Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
DNA Evident States That We Have A Common Ancestry , I guess that's proves ADAM and EVE.
Quite the opposite actually. Evolution is about changes in POPULATIONS over time. The idea that we all came from a single man or single woman is rendered a complete nonsense.
I assume you are implying that the Biblical Adam and Eve are metaphoric? Why does it have to be science versus the Bible? There is a lot to learn if we are willing to accept that science and Christianity can embrace one another. There is a new book I recently read called To Adam about Adam by Jim Frederick that makes a great argument as to how science and the Bible can embrace one another as a part of God's plan. The author works through Genesis step by step to show how science supports creation – both evolution and Adam/Eve occurred. The book builds a good case as to how the basis for sin (being self-centered) originated as a part of our evolutionary history centered on the fittest will survive. He then discusses in an informal way as how the Old Testament is a series of lessons as to what cannot defeat sin, whereas the New Testament describes the only solution. I believe this book can help those of us who have often wonder whether science and the Bible are opposing forces (or not). For me the debate is over!!
I assume you are implying that the Biblical Adam and Eve are metaphoric? Why does it have to be science versus the Bible? There is a lot to learn if we are willing to accept that science and Christianity can embrace one another. There is a new book I recently read called To Adam about Adam by Jim Frederick that makes a great argument as to how science and the Bible can embrace one another as a part of God's plan. The author works through Genesis step by step to show how science supports creation – both evolution and Adam/Eve occurred. The book builds a good case as to how the basis for sin (being self-centered) originated as a part of our evolutionary history centered on the fittest will survive. He then discusses in an informal way as how the Old Testament is a series of lessons as to what cannot defeat sin, whereas the New Testament describes the only solution. I believe this book can help those of us who have often wonder whether science and the Bible are opposing forces (or not). For me the debate is over!!
That's a nice thought but I don't think it will end the debate for most folks currently in it.
Religion's immutable dogmas are simply not compatible with science's skeptical, evidence-based approach. Neither side has any real reason to embrace the other. Science is indifferent to religion (rather than hostile as conservative theists like to style it); science is often inconvenient FOR religion though because it occasionally happens upon facts that don't agree with dogma. Religion claims absolute knowledge of the domains it is concerned with, so what does it have to learn from science?
Attempts at kum-ba-yah are laudable but probably doomed.
The book you're describing assumes that the theological concept known as "sin" is both necessary and correct. I agree that humans are (by default) self-centered due to evolutionary developments that favored independent hunter-gatherers. That means that ever since we started living in close proximity in villages, etc., and had to cooperate, we've had to override / overcome our evolutionary tendency to want to solve all problems with others by beating their heads in with a club.
The rational response to this is to develop societal rules / mores / ethical codes, etc., and encourage and in some cases compel people to abide by them -- largely by training children to overcome their programmed default of self-absorption before they take their place in the adult world.
The irrational response is to call the evolved human default "sin" and make it shameful and use hellthreat to compel people to behave for entirely the wrong reasons.
The correct reasons for selflessness, deference, tolerance and altruism is the greater good of society and the ultimate best interests of individuals living with it -- it is the need for the benefits of cooperation and healthy interdependence that drives our striving to be good and socially appropriate persons. We are doing this anyway, so not only is sin not necessary to explain human behavior nor correct it, it actually is just extra baggage getting in the way. It is an excuse to have a pessimistic view of humanity as unworthy worms with some sort of fundamental inability to function. But of course this is necessary to sell god and religion ... these are part of religion's value proposition -- its faux and obviously ineffectual "remedy" for "sin".
DNA Evident States That We Have A Common Ancestry , I guess that's proves ADAM and EVE.
Whoa, cowboy, you're jumping the gun.
Even if what you THINK to be true about common ancestry is actually true, it doesn't prove diddly about Adam and Eve.
All it proves is ... well ... common ancestry. It doesn't say one iota about who those ancestors were and if they had anything AT ALL to do with God, gardens, snakes, forbidden fruit, and sin.
Even if what you THINK to be true about common ancestry is actually true, it doesn't prove diddly about Adam and Eve.
All it proves is ... well ... common ancestry. It doesn't say one iota about who those ancestors were and if they had anything AT ALL to do with God, gardens, snakes, forbidden fruit, and sin.
I second that.
The Bible states we all descended from Adam and Eve. That's good enough for me. If Adam is not the first human then the entire Bible is a lie.
Ok... If I had a sister, and I do, correct me if I am wrong, but we have differing dna that would be distinguishable... is that correct? Or since we have the same mother and father does that make our dna exactly the same? Are both of my brothers dna exactly the same as mine too? Or could our dna tell us appart?
Mitochondria are only tangentially related to your 'real' DNA. We can trace the mitochondria back to what scientists refer to as our 'most recent common matrilineal ancestor (MRCMA), also known as 'Mitochondrial Eve', who lived somewhere around 100,000 - 200,000 years ago.
What the OP appears to be suggesting is that our MRCMA must lead back to the 'first humans'; that assumption is incorrect, or at least inaccurate. Mitochondrial Eve was merely one female among many of her era, and was simply the only one of her contemporaries that produced an unbroken line of descent into the modern era*.
It's entirely possible that M-Eve was not even homo sapiens, but an earlier branch of the species.
*To clarify: other women of Eve's time did produce offspring, but at some point in their history their descendants didn't produce a female, and thus broke the mitochondrial line of descent. Likewise, M-Eve is not a fixed person (ie, she is not our 'great-great-great-great' something, that can be plotted on a family tree); rather, the title of 'Mitochondrial Eve' shifts as particular mitochondrial lineages die out.**
**From Wikipedia: 'When the mitochondrial lineages of daughters of mitochondrial Eve die out, then the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" shifts forward from the remaining daughter through her matrilineal descendants, until the first descendant is reached who had at least two daughters who both have living, matrilineal descendants.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
