Did Adam and Eve have a daughter?

[UglyCasanova]

And no, evolution theory does not say humans evolved from apes.

What does it state? I have always heard that humans evolved from apes, but this is from people telling me this that I wouldn't classify as a respectable biologist (or even anyone that knew what they were talking about). If not from apes, then from where?

 

[Moonbeam]

Humans and apes (chimps) evolved from a common ancestor some 6 million or so years ago. Since both have continued to evolve, the animal that is the ancestor no longer exists. It was an ape, but not one of the modern apes. Or you could say it was a human, but not a modern human. Out of egotism, the ancestor would more easily be classed as an ape than a human and for no valid rational reason.

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: dparker

And no, evolution theory does not say humans evolved from apes.

What does it state? I have always heard that humans evolved from apes, but this is from people telling me this that I wouldn't classify as a respectable biologist (or even anyone that knew what they were talking about). If not from apes, then from where?

moonies got it. people say we come from apes or monkeys when they really don't understand evolution. we simply come from a common ancestor. think branches of a tree, the apes and monkeys branched off long ago. thats why they are still around we evolved from our own group of ancestors.

as for evolution. look how easily humans have created multitudes of VERY different breeds of dogs through unnatural selection. the line where one species becomes another is fuzzy. we generally classify separate species once the genetic difference is enough that they cannot successfully mate. as for moonies thing about impregnating a chimp, i don't think it would work. i think we have different number of chromosomes for one. not to mention the added bulk/size of a semi human sized head wouldn't fit through their narrow pelvis.


if you have more questions, talkorigins.org or the library is a good place to start

 

[Aceman]

Hmmm, maybe the LEGO Bible can help. Any links to clear up this matter?

 

[xirtam]

I was told "tree shrew," but I still think it's a bunch of crap.

I am pretty sure they had 2 sons, Caine and Abel right?

They started out with Cain and Abel, then had other "sons and daughters." Among these other "sons and daughters" was Seth, who continued the line from Adam to Noah. So no, I don't really think that Seth had relations with his mom to perpetuate the species. By our standards, yeah, there was incest. I mean... Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib. If that's not asexual reproduction by binary fission, I don't know what is.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: dparker
I never thought about the genetic diseases though.

Well, you wouldn't have to. Genes were too pure back then to see genetic diseases for a few more thousand years.

nik

 

[Moonbeam]

ffm: " Well, you wouldn't have to. Genes were too pure back then to see genetic diseases for a few more thousand years."

Did you make that up or did somebody else.

One thing that's real odd is that these two people, Adam and Eve, who were genetically identical, though how the Y chromosome in
Adams rib bone got lost and replaced by another X is beyond me, is that they gave birth to Asian looking people in Asia, white looking people in Europe, abd Black looking people in Africa. How in the heck did a pure stock like ffm talks about give rise to all the different color and races types of people.

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
ffm: " Well, you wouldn't have to. Genes were too pure back then to see genetic diseases for a few more thousand years."

Did you make that up or did somebody else.

One thing that's real odd is that these two people, Adam and Eve, who were genetically identical, though how the Y chromosome in
Adams rib bone got lost and replaced by another X is beyond me, is that they gave birth to Asian looking people in Asia, white looking people in Europe, abd Black looking people in Africa. How in the heck did a pure stock like ffm talks about give rise to all the different color and races types of people.

You forgot the flood where the only surviving humans were Noah and his family so racial differences would have had to have evolved after that unless you propose that Noah's sons or their wives were all of differing races.

As for the original question concerning daughters that has already been answered in the affirmative, but, you might also want to think about a verse in Genesis that states something along the lines of "And the sons of God knew the daughters of men...". As it was explained to me, "The sons of God" is a term used to denote angels. Mull that one over for a bit.

 

[tenoc]

One word, people. Mythology.

 

[Pepsei]

from the book... looks like god DID create more people, just because the book didn't talk about behemoth or laviathon doesn't mean they don't exist...... also there was a mentioning of "angel" coming to earth to "unit" with the people on earth. So some of the offsprings are from this type of union.

There there's the theory that god is a multiple entity as well as one...etc...

 

[XZeroII]

The Bible is like our current system of laws. You can't take every word at it's current meaning. Just because we think a word means one thing, doesn't make it so when it comes to reading the bible, or law. When reading Statutes of law, you will find that they will totally change the meaning of a common word just to confuse people. The Bible has been translated and retranslated so many times that many numbers and words have been changed and reinterpreted so that there may be certain problems but that doesn't mean that it's untrue.

I've never understood exactly how evolution works. i'm not saying I don't believe it, because I do, I'm just saying I can't imagine how it could work. Does an entire population merely emerge in an instant? After one has mutated, with whom does it mate? Maybe it mates with it's former species creating a hybrid or something?

