How does the story of Adam and Eve compatible with science?

[CG Didymus]

I believe its good evidence that the bible can't be the word for word literal dictation of an honest All-knowing God to be specific.

In my opinion.

Yes, what's wrong with it being man-made myths made up by the ancient religious leaders of a primitive culture? Actually, a lot... for those religious leaders and the religious leaders of today that need it to be the inerrant, infallible word of God. But, other than that, what's wrong with it being myth?

 

[MikeF]

Wait a sec, DNA research world wide has proven that we're all descendants s of one woman and one man.

It is my understanding that some of the current human population have a small percentage of Neaderthal DNA. If this is the case, then it cannot be that all current human beings are direct decendents of one specific pairing of the exact same man and woman.

Quick search state zero to near zero Neanderthal DNA in African populations and up to 1 to 2 percent in Northern European populations.

 

[1213]

Seriously? Genesis 2, I should think.

Please explain what is the contradiction there? I don't think there is.

 

[1213]

Like insisting on not learning that 2 individuals can't carry the genetic diversity of hundreds.

Why do you believe they can't? All genes are not always activated and there is lot of "trash" DNA, and the more DNA is replicated, the more there is mutations. I think it is easily possible to have common ancestor. And I think this suggests it was so:

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

Both men and women can trace their origins to a man and a woman who lived about 135,000 years ago.

www.livescience.com

"Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women."

 

[1213]

It's what science has demonstrated.

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

Both men and women can trace their origins to a man and a woman who lived about 135,000 years ago.

www.livescience.com

"Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women."

I think that demonstrates that there has been Adam and Eve. They have may just have miscalculation about the time when they existed. By what I know about the speed how DNA is degenerating, I don't think humans could have existed that long.

 

[1213]

Now apply this to the last human ancestors that we would agree aren't human. Which one delivered the first human baby? The question has no answer, and that's the paradox - humans weren't always here, but still, there was never a first one.

Sorry, I think that is not working explanation. And I don't believe in such development. However, if there is not first human(s), then it means we don't have a good definition for a human.

 

[1213]

Every individual has their own DNA. How would A and E have the DNA of multiple individuals?

Every individual has own DNA, that is formed of the parts he got from his parents. Exception to this is mutations that may cause changes. So, for Adam and Eve to be every modern humans ancestor, they should have the same DNA parts that would be needed to make all modern human DNA versions (except the possible mutations).

By what I know, human genome is degenerating, which means, the further we go back in history, the better the DNA was, because less mutations. This is why the DNA of Adam and Eve could have more durable, had less harmful effects from the DNA replicating process. And this can explain for example why they lived longer.

 

[1213]

That is only your fault. You refuse to learn even the basics of science so of course you have no clue whenever you speak of any scientific matters.

It would be better for you to remain truth and not make stuff up. Your credibility gets ruined with such claims

How would he react to you if you kept calling him a liar?

I don't call Him a liar.

 

[exchemist]

Please explain what is the contradiction there? I don't think there is.

The order of creation described - if taken literally - is obviously at odds with the evidence from science. Man is described as being created before the animals.

Personally, I don't think this is a big deal as, like most with a Christian background, I have never understood Genesis was to be taken literally. But for those, like creationists, that insist on doing so, it puts them at odds with science.

 

[wellwisher]

How does the story of Adam and Eve compatible with science?

The way Adam is Eve is compatible with science is to look at Adam and Eve in the light of two key discoveries, made by science, that coordinate with the Bible time frame.

The two science based discoveries, that come to mind, are the invention of writing and the first sustainable civilization. These two major changes are carbon dated to have occurred in the 6-10K year ago time frame. Both of these quantum inventions altered the way the human mind worked. Adam and Eve symbolized a major update in the human brain's operating system, due to these changes. Eons of instinctive behavior; gathering, herding and wandering, was superseded and the first modern or civilized humans appear. Adam is symbolic of the start of this new era for humanity.

Everyone who writes on this forum have human DNA. Does that make us all the same? The answer is yes and no. We are all still human but we have a wide variety of dispositions. We all. have free will and choice to believe what we want to believe. Adam symbolized the first humans with this modern attitude.The critical importance of written language was it not only to allowed the records needed for civilization to persist, but it offered a way to game the human brain and mess with instinct.

If we did not have written language, how would you learn in school and then study and refresh your memory? Word of mouth is not as effective. Our memory is not perfect and tends to forget or embellish. What the invention of written language did, was offer a way to maintain and refresh memory forever. The archetypical example is the Bible. The written word from thousands of years ago is still with us to duplicate. If this had not been written, it would have been lost long ago.

This perpetual memory was not natural to the instinctive human brain and caused a repression. The brain would like to stay in flux but written rules cause the flux to stop. Knowledge of good and evil, if only spoken by word of mouth, would change with time; the next generation will forget and/or embellish. But if it is written in the holy books, such law can linger way beyond its expiration; thereby causing repressions. This often led to war.

