They want to forget Darwin ... [help]

[brianleahy]

Except for those which, like the snail, retained the ability to do it either way

Yes, true. But most animals must mate to reproduce; they clearly diverged long ago from the line that yielded snails. The 'sexual only' line probably branched off in a fashion similar to what I described.

Natural selection (aka 'survival of the fittest') - a primary component of evolution - is indeed pretty self-evident. I don't think that MD has said he disbelieves in that; his issue seems to be with mutation, and the chance creation of life from complex (but lifeless) molecules.

A theory that has received some serious attention in the scientific community (though it is far from universally accepted) is 'panspermia' -- or "world seeding". It is the proposition that the most complex building-blocks of life, or perhaps even the first organisms themselves, literally fell from space aboard a comet or meteor. There is some evidence that this could actually happen; spectral analysis of reflected light from comets has shown some complex hydrocarbons in them.

Of course, to some degree this only begs the question (now we are left to wonder: how did those substances or organisms get onto the comet/whatever in the first place?) but it also opens the exciting prospect of life being widespread in the solar system, perhaps in the entire universe.

 

[lurk]

Even if you didn't take it quite to the base-pair level, still Adam or Eve would have to have -- between the two of them -- every single recessive genetic trait we see today, including the many crippling genetic illnesses we see. The first generation of offspring would be fine, but a large fraction of the 2nd generation would be ravaged by horrible diseases, due to the unavoidable inbreeding. Nasty...

An interesting explanation as to why inbreeding is bad and why it hits in later generations I came across recently is this. On average every person on the planet carries two genetic illnesses (I don't know if that number was pulled out of the air so don't get hung up on it) but they are different and recessive so we are OK. In addition there are so many different kinds of diseases that if you take two random people the chance that they are both carriers for the same one is really small, say 1 in 10,000. Now take a random man and woman the first of which carries disease A and B and the second that carries C and D now they have 2 children there are three possible results:

• %25 chance the kids carry the same diseases.
• %50 chance the kids have one disease in common.
• %25 chance they got lucky and carry no common diseases.

Now this is where things start to get bad for the next generation when this brother and sister mate. In the first case there is a %50 chance the offspring will actually have a genetic disease, in the second case it is %25 and in the third everything is ok. On the whole when you look at all the probabilities in this model when a brother and sister mate there is a 25% chance something will go wrong.

Now 25% is not actually that scary is it? Well if you think about it that is a 1 in 4 chance compared to the original 1 in 10,000 chance for unrelated couplings. It is 2500 times more likely for the children of siblings to express some genetic disease! (I also have ignored recursive applications of inbreeding as well as the effects of more distant relations like cousins getting hitched.)

 

[dlloyd]

That's quite interesting, I'll remember it for future reference .
However, I'm a little confused about why Adam and Eve would have had to carry every single genetic 'mistake' from the very beginning. Why couldn't these have been introduced over the thousands of years since then? Radiation is supposed to mess with DNA, so I would have thought it possible that the genetic diseases could have been introduced that way, for example. I don't know, maybe I missed something

 

[brianleahy]

Why couldn't these have been introduced over the thousands of years since then?

Well *I* believe that they could; but I'm assuming MD would not, given his position on the non-persistence of mutations. Granted, he only ACTUALLY said that he doubted the heritability of BENEFICIAL mutations, but I was assuming he intended it to apply to any mutation.

I suppose to be more clear, I ought to have said:

If we assume that:
(1) all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, and
(2) all observed genetic traits are the result of a remixing of Adam's genes and Eve's and that
(3) mutations, when they occur, do not persist for multiple generations

THEN

(4) we must conclude that between the two of them, Adam and Eve posessed every known recessive trait.

 

[dlloyd]

Ah, I see. I guess we need to find out if MD is only talking about beneficial mutations in that case. If he is, I'd say that's a little inconsistent

 

[MDLarson]

Boy, I wish I knew more about genetics... I think I've caught about 80% of the last couple of pages. But here's what I think:

Disease was not a problem for Adam and Eve at first. Their genetic code was 'perfect'. Disease (and death) was a part of the curse that God cast on humankind for their disobedience.

