So... we all came from two people...

Seaneh

I guess The Bible was right all along?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

markphillips

We are not from 2 people who mated with eachother. The "Adam" referred to in this video existed around 80,000 years after "Eve" did. Would have been a complicated procedure for the two to hook up, and talk about an age gap!!

Seaneh

Still interesting.

Zombrex

So does that mean the Bible was wrong all along :P

Improbable

Wicknight wrote: »

So does that mean the Bible was wrong all along :P

Of course not. If science vindicated the bible, then that's all well and good, science proved god exists. If science disproves the bible, then it was clearly only a metaphor. I don't know how you could actually be so silly to say something like that Wicknight. You really should know better. You've now hurt my feelings.

PDN

markphillips wrote: »

We are not from 2 people who mated with eachother. The "Adam" referred to in this video existed around 80,000 years after "Eve" did. Would have been a complicated procedure for the two to hook up, and talk about an age gap!!

Indeed, DNA suggests that 'matriarchal Eve' existed long before ' patriarchal Adam'.

Those who take the first few Chapters of Genesis literally will find that interesting, since they also believe that tracing everyone's descent back through the males leads to a much later common ancestor (Noah) than would tracing it back through the females (Eve).

Dj Stiggie

Improbable wrote: »

Of course not. If science vindicated the bible, then that's all well and good, science proved god exists. If science disproves the bible, then it was clearly only a metaphor. I don't know how you could actually be so silly to say something like that Wicknight. You really should know better. You've now hurt my feelings.

How?

PDN

Dj Stiggie wrote: »

How?

Since you are asking that question of an atheist, I suggest you and Improbable both take it to the A&A Forum and discuss it there. Discussing it here is going to be little more than trolling.

santing

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, DNA suggests that 'matriarchal Eve' existed long before ' patriarchal Adam'.

Those who take the first few Chapters of Genesis literally will find that interesting, since they also believe that tracing everyone's descent back through the males leads to a much later common ancestor (Noah) than would tracing it back through the females (Eve).

This is what Creationist expect. After the Flood there were only 8 people left on earth, 4 males - all with nearly identical Y genes, so we can say that "patriarchal Adam" should be replaced with "patriarchal Noah." There were also 4 women, and they were (could have been) unrelated unless you wnet back to the "matriarchal Eve"

Helix

santing wrote: »

This is what Creationist expect. After the Flood there were only 8 people left on earth, 4 males - all with nearly identical Y genes, so we can say that "patriarchal Adam" should be replaced with "patriarchal Noah." There were also 4 women, and they were (could have been) unrelated unless you wnet back to the "matriarchal Eve"

so, without evolution (since creationism isnt compatible with it apparently) how did the blacks, whites, asians etc come to have their differences physically, if they all came from these 4 almost identical sets of Y genes?

Festus

If Jesus is a Creationist, and there is every evidence to suggest He is given His use of Genesis in His discourse on marriage and not withstanding the fact that He is also God, surely then all Christians should hold to the truth that is in Genesis.

Festus

Helix wrote: »

so, without evolution (since creationism isnt compatible with it apparently) how did the blacks, whites, asians etc come to have their differences physically, if they all came from these 4 almost identical sets of Y genes?

Evolution is compatible. It began after God created the various Genera and the first of each species.

It continued after Noah and all humans up to that point contain the Adam and Eve genes.

darjeeling

Great topic! This is an amazing figure generated from that DNA research showing how all humans living today descend from the original 'Mitochondrial [sic] Eve'.



All Eve's descendents are shaded in grey; the blue ones are Neanderthals, and the red Siberian one - who knows!

.

Ismhunter

PDN wrote: »

Those who take the first few Chapters of Genesis literally .... (Eve).

PDN

We really must find a better way of describing the way in which creationists and or fundamentalists exegete the bible than simply using the word "literally".

Firstly it paints them as morons who cant think critically at all. That is indeed often the case but its not always the case.

