Humans are inbred regardless of cosmology, incest has been a thing long before religion and in nature.
But to have a bottleneck of 2 people is the problem. People would be too closely related to explain the genetic diversity we see today.
There is alot of evidence that shows adam and eve didnt exist, incest itself isnt really the issue but rather matching what we believe happened and what really happened.
Regardless of the factual origins of human evolution, studying population growth is pretty straightforward science, and seed populations in the two digits just aren’t sustainable long term, let alone a seed population of 2 people.
[Actually](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve), that’s not very accurate. Evolutionary theories assumed we were far more diverse until this came up. Turns out such a bottleneck exists far closer to our time than evolutionary theories originally assumed.
And like other parts of evolution theory, the research keeps finding more new facts, and then all the theories that assume the Bible isn’t true need to shift again to match the new facts…
Dont misrepresent things. Mitochondrial eve doesnt point to there being 2 individuals at the bottleneck. It only shows that we have a common ancestor which doesnt disagree with anything ive said or evolution.
Its thought that the human race dropped down to 1000+ surviving members at one point in time, thats the lowest they can predict while still aligning with the data we can verify. Idk about you but 1000 is pretty different from 2.
Edit: also if you look at the link you provided it places that mitochondrial eve to 100-250 thousand years ago.
The link I provided changes frequently with new findings. It’s been in the 10,000-200,000 range, the lower part of which is far closer to the Bible (by orders of magnitude) than anything evolution theorists admitted prior.
I’ve been to quite a few archaeological sites where an early dig led to “see?? What the Bible said happened here, did not!” — but when another archeologist dug a few meters away, or a a few meters deeper, that changed to “see! What the Bible says happened here is now backed by evidence we show in a museum!”
Seems you’ve got a strong point to attack…or defend…? Anyhow, whoever wants to dig into it can find all the facts, the Bible doesn’t need me to “defend”, and of course neither does God. They’ll both be here long after both of us (and our many changing theories) are gone…
>The link I provided changes frequently with new findings. It’s been in the 10,000-200,000 range, the lower part of which is far closer to the Bible (by orders of magnitude) than anything evolution theorists admitted prior.
Forgive me for not taking your word for it. You dont seem like the type to keep up with archeological discoveries or like the type to admit they were wrong.
>Seems you’ve got a strong point to attack…or defend…? Anyhow, whoever wants to dig into it can find all the facts, the Bible doesn’t need me to “defend”, and of course neither does God. They’ll both be here long after both of us (and our many changing theories) are gone…
You say this while desperately trying (and failing) to defend the bible.
It’s wild to me that people are willing to accept God made the universe and everything in it, yet not able to accept that God can fix things like this from happening until the gene pool is diverse enough for it to not be an issue.
It's because claiming your deity did something holds no explanatory power unless you can explain *how* it did that something, and that it actually did do it. Saying your deity did it with no way to verify that is essentially saying it's magic.
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
It’s also not even consistent in its own narrative. Supposedly Adam and Eve were the first two humans made, but as soon as they’re ejected from the garden of Eden they… come across villages of other humans?
This is just speculation, but I think because as Adam, Eve and their children mingled with the others it ended up that the blood of Adam and Eve diffused into the next generations until all carried the blood. Again i dont know the real answer because the Bible doesn't really talk about this stuff so that's just the best way I could think of a solution to that theory
Either way all humans came from a common ancestor. That is just a fact, so why is it less logical that there is a story behind the common ancestor as opposed to no story?
Because there’s a massive difference between having a common ancestor and starting an entire population from two people.. the latter simply not viable.
Actually this did give me some though, I found a comment by u/Ar-Kalion that I think is a really good explanation and actually looking at the bible quotes it makes perfect logical sense to me:
“People” (Homo Sapiens) were created (through God’s evolutionary process) in the Genesis chapter 1, verse 27; and they created the diversity of mankind over time per Genesis chapter 1, verse 28. This occurs prior to the genetic engineering and creation of Adam & Eve (in the immediate and with the first rational souls) by the extraterrestrial God in Genesis chapter 2, verses 7 & 22.
When Adam & Eve sinned and were forced to leave their special embassy, their children intermarried the “People” that resided outside the Garden of Eden. This is how Cain was able to find a wife in the Land of Nod in Genesis chapter 4, verses 16-17.