I could attempt to give the Creationist's answer to the problem of inbreeding and the Bible, but you would do well to visit my wonderful little resource website:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp
The meat of the argument show up about half way down the page.

I think I am changing my view on mutations, albeit only slightly. Before, I said that no mutation is good or beneficial. I now believe that a mutation can be beneficial to a species, but there is still a catch; mutations can only lose information, not add to it. As usual, here's my source!

Hopefully through these discussions one can understand why I believe the things I do.

 

[Giaguara]

Disease was not a problem for Adam and Eve at first. Their genetic code was 'perfect'. Disease (and death) was a part of the curse that God cast on humankind for their disobedience.

Interesting. Death is a curse? Christians (and most Western people) seem to think so. The Bible talks about eternal life, doesn't it? So why is it that people talk about eternal life, and are scared of the death (and the life) on the same time?

Most people having 'seen' the death are not afraid of it, and don't think it is a curse. It is as inevitable part of life as the birth - that is, everyone and everything that is once born, has to die. Simple as that. Some religions take that more natural.

I don't believe the "human code" would have been perfect ever.

 

[dlloyd]

Well, if you've ever read the history behind LOTR, eternal life isn't 'perfect' either.

 

[Cat]

What I always found strange ... Adam and Eve, yes, they had ... how many children? I know of Cain and Abel, which are both male ... and the rest? Any sisters? So where did the rest of humanity come from? Weren't there other humans? Didn't Cain leave after the murder to live somewhere else with some other folk? And the children of Adam and Eve, wouldn't they have to commit incest? Wouldn't that be immoral and genetically nasty? And what about "and God created them man and woman" and then a few pages later we have another creation of Eve from a rib of Adam ... so where there more women? Or was Adam bisexual first and then separated in two sexually reproducing creatures?

What about the other animals: did they sin too? Were they perfect at creation and then condemned together with us humans for crimes they did not commit? Can an animal sin? Why do they die if they didn't sin? Why were they cast out from paradise? Or weren't they in paradise in the first place?

What about the universal flood when all evil humans were killed: was that genetic/ethnic cleansing? How about all the incest going on in between the children of Noach? Why didn't god intervene earlier or why did he not intervene again later? Why did he first punish Adam and Eve and all their offspring with bad genes and then kill off with the flood the evil resulting from his own punishment?

If Adam and Eve sinned, how can you say they were perfect, genetically or otherwise? How can you say that they sinned if before eating the forbidden fruit of good and evil they did not know evil at all? Can I sin if I do not know evil?

Take your time.

 

[Giaguara]

I think that in some sense the "inherited sin" "original sin" (whatever you want to call it) would make more sense if they had not cleaned away chapters from the bible around 300 AD. They removed everything regarding lives (such as reincarnation). So take a case - someone is born blind, and Jesus saves him from "his sins". How can he have done sin to become blind, if he was blind since he was born? Did his parents commit such sins that god would revenge their child with blindness? You would not want that kind of god, would you?
If you'd add (As a consideration) that there was something about more lives - maybe it could be more justified. So if _you_ sin ("live out of the harmony of the nature" or something like that) you bring yourself bad karma. If your karma is bad enough, you are born with 'limitations' such as limited mobility, any kind of 'genetical diseases' .. as a system, it would sound a bit more fair.

 

[brianleahy]

What I always found strange ... Adam and Eve, yes, they had ... how many children? I know of Cain and Abel, which are both male ... and the rest? Any sisters?

While I do not share to MD's beliefs, he does talk about this exact topic at his website, at the link provided in his prior post. Bottom line: Cain & Abel did indeed marry their sisters.

And what about "and God created them man and woman" and then a few pages later we have another creation of Eve from a rib of Adam ...

In Hebrew legend, Adam had a wife before Eve, named Lilith. There are some sources on the web about her story.