Secondly and more importantly to my mind it casts the idea that the exegesis of the rest of us as being in the mode of "pulling it out of our asses"

I propose we use the oppurtunites that come along to make reference to the fact that their are different genres or categories of literature in scripture each with their own exegetical rules. The difference then between the fundementalist and the non-fundementalist is that there can be a disagreement over what category of literature are we dealing with in any given section of scripture, the most notable example being Genesis Chapter one; the disagreement is whether tis narrative or verse

Ismhunter

Festus wrote: »

If Jesus is a Creationist, and there is every evidence to suggest He is given His use of Genesis in His discourse on marriage and not withstanding the fact that He is also God, surely then all Christians should hold to the truth that is in Genesis.

Logically Jesus use of Genesis on marriage says nothing of his views on creation, only that he held the scriptures as authoritative for teaching about marriage.

PDN

Ismhunter wrote: »

PDN

We really must find a better way of describing the way in which creationists and or fundamentalists exegete the bible than simply using the word "literally".

Fair enough. How about replacing that phrase with "those who treat the first few Chapters of Genesis as historical narrative"?

wolfsbane

Ismhunter said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Festus
If Jesus is a Creationist, and there is every evidence to suggest He is given His use of Genesis in His discourse on marriage and not withstanding the fact that He is also God, surely then all Christians should hold to the truth that is in Genesis.
Logically Jesus use of Genesis on marriage says nothing of his views on creation, only that he held the scriptures as authoritative for teaching about marriage.

Only if Jesus believed the Scriptures were not authoritative for teaching about creation. That is, they are mistaken on that subject, but correct about marriage.

However, we find that Jesus held that all of the Scripture is true:
John 10:35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

So His use of Genesis establishes not only the sanctity of marriage, but also the fact of Adam and Eve as the first humans. We can then go to other passages where Christ or the apostles appealed/referred to Genesis and see Adam being made before Eve, and Eve made from Adam's body, all mankind bottlenecked through Noah and his family, etc.

_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

santing

Ismhunter wrote: »

Logically Jesus use of Genesis on marriage says nothing of his views on creation, only that he held the scriptures as authoritative for teaching about marriage.

Interesting.

He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mat 19:4-6 ESV)

You mean that this doesn't imply Jesus' view on creation? Why does He than actually add the words "he who created them from the beginning made them male and female" as it doesn't express His views? Note also that the "he who created" is the Lord Jesus Himself, unless He didn't do it (as you imply).
It is crystal clear that the Lord Jesus quotes Genesis here as accepted historical events. Since He was a key player during those events, it has serious implications if we write these events of as symbolic.

santing

Helix wrote: »

so, without evolution (since creationism isnt compatible with it apparently) how did the blacks, whites, asians etc come to have their differences physically, if they all came from these 4 almost identical sets of Y genes?

You got it!
Without evolution (as blacks, whites, asian etc. all belong to the one human race) in a relatively short time, according to leading scientists, all humans are descendants of one male and one female.
The variation seen in the so called "races" (meaning variants of the human race) is due to loss of genetic material (by corruption), and therefore we can trace back the first ancestor.

Festus

Ismhunter wrote: »

Logically Jesus use of Genesis on marriage says nothing of his views on creation, only that he held the scriptures as authoritative for teaching about marriage.

Given Jesus is God I think we can safely take His views on Creation as read. He did write it after all.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Given Jesus is God I think we can safely take His views on Creation as read. He did write it after all.

In another thread you said a literal interpretation was incorrect. Which is it?

Ismhunter

PDN
Anything at all really that points to the reality of a conflict over genres.

Santing and wolfsbane
Hands up lads, i should have read the verses. Didnt remember the bit where he says "have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female"

Thats a hard verse to reconcile with my evolutionary beliefs...

All the same BIOLOGOS FOREVER!!!:P

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

In another thread you said a literal interpretation was incorrect. Which is it?

Did I say anything different in this thread?

The Bible combines the literal, the figurative, the poetic, the symbolic, the allegorical and the parabolic.

