Peter Kirby

I'm sure that there are more arguments out there, besides the specific one on genetics that I mentioned. How many lines of evidence show that homo sapiens are evolved from an earlier species of primate?

best,
Peter Kirby

Oolon Colluphid

That’s a somewhat different question... The answer is, lots. Try this for starters...



It’s just the usual stuff: fossils, genetics, biogeography, anatomy, physiology...

Sorry to be flippant, but there’s very useful whole books on this, such as the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. Basically, there just ain’t no evidence for Adam and Eve, plenty of evidence that there wasn’t, and plenty that it’s just a myth. If we’re to widen the search, where would you like to start?

Cheers, Oolon

Reldas of Melchezidec

This might be helpfull:

Genesis 3:17 indicates that there were already creatures around that humans could mate with.

17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.

There were no afforementioned daughters from Adam(man) and eve(living). The next child after cain and abel is seth.

25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, [9] saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.


One suspects that there was a population of closely related hominids in the area, if anything is to be taken from the account at all. Maybe there is some truth to the oral tradition handed down since before writeing: the ancestors of modern humans began with 1 primate created in the Image of the I Am that I Am(this is arguable and one believes should be the target of discussion, since the "image" should still be apparent in modern day humans) and that they then bred back into the local population of bipedal primates, who then spread all over the earth- replaceing by force, out-competeing, or most likely gene-mixing with local related homo.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

If this postulate is true to history, then bottlenecks are not a viable argument against the creation story- in this light, though it lays mucho smackdown on monogenism. As indicated in gen 1:26, Somehow the image is behind human's prevalence over his (and her) environment, and it may be why we're the only extant bipedal primates around. This is highly arguable, as you're hopefully going to show me: perhaps you feel there is no onus whatsoever for science to revert to myths for insight.

Maybe not. One is willing to set aside time and effort to make sure all aspects of these clashing realities are observed by all parties- to the best of ones abilities.

The question of the "Image" might require a separate thread or a formal debate. If your interest is to disprove this pillar of creationism, then one will fully consider your evidence and concede where appropiate. If someone would rather discuss the lesser matter involving biblical and/or historical support for the postulate involving local breedable primate populations as indicated in genesis, perhaps its best to continue it in this thread.


I believe the Image discussion to be an appropiate topic for those of expertise in biological systems, as well as philos sophia, and also psychiatry, but mostly someone of carefull thought and good introspection.


-sad

judge

Hi Peter,
thanks for bringing up this very interesting topic.
Does this mean (assuming we all descended from only two people) that at one time there would have been a population of creatures and that once these two began having children all of these children (and their children etc) only bred amongst themselves?

This seems inconceivable.

p.s.
what is the locus HLA-DRB1 responsible for?

Peter Kirby

That seems to be the idea. An alternative would be that God creates more people, but then they do not share responsibility for the fall. The whole idea behind monogenism is to preserve Original Sin. It's a real theological muddle, in sharp contrast to scientific clarity in support of the evolution of man.

I don't remember. Someone else will have to answer.

best,
Peter Kirby

Non-praying Mantis

I think that the most important bottleneck in biblical "history" is the flood. Here humans were reduced to 5 owners of all genes that did not result from mutation thereafter. All other people were supposed to have been destroyed in the flood. If Noah and his wife were descendents of Adam, then they should have (according to biblical interpretation, of course) inherited Adam and Eve's sin.

Not to mention that all animal "kinds" (except the "clean" ones) were reduced to two at the same time. Therefore, bottlenecks should appear in every animal, and what's more is all of these bottlenecks should coincide to have happened at the same time!

NPM

Peter Kirby

I agree, but Noah's flood is not Catholic doctrine and is believed in by less Christians than those who believe in a literal Fall.

best,
Peter Kirby

lpetrich

DRB1 is a cell-surface protein that is used for telling an immune-system cell that its owner is a fellow body cell and not an invader.