The little bit that I know about this myth is unreliable (even as an accounting of a myth) because I got it from a peculiar source: comic books. (Specifically, Neil Gaiman's Sandman series.) Modern comic books borrow heavily from every religious mythology, including Christian and Jewish, but also ancient Greek, Norse, Egyptian and Native American.

Anyway, some people believe these seemingly two different 'first women' in Genesis were Lilith and Eve, respectively. In the comic book version I read, Lilith rejected Adam and left, thus necessitating the creation of Eve.

 

[Cat]

I read Adam refused Lilith because she was equal to him (both created directly by god) and later accepted Eve because she was made explicitly to serve him. We're still recovering from that role model ...

There's a lot of incest going on in the bible isn't there? I mean, the children of Adam and Eve, the children of Noach, the good guy who escaped from Sodom & Gomorra and his daughters ... this certainly hasn't done much good to our species.

 

[brianleahy]

Noach? I never saw that spelling before, but since you've used it twice, I assume it's intentional.

Did he build an Arch? ::angel::

 

[Cat]

LOL yes he did ... you can transliterate hebrew in various ways, I thought Noach was the more correct one.

 

[Giaguara]

So wait, that happened to Lilith? If she was so perfect, what did she do then? Did she choose a less perfect man than Adam then? Or why would god have created the perfect man and woman, and then a less perfect woman as he got tired of Adam ranting ..? Or maybe Adam had them both? Was the jewish culture polygamic at its early days, by any chance?

 

[brianleahy]

So wait, that happened to Lilith?

Good question. Christian tradition holds that there WAS no Lilith, so no help there.

According to this site: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/950206_Lilith.html

...the tale of Lilith is from a very disreputable source, and is not even really a Hebrew legend.

According to the comic books ;-) she never ate the apple, and so never fell from grace, and thus never died. She is still around, and plotting some obscure revenge against the children of Adam and Eve (i.e. everybody).

 

[cfleck]

just to sort of point to a good source on this topic. the book "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search For Common Ground Between God and Evolution" by Kenneth Miller goes through many many arguments for creationists and basically dispells of them in one way or another while trying to come up with that link that allows god & evolution to co-exist. its really a great read. not all that heavy, but thorough at the same time.

highly recommended. i promise it will clear up a lot of this debate for you while still letting you make up your own mind.

 

[Giaguara]

...the tale of Lilith is from a very disreputable source, and is not even really a Hebrew legend.

According to the comic books ;-) she never ate the apple, and so never fell from grace, and thus never died. She is still around, and plotting some obscure revenge against the children of Adam and Eve (i.e. everybody).

then shouldn't they add that to the prays ..? "His only son.." .. hey wait, what about the perfect woman? (and the billions, thousands of billions of people that have lived in all these .. hundreds of (thousands of ) years? )

 

[brianleahy]

then shouldn't they add that to the prays ..? "His only son.." .. hey wait, what about the perfect woman? (and the billions, thousands of billions of people that have lived in all these .. hundreds of (thousands of ) years? )

If either Christianity of Judaism officially accepted the existence of Lilith, then yeah, she'd probably warrant a mention in their prayers.

I've been Googling around, and apparently some translations of Isaiah 34:14 mention Lilith, others do not. Also, there seem to have been some groups throughout history who HAVE considered Lilith both 'real' and of religious importance.

But I'd bet a buck that MD puts no stock in the tale of Lilith.

 

[brianleahy]

A great online source for Bible reference is www.biblegateway.com.

I will interject that while I do not personally believe in the literal truth of a good portion of the Bible, it is nonetheless a fascinating work, all the more amazing considering the huge impact it has had on human history. These days when religious ideals, both Christian and otherwise are becoming political flash-points, it is useful to read for oneself what is actually written, rather than rely on sound-bites. This website is a great resource for that.

Anyway: To see something really interesting, go to the site, look up Isaiah 34:14, and flip through the different translations. Only 'The Message (MSG)' and 'Darby' mention Lilith by name. Some omit any reference to her at all, others call her a 'night creature', 'night monster', or 'the night bird'.