Conceptually, human DNA began as wanderers out of Africa. They would gather food and herd animals but always on the move chasing the food. Civilization implied thousands of years of instinctive wandering would come to an end, as humans learn to farm and build the first sustainable cities. A new type of human mind appears as symbolized by Adam and Eve. They do not camp anymore, like humans did over the first million years of human DNA. This is a new type of human with human DNA.

In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain was the tiller of the soil; farmer, while Abel was the herder of animals; wanderer traditions. Cain kills Abel, which symbolized that farming supersedes wandering and herding; civilization appears. Cain is sent away as punishment for harming natural instinct; Abel, and fears that whomever shall come upon him shall kill him for killing Abel. Who were these whomever if only Adam, Eve and Cain were on earth? The answer is the old humans; wanderings and herders.

God gives Cain a symbol for protection; talisman, which allows him to avoid the wrath of the herders and wanderers who were still around, when the first sustainable Civilizations were just starting to appear. They all got along since they were all humans. The Bible in this quote does not deny pre-humans being here before civilization. They were the natural humans from 1 million years of instinctive evolution.

The irony of this lesson is Civilization; Cain, was not rewarded by God. It was punished for killing Abel, because Abel was a throwback to eons of evolution of natural human instinct. Cain was a new type of human with will and choice, even to kill instinct. The fall from paradise implied that these new new innovations, would prove to be very regressive to natural human instinct and would cause all types of new problems; perversion and war due to will and choices. The Civilized humans would go on to kill off the natural humans.

I like these stories because it comes from those who were there to see the unique change in human biology. Human DNA was the same, but a new operating system appears within the human brain, not fully connected to instinct or the DNA. This detachment; secondary center or ego, is what gave a secondary POV, needed for will and choice, apart from primary instinct.

Another mistake made is to assume a day in the Bible is an earth Day. That erroneous assumption means the earth is the center of the universe; standard universal time? There are also a God day based on his reference frame close to the speed of light. This reference is the same in all references; universal; Einstein.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you believe they can't?

The fact that you have to ask is mindboggling.

How about because 1 person has the DNA of that one person and not of 100 persons???

All genes are not always activated and there is lot of "trash" DNA, and the more DNA is replicated, the more there is mutations.

Yes.
This doesn't change the fact that 1 person has only 1 variant of that DNA.

I think it is easily possible to have common ancestor. And I think this suggests it was so:

"Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women."

That article doesn't say what you like to think it says.
Y-chromosome adam was not the only man alive then.

And note how it also says "..every MAN...". Meaning: not every woman.
Same with "mitochondrial eve". Every woman can trace her ancestry to that woman in the distant past.

These deal with male (the Y chromosome) lineage and female (mitochondrial DNA) lineage.
It doesn't deal with the human lineage as a whole.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women."

I think that demonstrates that there has been Adam and Eve.

It doesn't.

Also... why do you only quote that part and for example not this part:

Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.

Don't tell me you are trying to engage in dishonest quote mining.... that would be so unsurprising!

They have may just have miscalculation about the time when they existed. By what I know about the speed how DNA is degenerating, I don't think humans could have existed that long.

More baseless claims coupled with arguments from incredulity

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, I think that is not working explanation. And I don't believe in such development. However, if there is not first human(s), then it means we don't have a good definition for a human.

Consider the evolution of Roman languages for an analogy.
Italian, spanish, french and portugese are all languages that derive from Latin.

None of those 4 modern languages have always existed.
However, there never was a "first spanish speaker".

And at no point did a Latin speaking mother ever raise a Spanish speaking child.

And yet, Latin turned into italian, spanish, french and portugese.

How did that occur?
Pretty much the same way biological evolution happens:
Through small changes over generations and "genetic" isolation.
Every new generation added different accents, pronunciations, new words, etc.

You wouldn't notice the difference after 2-3 generations.
You would after 50-100.

Fast forward 2000 years from the time everybody in the south spoke latin and suddenly nobody speaks latin and instead we have 4 regions each speaking a new language: italian, spanish, french and portugese

Yet at no point was there ever a "first french speaker". Nobody ever "invented" spanish or italian.


Same with species. There is no "first dog" or "first whale" or "first human" or "first chimpanzee".
What we instead have are ancestral populations that evolved into new (sub-)species through small changes over generations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Every individual has own DNA, that is formed of the parts he got from his parents. Exception to this is mutations that may cause changes. So, for Adam and Eve to be every modern humans ancestor, they should have the same DNA parts that would be needed to make all modern human DNA versions (except the possible mutations).

Which doesn't change anything about the fact that if you have a population of 2, you have the genetic variation of 2, making up for a genetic bottleneck so grotesk that as a population, it is doomed to extinction due to the ridiculous lack of genetic diversity.

By what I know, human genome is degenerating, which means, the further we go back in history, the better the DNA was, because less mutations.

This makes zero sense and exposed a grotest lack of understanding how genetics actually work.

This is why the DNA of Adam and Eve could have more durable, had less harmful effects from the DNA replicating process. And this can explain for example why they lived longer.