It is the literal word of God but if you take something written not to be taken literally literally you will come to an incorrect conclusion.

Atheists on the other hand are prone to take all things literally and wait for it to rain cats and dogs so they can stock up on familiars.

Festus

Ismhunter wrote: »

"have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female"

Thats a hard verse to reconcile with my evolutionary beliefs...

Do your evolutionary beliefs tell you how sexual reproduction began?

darjeeling

santing wrote: »

Without evolution (as blacks, whites, asian etc. all belong to the one human race) in a relatively short time, according to leading scientists, all humans are descendants of one male and one female.

What 'leading scientists' have shown can't be reduced to that very misleading soundbite.

While our Y chromosomes can all be traced back to one man (so-called 'Y chromosome Adam') and our mitochondria to one much earlier woman ('mtDNA Eve'), the bulk of our genes come from many more men and women who lived at the same time as these two. Those of us of European or Asian descent even inherit some of our genes from Neanderthals, who originally split from our blood line hundreds of millennia before mtDNA Eve lived (fig posted above), but then later bred with some of our more recent ancestors (link). That's what science has actually shown.

Ismhunter

Festus wrote: »

Do your evolutionary beliefs tell you how sexual reproduction began?

I prefer not to think about evolution when im getting it on.

Festus

Ismhunter wrote: »

I prefer not to think about evolution when im getting it on.

When you're done. No rush.

Zombrex

Ismhunter wrote: »

I prefer not to think about evolution when im getting it on.

eww.

anyway good summary of the current theories of why sexual reproduction evolved (Wikipedia, take with grain of salt etc)

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

Though I guess this is getting into Mega Thread territory so if anyone wants to start screaming about holes in theories or "God did it with magic" as being equally valid probably best to take it to that thread.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

eww.

anyway good summary of the current theories of why sexual reproduction evolved (Wikipedia, take with grain of salt etc)

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

Though I guess this is getting into Mega Thread territory so if anyone wants to start screaming about holes in theories or "God did it with magic" as being equally valid probably best to take it to that thread.

The question isn't "why" but "how"

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

The question isn't "why" but "how"

Why and how, though the how is easier than the why (the mechanics of evolution are better understood than the environmental advantage that would be selected causing sexual reproduction).

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Did I say anything different in this thread?

The Bible combines the literal, the figurative, the poetic, the symbolic, the allegorical and the parabolic.

It is the literal word of God but if you take something written not to be taken literally literally you will come to an incorrect conclusion.

Good, so we agree that Genesis is not to be taken literally in the sense that animals and other natural phenomena did not literally occur in the order tendered by Genesis, and that Christians can consistently believe in evolution, common descent from a single ancestor.

Atheists on the other hand are prone to take all things literally and wait for it to rain cats and dogs so they can stock up on familiars.

Christians, on the other hand, are prone to wear purple hats and enjoy abstruse opera. Are these accusations really that helpful?

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

Good, so we agree that Genesis is not to be taken literally in the sense that animals and other natural phenomena did not literally occur in the order tendered by Genesis, and that Christians can consistently believe in evolution, common descent from a single ancestor.

meh, no we don't agree.

santing

Festus wrote: »

meh, no we don't agree.

For a change, I do agree with you.

darjeeling

darjeeling wrote: »

Great topic! This is an amazing figure generated from that DNA research showing how all humans living today descend from the original 'Mitochondrial [sic] Eve'.



All Eve's descendents are shaded in grey; the blue ones are Neanderthals, and the red Siberian one - who knows!

.

Well the mystery red Denisovan is now a bit better understood. From sequencing a lot more of the genome, we can see that these newly discovered human relatives were actually closer kin to the Neanderthals than to us, and lived mainly in Asia. They weren't matrilineal descendents of human mtDNA Eve or patrilineal descendents of human Y-chromosome Adam. They did, though, have children with the modern human ancestors of present-day Melanesians, so their genes live on in humans today.

Links:
Guardian story
pay-per-view Nature paper here,
boards threads on early paper here and new paper here