gives that away. If you are under some mistaken idea that apes are able to, and I happen to be one of them, someone has to do some explaining about the education you were given.

The word “ape” is a general classification that a number of families, genera and species shared some common traits that can be observed.

Just as @TagliatelliMonster have brought up mammal, humans shared some common traits that exist among all mammals.

Then there other traits that are found, not only exist among mammals but also in other branches of life, such as being vertebrae (eg mammals, reptiles, amphibians and some fishes), tetrapods, which is having 4 limbs (eg mammals, only non-snake reptiles, amphibians and most fishes).

And TagliatelliMonster has also added eukaryotes...this has to with each cell having organelle that don’t exist in prokaryotes (the domains Bacteria and Archaea ).

There is just one umbrella term that define organisms that TagliatelliMonster has left out: the kingdom Animalia.

Animalia is any eukaryotic organisms that are not of the kingdoms Plantae (eg plants) and Fungi (eg mushrooms).

You would know the kingdom Animalia by its more common term “animal”.

Humans are all “animals”, just as they are “mammals”, just as they are “primates” and more specifically “apes”.

 

[Watchmen]

Are identical twins clones?

A clone is an individual that is genetically identical to another (see wikipedia > cloning). As you said, identical twins (better called monozygotic twins) are genetically identical to one another and therefore an identical twin is a clone indeed.


Question:
Are identical twins clones?

Twins:
There are two types of twins that are born. The first is identical twins which share the same DNA. The second type is fraternal twins that have different DNA. Fraternal twins come from different eggs and sperm, essentially making them siblings that just happen to be born at the same time.

There is tons of other information at your fingertips buddy. You can just look it up.

Despite the tons of information at your fingertips, you got it wrong. Twins are not clones because, while they have the same DNA, they are not asexually produced from one “parent.”
What’s the biological difference between identical twins and clones?

 

[Skywalker]

Simple logic. Adam and Eve were created perfect. When they sinned they were still much closer to the perfection they were created with than their future offspring. There was no problem for their children to marry and have children. That is the only way humankind produced at that time.

By the time Moses lived genetic defects were already far worse along and it was wrong for relatives to intermarry and procreate with each other that is why God gave that mandate to the nation of Israel. And why it is stupid and wrong up to this day.

Does that mean that during the days of Adam and Eve brothers and sisters didnt mingle as much as they did today? Cousins of the opposite gender are relatives but their relationship is kinda distant.

 

[capumetu]

Are there still people in the 21st century that believe all humans are descendents from Adam and Eve, only two people?

Wouldn't that mean that when they had children, to have more children,,,
-the dad/mom had to sleep with their son/daughter,,,
-brother/sisters slept together,,,
-aunts/uncles slept with nephews/nieces
-etc.

If not can some logically explain how they populated the earth without doing any of that?
By the way, all of that is forbidden in the bible

Leviticus 18:8-18
8 “Do not have sexual relations with any of your father’s wives, for this would violate your father.

9 “Do not have sexual relations with your sister or half sister, whether she is your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born into your household or someone else’s.

10 “Do not have sexual relations with your granddaughter, whether she is your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, for this would violate yourself.

11 “Do not have sexual relations with your stepsister, the daughter of any of your father’s wives, for she is your sister.

12 “Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister, for she is your father’s close relative.

13 “Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s close relative.

14 “Do not violate your uncle, your father’s brother, by having sexual relations with his wife, for she is your aunt.

15 “Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, so you must not have sexual relations with her.

16 “Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife, for this would violate your brother.

17 “Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. And do not take her granddaughter, whether her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, and have sexual relations with her. They are close relatives, and this would be a wicked act.

18 “While your wife is living, do not marry her sister and have sexual relations with her, for they would be rivals.

I do sir, the fact is we came from somewhere, at some point of beginning. We Christians teach we descended from Adan and Eve, evolutionists teach a single cell became alive and multiplied.

 

[Audie]

That was a lot of propaganda for one post!
Firstly, neither Nazi nor Galton were atheists (both Christian), and certainly not Marxists. Hitler rejected Darwinian evolution, which is antithetical to so-called 'social darwinism' Diversity of traits leads to better population success than any traits individual fitness. Racial purity strains the ability to adapt to myriad of environments, as well as reduced genetic variability.

If the idea is that sin has cumulative negative genetic impacts and should be selected against, then that is eugenics. But again, there's no evidence that earlier hominids had less congenital defects than modern humans.

The thing about weaker races- i don't know that he defined weaker as genetic.

Tribal peoples with non competitive cultures
are of course run over by populous powerful societies. Nothing to do with eugenics.

Not that you tried to list all the errors.

 

[Audie]

I do sir, the fact is we came from somewhere, at some point of beginning. We Christians teach we descended from Adan and Eve, evolutionists teach a single cell became alive and multiplied.

Christians teach a lot of nonsense.

 

[ratiocinator]

We Christians teach we descended from Adan and Eve

Falsified by the evidence.

evolutionists teach a single cell became alive and multiplied.

A misrepresentation of the science.

 

[Audie]

Yes, fascinating, isn't it?
I'm glad science is 'willing enough' to interpret the evidence in that light, aligning itself more closely w/ what the Bible states. ("All living humans have descended from two common ancestors -- from one woman dubbed Mt-Eve, and from one man, called Y-MRCA -- though apparently centuries apart".) Could she be the real Eve (Genesis 3:20), and the "later" man be Noah?

Scientists still have a lot to learn about DNA, and ancestral effects on it.

As Live Science put it:
"Our human family tree will have to remain, for now, a tangled messy bush."
(Excerpt from World's oldest human DNA found in 800,000-year-old tooth of a cannibal | Live Science )

Of course, it's still waahay far off from 100% compatibility with Scripture, but as more is learned, maybe the two histories will become even more similar?

The only chance of that is people learning that scrip is metaphorical at best.