Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I predict the next one to post with be my mistake

 

Well of corse you can see me on and you can see I haven't posted yet.  It's not that hard to figure it out.  Gee, MM is reading this thread.  He has been reading it for several minutes and hasn't posted today.  I wonder what he is doing in this thread?  It's not that hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So you if you don't believe that all human originated from one mitochondrial Eve then how do you respond to Richard Dawkins African Eve?

 

He says there really never was a first person, then he says there are three.

 

 

Wow, you really didn't understand it at all.  I'm not sure that I could explain it to you in a way you would understand.  When he says there was no first person he means that "person" is something that hominids slowly became over the corse of many generations.  There were thousands of a certain hominid animal.  And then 100 years later that hominid animal was a bit different.  And in another 100 years they were just a bit different.  As those differences added up slowly these hominids became what we would recognize as people.

 

He didn't contradict himself.  Mit-Eve, Mit-Adam Y-chrom Adam and our MRCA would all have been born long after people had come into existence.

 

yea whatever

 

 

 

So does using the names "Eve" and "Adam" confuse you?  Where is the malfunction?  The woman Mit-Eve wasn't the first woman.  Rather she had the oldest surviving mutation in her mitochondria.  Women before her didn't have female surviving lines.  And likewise Y-chrom Adam wasn't the first man.  He just had the oldest surviving mutation in his Y-chrom.  There were men before him but their male decedents didn't create surviving lines.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my mistake hit the points I wanted to hit in a magnitude times better then I could. But to add, there is a difference between what science says and creationists and Genesis says. There is no crockoduck like people like Kirk Cameron claim. If people like Cameron were right then your reply about eve and Richard Dawkins would work. Problem is for reasons mymistake put perfectly its just not the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is an apocrypha text called "The Life of Adam and Eve" that you might find interesting.  I have not read the text, but I if I recall correctly, it was supposedly written by Adam himself, and it goes into further detail on other events from the Garden of Eden, including that Adam and Eve had 30 sons and 30 daughters.  Here is a website with more background - http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/lifeadameve.html

 now that is interesting. so if adam and eve had a bunch of kids, why was this not included in the biblical canon? it would have helped the story make sense, so people didn't just start appearing out of nowhere lol. what were they thinking when they made the biblical canon?>

 

According to the Early Jewish Writings website and the Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Adam_and_Eve), there were several versions of the text that survive. They are written in different languages and appear to derive from an earlier, original source text that has not survived. The composition date for the original is believed to be in the 1st century AD/CE. I agree its inclusion in the Biblical canon could have helped fill in some of the gaps of the Garden of Eden story in Genesis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians - I'm stuck on this one.  Maybe you can explain it?

 

Adam and Eve.  First human beings to be created.  So far so good.....

Hi, Great post, but going back to the first point,... of course there is no historical Adam & Eve, as many/most mainstream and liberal denominations believe.

 

So without an Adam and Eve there is no fall of man, and no need for atonement and no need for salvation.

 

Christianity is already proven false, as the Genesis creation account and Garden of Eden are mythology, and therefore is without solid foundaton.

Link to post
Share on other sites

do we have any proof/evidence of the first family on earth? or at least the location where the first people appeared?

Link to post
Share on other sites

do we have any proof/evidence of the first family on earth? or at least the location where the first people appeared?

 

 

Hominids spread out all over the Earth back when they were more animal like than human like.  I'm no paleontologist but in a general sense H.Erectus marched out and conquered most of the Earth and that was a long time before modern humans eventually evolved in Africa.  There wouldn't have been a first family so much as a group of thousands of apes living in a whole region gradually became smarter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi FlowerDemon!  smile.png

 

I believe this Wiki page will be of interest.  The evidence you asked about seems to be in our genes.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

 

The spreading out of early humans that MyMistake correctly referred to can be seen in the map of Africa and the Middle East.  Notice how the oldest human genetic information we have is found in the far south of Africa (about 140,000 years ago)..?  Later on humans spread north (110 and 90 Ka) and east (57-87 Ka), hopped over to the Arabian peninsula (70 Ka) and then made it to the Iran/Iraq area by 45-60 Ka.   So you can see that our genes appear to record our slow journey from the Cradle of Humankind... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_Humankind ...to the Fertile Cresecent, which is also known as the Cradle of Civilization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertile_Crescent

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So you if you don't believe that all human originated from one mitochondrial Eve then how do you respond to Richard Dawkins African Eve?

 

He says there really never was a first person, then he says there are three.

 

 

Wow, you really didn't understand it at all.  I'm not sure that I could explain it to you in a way you would understand.  When he says there was no first person he means that "person" is something that hominids slowly became over the corse of many generations.  There were thousands of a certain hominid animal.  And then 100 years later that hominid animal was a bit different.  And in another 100 years they were just a bit different.  As those differences added up slowly these hominids became what we would recognize as people.

 

He didn't contradict himself.  Mit-Eve, Mit-Adam Y-chrom Adam and our MRCA would all have been born long after people had come into existence.

 

yea whatever

 

 

 

So does using the names "Eve" and "Adam" confuse you?  Where is the malfunction?  The woman Mit-Eve wasn't the first woman.  Rather she had the oldest surviving mutation in her mitochondria.  Women before her didn't have female surviving lines.  And likewise Y-chrom Adam wasn't the first man.  He just had the oldest surviving mutation in his Y-chrom.  There were men before him but their male decedents didn't create surviving lines.

 

 

Concise explanation.  Please add to this that current evidence strongly suggests that Mit-Eve and Y-chrom Adam lived at different times, at least 100,000 years apart from each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.