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.
Both the Bible and the teachings of Evolution have put forth ideas where they have all humans being from only one female.
Thus you can not say that Evolution is against the idea at all...
In the Bible, one man and one woman were created out of non-living things and were the single ancestors of the entire human race.
In science... Well, the closest thing would be abiogenesis: the first "living" (self-replicating, basically - not human by any stretch) thing, which then multiplied and evolved and was the ancestor of every living thing on earth today. But abiogenesis is still in the hypothesis stage. We don't know, for example, whether only one such organism appeared or many (maybe at the same time and place, maybe nowhere near). It's thus possible that there is no single common ancestor.
There is no "first man" or "first woman" because evolution is made of such tiny changes that it's impossible to tell when an ape-like creature can be considered human. Scientists might agree that some specie was clearly non-human and another specie (living 200 000 years later) was definitely human, but in-between it's all muddy. But even if we did have a very accurate definition of "human", there still wouldn't be a first man or woman. Individuals don't evolve into a new specie, groups do. So at best you'd have the "first human group", which would be the descendent of ape-like creatures. Quite far from the biblical Adam & Eve.
The mitochondrial Eve that was discussed in this thread is very different from the mythic one. Yes, she was our common mother (the precise definition is "the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent"). But she wasn't the first woman, and she wasn't all alone with her Adam. It's not a title she had from birth, either: she only became the mitochondrial Eve when the last human who wasn't his direct descendent died. And as people continue to multiply and die, it's likely that the title will eventually go to one of her daughters or grand-daughters.
In the Bible, one man and one woman were created out of non-living things and were the single ancestors of the entire human race.
In science... .
In science we also see the teaching that all life on this world came forth from the earth itself.
That life is just part of the earth.
That humans are just another part of the earth that has come to life...
So seen in this light, both science and the bible are teaching the very same history, just from two very different points of view thats all...
In science we also see the teaching that all life on this world came forth from the earth itself.
That life is just part of the earth.
That humans are just another part of the earth that has come to life...
So seen in this light, both science and the bible are teaching the very same history, just from two very different points of view thats all...
Here we see that all life on this earth is from the earth itself.
The way the story is told is very different than what we read in science, but he basic story is the same....
Life is from the earth, that we are made of this world...
Here we see that all life on this earth is from the earth itself.
The way the story is told is very different than what we read in science, but he basic story is the same....
But if you allow yourself that level of interpretation, well, pretty much every creation myth is "different but still vaguely similar" to the scientific theory.
But if you allow yourself that level of interpretation, well, pretty much every creation myth is "different but still vaguely similar" to the scientific theory.
Exactly...the big controversy between Evolution and Creationism comes primarily from those Christians that believe in the literal truth of the bible.
If one start to consider biblical teachings as strictly metaphorical, then is becomes easier to reconcile the two. Not that it makes any difference to science, but it tends to make Christians feel better with the huge wealth of evidence for evolution staring them in the face.
Evolution isn't instant. All evolution is a series of changes. You don't get apples from oranges, that would be magic. It may be fast, it may be slow, but not instant.
But my original point was a new species doesn't appear at one point, a group of one species changes into another species. Some traits fade out, some fade in, the species evolve because of the the combination of multiple things.
Except that evolution has never been observed. A fish is still a fish despite a new color, a finch is still a finch despite a longer beak, etc...
Yes, natural selection does encourage certain traits, but not new species.
Weasel word alert! Please give a precise definition of "specie".
Can you give me an example of evolution between any definition of species?
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.