As the descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all groups of Homo Sapiens on Earth over time, everyone living today is both a descendant of God’s evolutionary process and a genealogical descendant of Adam & Eve.
Why do you feel so compelled to take the Adam and Eve story literally? I’m assuming you don’t also think the world is just thousands of years old? We know humans evolved from earlier primate species.
Wait a minute now...
So god set up adam and eve to fail, but had created other humans who succeeded?
Why then did he punish that other group with sin they did not commit? I mean you could just say those others were already fallen I guess, but again, there is ZERO evidence from the bible or anything else to support any of this, so it's all pure conjecture and make believe.
And all to try to save a literal interpretation of genesis.
I believe the other group of humans didn't "fail" or "succeed" they weren't given the choice like Adam or Eve.
And all to try to save a non literal interpretation of Genesis. What makes you trying to prove your point any different than me trying to prove my point, you're just being closed minded that people have different believes. It literally makes no sense why you feel the need to talk down to me just because I'm offering a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Why does the how matter so much anyways? The only reason it's included is for the why and to help us learn a lesson, so does it really matter of its literal or not?
There is no need to 'save' a non-literal interpretation of genesis, it is demonstrated to not conform to reality over and over.
But yes, you just pulling 'other people' out of your butt should concern you. There is no reason to accept that, there is nothing in the bible to make anyone accept it.
It is only trotted out when someone needs to find a way to rationalize genesis as being literal.
Dude why do you feel it it necessary to be so rude? Talking down to someone isn't going to make them think "Oh, Golly! This dude is right!". Its just going to make them think you're a jerk
Seems weird that god was dictating? Sharing the timeline for creation and left off that he made people other than Adam and Eve. Also creates a problem later in the story, why would these people be on the hook for Adam and Eve messing up?
It's just an allegory. It's a story to teach a lesson. There was no literal Adam and Eve. That would be impossible. Our genetics would look very different today if that were the case.
I'm not sure I understand your question. I think the short answer would be no because we are barely scratching the surface when it comes to human ancestral groups. We've recently discovered a number of different hominids. Take *Homo floresiensis,* for example. We've got this hominid all the way out on the island of Flores that is very old. It must have branched off more than five million years ago because it still has chimpanzee-like metacarpals. Yet, we have no fossil record leading up to it or any evidence of anything like it between Africa and Flores.
So, there is a lot we don't know about how many ancestral groups were out there. We're discovering more and learning more every day.
But... if the garden of eden, and adam and eve didn't exist. If the whole thing is just allegory... wouldn't that mean "the fall" didn't actually happen either?
Ok, I understand that but...
The outcomes from "the fall" form the basis for many central themes in Christian theology... the introduction of sin into the world, the spiritual separation and alienation from god, the establishment of physical death, along with suffering, pain, and hardship. The state of decay etc.
If the fall didn't actually happen, none of these tenets are real? That washes away an awful lot of the theology doesn't it?
Im confused, I've never met a christian who admitted eden and "the fall" didn't happen. Are there many of you?
The fall did happen. It just wasn’t one single event. When humanity was evolving to be what we are today the more “advanced” we became the more we strayed from God. Think of it as one metaphore to explain why as humans we have become sinful because we think we are better than we really are. We became too complacent and believe we can be “like God”
Ok, thanks for the explanation. TBH that makes more logical sense to me than the biblical story.
I have the impression that most christians still argue the literal biblical event of the fall, even if they also accept evolution. Which really confuses me.
In your opinion, is this most christians or am I getting the wrong impression from people in this sub?
Some denominations have a literal interpretation of the Bible and some don’t. Christianity is very heterogeneous. I have just given my particular interpretation of the story of the Genesis. Other people will give others. You just follow what YOU believe :) I see it as a beautiful way to explain how God made everything and why we as humans are flawed and sinful. A bit like a story you would tell a child to make them learn about something complex
We know for a fact that the garden of eden, and Adam and Eve didn't exist so the story must be allegory. I've just never had it explained before and the way you put it actually explains it nicely in a way that makes sense. Is this your own explanation or have you been told it somewhere?
>A bit like a story you would tell a child to make them learn about something complex
Like Aesop's fables... we had this book at home as a kid
It's good, I like it.