This once again makes absolutely zero sense. And is also completely besides the point of the grotesk lack of genetic variation if you have a population of just a single breeding pair.

 

[Pete in Panama]

It is my understanding that some of the current human population have a small percentage of Neaderthal DNA. If this is the case, then it cannot be that all current human beings are direct decendents of one specific pairing of the exact same man and woman.

Quick search state zero to near zero Neanderthal DNA in African populations and up to 1 to 2 percent in Northern European populations.

--and Elizabeth Warren has a percent or two of Cherokee Native American, less than can be found w/ any Japanese or Slovakian person. My point is that lots of folks say lots of things to "prove" whatever they want to prove and it can get hard to pin them down to what we know want what we don't know.

This "Neanderthal DNA" thing is controversial. So say we're all descendants of Neanderthals and they interbred w/ homo sapiens and all the "evidence" (imho) is completely WOKE. It's also been an observable fact that there have been situations where Neanderthals lived nearby homo sapiens for many tens of thousands of years (case in point the area of modern day Israel) and there was NO interbreeding. That tells me that the Neanderthals were a separate species that died out..

 

[metis]

Please explain what is the contradiction there? I don't think there is.

The order in the 1:1 narrative is different than that in the 2:4 narrative, and now we pretty much know that they were written at different times by different authors. If one looks at these as being allegorical, then that's not a problem, but it certainly is for the literalist.

 

[metis]

It's also been an observable fact that there have been situations where Neanderthals lived nearby homo sapiens for many tens of thousands of years (case in point the area of modern day Israel) and there was NO interbreeding.

False, and the first evidence of this was found in what is today Israel whereas what is believed to be both parents died next to the child.

The geneticists know what they're doing and how d.n.a. fits into this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women."

I think that demonstrates that there has been Adam and Eve. They have may just have miscalculation about the time when they existed. By what I know about the speed how DNA is degenerating, I don't think humans could have existed that long.

It doesn't, as several posters already explained. It doesn't make any sense.

I don't know what you mean by "DNA is degenerating" but that doesn't make sense either. It sounds like some kind of creationist nonsense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

--and Elizabeth Warren has a percent or two of Cherokee Native American, less than can be found w/ any Japanese or Slovakian person. My point is that lots of folks say lots of things to "prove" whatever they want to prove and it can get hard to pin them down to what we know want what we don't know.

This "Neanderthal DNA" thing is controversial. So say we're all descendants of Neanderthals and they interbred w/ homo sapiens and all the "evidence" (imho) is completely WOKE. It's also been an observable fact that there have been situations where Neanderthals lived nearby homo sapiens for many tens of thousands of years (case in point the area of modern day Israel) and there was NO interbreeding. That tells me that the Neanderthals were a separate species that died out..

Sorry, the evidence is WOKE? What on earth does that mean?

The genetic evidence demonstrates interbreeding between Neanderthals and non-African modern humans. DNA doesn't lie.

 

[MikeF]

--and Elizabeth Warren has a percent or two of Cherokee Native American, less than can be found w/ any Japanese or Slovakian person. My point is that lots of folks say lots of things to "prove" whatever they want to prove and it can get hard to pin them down to what we know want what we don't know.

This "Neanderthal DNA" thing is controversial. So say we're all descendants of Neanderthals and they interbred w/ homo sapiens and all the "evidence" (imho) is completely WOKE. It's also been an observable fact that there have been situations where Neanderthals lived nearby homo sapiens for many tens of thousands of years (case in point the area of modern day Israel) and there was NO interbreeding. That tells me that the Neanderthals were a separate species that died out..

I certainly respect skepticism, and would not begrudge anyone's caution in their acceptance of media headline statements about scientific matters, such as the posted articles in this thread about all humans descending from the same figurative "Adam" of some 100,000 years ago, and a figurative "Eve" of some other era. It is silly to use "Adam and Eve" in relation to this scientific subject, IMO. I would interpret the headline to mean all current human beings contain "some" genetic material from the same core source, that source more likely a group than an individual of some 100,000 years ago, but that means that for most of us, it is not the "only" source of our full compliment of DNA.

I am not sure how the concept of "WOKE" applies to this discussion, so I will set that aside.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you do not have a PhD in Genetics and I freely admit that I do not either. As such I am sure we are talking about technical matters that are realistically out of our depth. If I am wrong in your case, please correct me.

I find it encouraging that you acknowledge and accept that there have been other species of Human Beings that have existed, and that through some periods, multiple species existed at the same time, including Homo sapiens and Homo neandertalensis. I would think that acceptance alone would make it hard to assume an "Adam and Eve" origin for human beings, along with current scientific understanding of genetics and evolution.

You state that there is factual evidence that Homo neandertalensis lived in some areas with Homo sapiens without interbreeding (you give the area of modern Israel as an example), but you do not state unequivocally that there has never been interbreeding anywhere. Could you clarify? Do you accept that there has been interbreeding in other locations of cohabitation? If you do, then there not having been interbreeding in only some areas would not contradict my original point.