Seems to me like people are avoiding this critical question as well. I mean, if a fish of some kind just climbs up on land, it will not have any other animals to mate with unless it goes back in the water. Why would it go back in the water if it can be on land? Why would it go on land if it has the water? You might say that the water is overcrowded, but does that mean that people will eventually evolve to life in a vacume if we send people up there w/o space suits? Space is just as deadly to us as land was to those fish and we definatly arn't considering living in a vacume.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
The Bible is like our current system of laws. You can't take every word at it's current meaning. Just because we think a word means one thing, doesn't make it so when it comes to reading the bible, or law. When reading Statutes of law, you will find that they will totally change the meaning of a common word just to confuse people. The Bible has been translated and retranslated so many times that many numbers and words have been changed and reinterpreted so that there may be certain problems but that doesn't mean that it's untrue.

I've never understood exactly how evolution works. i'm not saying I don't believe it, because I do, I'm just saying I can't imagine how it could work. Does an entire population merely emerge in an instant? After one has mutated, with whom does it mate? Maybe it mates with it's former species creating a hybrid or something?

Seems to me like people are avoiding this critical question as well. I mean, if a fish of some kind just climbs up on land, it will not have any other animals to mate with unless it goes back in the water. Why would it go back in the water if it can be on land? Why would it go on land if it has the water? You might say that the water is overcrowded, but does that mean that people will eventually evolve to life in a vacume if we send people up there w/o space suits? Space is just as deadly to us as land was to those fish and we definatly arn't considering living in a vacume.

this is the question that most people ask about evolution, the simple answer is individuals dont mutate in one lifetime, the species does over generations , there is always genenetic varaiation within a population. and over time some stronger trait comes out of the gene pool, its not like 1 fish just grew legs out of the blue and started having babies with other fish. Over generations for fighting for a limited set of resources the fish that were able to live on land and sea were the amfibians and they had access to more foodd to prosper with so that small sub group of fish whicic shared some genetic trait survived and the cycle continued.

 

[Zwingle]

I like the word screwing, because in the end we all are. (screwed that is)

Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib. If that's not asexual reproduction by binary fission, I don't know what is

Basically you are saying that Adam fvcked the female version of himself....correct?

The common denominator "missing link" that both humans and apes came from still has not been found, scientists are still searching.

Couldn't Adam screwed his daughters and had more kids? Then some of his sons screwed those kids, the blood lines are the same but different. Science has now proven that incest is not bad, medically speaking. The chances of deformed or defective genes is similar to those of non related people. Cousins screwing have the same chance of having defective offspring as regular screwing people.

 

[Nefrodite]

Science has now proven that incest is not bad, medically speaking


u got that kinda wrong. science says that a little incest isn't all that bad. a cousin every couple of generations won't screw u. it only increases likelyhood of problems a little. however continuous incest would definetly screw u.



Seems to me like people are avoiding this critical question as well. I mean, if a fish of some kind just climbs up on land, it will not have any other animals to mate with unless it goes back in the water. Why would it go back in the water if it can be on land? Why would it go on land if it has the water? You might say that the water is overcrowded, but does that mean that people will eventually evolve to life in a vacume if we send people up there w/o space suits? Space is just as deadly to us as land was to those fish and we definatly arn't considering living in a vacume.


hehe they show too many cartoons with that damn fish. early on land was an enviroment totally waiting to be exploited. its not so much overcrowding as all the easy niches being filled. anything that could get out of the water had an advantage. be it to breed, eat, or hide eggs, temporarily hide from predators, etc. look at the lung fish today, it can survive a while waddling/squirming its way around on land for a little while on its fins.

and no we wouldn't evolve the ability to survive in vacumns. life on land isn't that different from water. oxygen still exists. take a normal fish out of water and it still survives for a little while. some fish can naturally waddle onto land. no human could survive for a little while in space without a space suit. no human could reach space natrually. no human would have a real advantage in space

 

[Moonbeam]

Incest is a family matter.

 

[Peetoeng]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Incest is a family matter.

That's why Darwin called it 'tree of life'--there's a common origin, probably from a primordial soup.

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Incest is a family matter.

ah yes that reminds me, kate and leopold should be out on dvd soon

 

[FoBoT]

i think they had many, many children

 

[Nefrodite]

great timing. the show EVOLUTION is on PBS right now!! one of the best/most recent bits about it
part 1-2 of 4 today.

the first part is a tad weird because its about darwin himself, the rest is't like that.


Evolution
Darwin's Dangerous Idea
120 min.
Part 1 of this examination of Charles Darwin's groundbreaking theory combines documentary segments with dramatizations of signal events in Darwin's life to present an overview of evolution (?the best single idea anyone ever had,? says Tufts University philosophy professor Daniel Dennett). The program also explores the surrounding controversy. The reason for the fuss, as Darwin (Chris Larkin) puts it: ?Man must fall into nature's cauldron.? Liam Neeson narrates the documentary segments.


Evolution
Great Transformations; Extinction
120 min.
Part 2 (of four) explores ?great transformations? that have altered life on Earth. It also examines life's common ?genetic tool kit? and why species go extinct. Among the transformations: the arrival of animals on the scene 570 million years ago; the arrival of sea creatures on land some 370 million years ago (and the entry of whales into the sea some 320 million years later); and history's five ?mass extinction events.? The asteroid that knocked out the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago was the most recent. But humans, says narrator Liam Neeson, ?may be the 'asteroid' that brings on the sixth.?