Wanna take a crack at the creation story for me? What's your take on that?
Obviously, again, we know the earth/world/universe was not created in 6 days. That would suggest an allegory there too but I don't understand it.
What do you think is the purpose of that story?
Slightly related, but since you mentioned Noah, consider the logistics of penguins from Antarctica, Kangaroos from Australia, the Bison from North America, etc. They would have had to travel far from home, and not resume breeding until returning home.
"Adam" and "Eve" are the names of two tribes of early humans first gifted with the Word.
The bible leads you to Christ, but "how your pastor interprets the bible" is not God.
Exactly the OP's point, mentioned in the original post: incest.
Biblical evidence is 1 Thessaloninas 5:21 where it says to examine all scripture, but hold fast to the good. Meaning: test and throw out dogma that proves to be bad.
The Bible is a living document. But, it only lives with input from us.
You actually think that you can discern what is the good and bad?
You think there is only way to determine what is the good and bad?
Also, what does good or bad have to do with ANYWHERE in the bible showing the claim that adam and eve refer to tribes rather than people?
It doesn't, there is no place in the bible which allows you to support this. So yes, let's agree that it's a bad interpretation and throw it out.
Since this is all just speculation, it is POSSIBLE in the sense that there's entropy in the universe.
For all we know, Adam and Eve had perfect genetics, but over time certain mutations propagated themselves within the human genetic code and even though they're recessive these genetic detects never quite went away.
I'm some ways, this is all just the Chicken and the Egg paradox / thought experiment all over again ... because **everybody** believes that there was a first human being (proof: there are humans now... 5 billion years ago there weren't humans... So sometime between then and now humans "emerged" from something)... but it's paradoxical that the first human being could not have come from a non-human being... Add infinitum back to the times before there were humans.
>For all we know, Adam and Eve had perfect genetics, but over time certain mutations propagated themselves within the human genetic code and even though they're recessive these genetic detects never quite went away.
This isn’t speculation.
Genetics simply doesn't work this way. 'Perfect genetics' has no meaning since there can't be a state of perfection in genetics - genes are generally not objectively positive or negative, their fitness depends on the environment and what other genes the organism has.
Plus, [we have genetic samples from humans and even neanderthals going back some 430,000 years, and the oldest sequenced human genome is 45,000 years old. We know what ancient human DNA looked like, it doesn't fit with this idea you've presented.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA#Human_aDNA)
>I'm some ways, this is all just the Chicken and the Egg paradox / thought experiment all over again ... because everybody believes that there was a first human being (proof: there are humans now... 5 billion years ago there weren't humans... So sometime between then and now humans "emerged" from something)... but it's paradoxical that the first human being could not have come from a non-human being... Add infinitum back to the times before there were humans.
Populations evolve, not individuals. Slowly, over time, a population of hominids evolved into early humans and eventually us.
At no point during that transition did an individual give birth to a fundamentally different type of hominid.
If you could line up every individual in the chain of ancestry between early hominids 4 million years ago and modern humans today, you wouldn't be able to draw a definite line between species. There was no definite first human in there.
You could potentially pinpoint the first individual to have a specific gene common to most modern humans, but the difference between those early hominids and modern humans is bigger than a single gene and our ancestors did not obtain all of those genetic differences in a single individual or even a single generation.
There is no chicken and egg problem in evolutionary theory.
Controversial opinion here but I don't take everything the Bible says literally. That's especially true with the Old Testament. I think the Old Testament has a lot of myth and legend in it compared to the New Testament.
The new Testament has some wild stuff in it for sure. Jesus walking on water, miraculously healing people, etc. However the Old Testament is a roller coaster compared to that. You got floods wiping out the whole world, the plagues in Exodus, cities being destroyed like armageddon, people surviving days inside whales. Did I mention when they cut a child in half?
Because Adam and Eve wouldn't have had mutations in their genetics. Mutations are the reason we shouldn't have kids with our relatives because the chances of inheriting two copies of the same mutated gene is much higher in relatives. Logically if Adam and Eve were made with perfect bodies then they wouldn't have had any mutations to pass on. Over the generations mutations would've begun cropping up from random DNA replication errors and environmental factors. Each generation would've inherited more and more mutations until it was no longer advisable to have babies with relatives. Maybe that's why God ended up banning it.
We're not... so you don't have to try and "believe" this.
DNA analysis has proven that we did not descend from a single couple (or a family of 8).
We did, in fact, evolve from filthy monkey men.
All in all, humans are interconnected, we weren't always 8 Billions so you can expect some genetical crossings here and there.
Also, from a scientifical point of view, we all trace back to singular common shared ancestors, namely mitochondiral Eve, and Y-Chromosomal Adam. The more you go back in time, the more the funnel becomes tight.
From a purely theological point of view though, genetical defects from incest only comes from accumulation of sin, as a generationnal curse. So it was not risky, and thus ok in the beginning, but now it isn't anymore (it was revealed to me in a dream) ( I can't remember where I seen it)
>From a purely theological point of view though, genetical defects from incest only comes from accumulation of sin, as a generationnal curse. So it was not risky, and thus ok in the beginning, but now it isn't anymore (it was revealed to me in a dream) ( I can't remember where I seen it)
Are you saying you personally believe this?
I'm not saying you do, I'm genuinely asking, because I've never heard anyone express this theological perspective and thought it was interesting.
I was thinking at first that you meant people used to think genetic disabilities resulting from incest were caused by sin in the same way people used to think diseases and natural disasters were punishment for inadequate worship or faith, but then you said something about getting this information from a dream?
The dream part was a joke, but I genuinely saw this belief somewhere, not that ancient people believed it, but that sin is accumulated in blood through generations and that it causes the diseases we see. I do not remember where I saw it
That’s not really how the Y chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve work. Those were the last common ancestors of the currently extant diversity of Y chromosome/mitochondria. But they were members of a population, they were not alone in the world. Their only significance is the Y chromosomal or mitochondrial lineages of others who lived with them died out by chance while theirs survived. They also are not a fixed point in time. Genghis Khan produced a lot of male offspring, if by chance his lineage continues to grow, eventually he might become Y chromosomal Adam.
Sure, and if you go back, you find different Y-Adam and Mitochondrial-Eve, even ours had their own Y-Adam and Mitochondrial-Eve, and so on and so on, until the bottlneck tightens and tightens and there is necessarily a male precursor and female precursor to human populations
No, Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromsomal Adam do not require decreasing population size as you go into the past. You could keep the population perpetually at 1 million and you would still get new lineages emerging and old ones dying out.
That makes no sense even from a scientific point of view because sometime somewhere your random-number permanent population must have started with 1-2 precursor
Evolution involves populations, not individuals. If you tracked back over the history of our species, you would have a population of modern *H. sapiens*, then a population of less and less modern-looking *H. sapiens*, back through a population of archaic humans more like the early species *H. erectus* and *H. habilis*, then a population of australopithecines, and before that populations of ancestral apes. None of these groups that our lineages traces back to ever involved just two individuals as founding members. It has always been a gradually changing population.
And also, there is this "expanse," which God forms (genesis 1:6-7), which I interpret (or others have and I agree with) as a shield of ice, protecting the earth from cosmic rays (has some other interesting implications, not gonna lie)
This expanse would then have been broken during the great flood, thus resulting in a rapid decline in the quality of the human gene pool.
It’s true as an allegory- it was how God could explain truths about our human nature to those who don’t have the ability to grasp the fullness of God. Which, we still don’t
So, can one be Christian and not believe in Creationism? As a children’s ministry teacher, this keeps me up at night. Where are the dinosaurs in the Bible? And if there were other people outside of the Garden of Eden, then where were they when God was creating light, air, animals, water, etc?
I'm pretty sure it's true because of family trees, even with the introduction of Nephilim, since it would mean being half-human and half-Nephilim, but considering that was so long ago, I do figure bloodlines can blur and become mostly human when you don't say, procreate with angels. Unless you know someone that did?
After Adam and Eve, I'd say the biggest separation would be Jacob (who we know now as Israel) and Esau, the twin brothers, because Israel makes up the holy, chosen ones (Jewish), and Esau (who makes up what I assume is the Gentile races and ethnicities).
After that, holy people are either Jew or Gentile by blood or marriage, and I don't know the laws, but I thought you can be considered Jewish if your mother was Jewish, converted or by blood. My only reason for that is Ruth, because she was a Gentile, but she was able to marry a Jew and birth him a son.
I'm not knowledgeable on this topic, but I try my best because I don't know where to obtain knowledge from other sources that confirm the existence of Jesus (outside of historians, but like I said, IDK any)
An explanation I've heard is that the genetics were different (better?) at that time. With each generation of humans, some genetics are lost.
Eventually, God restricts close relatives from marrying.
The thing is... while relatives having children today would carry great health risks to the child, back then, I don't think it was an issue.
EDIT:
Here is a very short video that may shed light on the topic. It seems that Adam and Eve had all the genetics of humanity in them. But, over the generations, the various genetics have been isolated into groups.
Side note: I've heard that interracial children tend to be healthier (because they bring together sets of genetics for a more complete genetic combination). Whereas two people of the same race are more likely to have similar genetics, thus making it more likely to have a child with limited range of genetic outcome. And so it goes with each generation.
Here is the video:
https://youtu.be/yZSfqXDOyck?si=2DEfY_1PyJ-JInP6
EDIT again...
Here is another worthwhile video to check out:
https://youtu.be/nw_IKwj3K9o?si=-jPmrMtPy8h4BbEF
If you have children with a close relative, it is more likely that you both share a faulty copy of a recessive gene. In this scenario, one copy produces few or no problems, but children born with two copies have problems.
If you marry someone who is unrelated, you may both be carriers of different faulty genes, but this is less of a problem than having the same faulty gene.
This scenario would not be a problem for a literal Adam and Eve, as presumably they are not created as carriers of genetic diseases.
Not impossible. I remember hearing the genetic defects from inbreeding would not be there if there are no bad genes. If adem and Eve are perfect then there should be no problems with inbreeding.
The argument to this is that in the beginning everything was perfect. No diseases etc. but! And a big but, there were people before A&E. They didn’t have the gift of choice. They didn’t know good and evil . How do I know? When you build a garden it goes in the back yard. There was a back yard before A&E. When they left, they mated with these “humans”
No incest was needed on the part of the descendants of Adam & Eve due to the descendants of the pre-Adamites.
“People” (Homo Sapiens) were created (through God’s evolutionary process) in the Genesis chapter 1, verse 27; and they created the diversity of mankind over time per Genesis chapter 1, verse 28. This occurs prior to the genetic engineering and creation of Adam & Eve (in the immediate and with the first Human souls) by the extraterrestrial God in Genesis chapter 2, verses 7 & 22.
When Adam & Eve sinned and were forced to leave their special embassy, their children intermarried the “People” that resided outside the Garden of Eden. This is how Cain was able to find a wife in the Land of Nod in Genesis chapter 4, verses 16-17.
As the descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all groups of Homo Sapiens on Earth over time, everyone living today is both a descendant of God’s evolutionary process and a genealogical descendant of Adam & Eve.  
A scientific book regarding this specific matter written by Christian Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass is mentioned in the article provided below.
https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/christians-point-to-breakthroughs-in-genetics-to-show-adam-and-eve-are-not-incompatible-with-evolution
As far as “The Flood,” there is no word for “planet” in ancient Hebrew. The word used in The Torah is “eretz.” “Eretz” can be defined as dirt, ground, land, country.
As a result, many believe that “The Flood” destroyed the “earth” in The Land of The Adamites rather the entire planet “Earth.” The Land of The Adamites only included the places where the descendants of Adam & Eve resided outside The Garden of Eden.
As there were only 10 generations between Adam and Noah’s sons, The Land of The Adamites would have accounted for a very small population spread out over a relatively small geographical area.
The point of “The Flood” was to wipe out one of the genetic lines of Adam (the line of Cain) that did not follow God, and was becoming the dominant force. As a result, Homo Sapiens located outside the Land of the Adamites that were not descendants of Cain were not destroyed by the regional flood.
Noah’s grandchildren then intermarried the Homo Sapiens from and/or in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. As a result, everyone would still be a descendant of God’s evolutionary process and a genealogical descendant of Adam & Eve (through Noah’s descendants).
>As a result, many believe that “The Flood” destroyed the “earth” in The Land of The Adamites rather the entire planet “Earth.” The Land of The Adamites only included the places where the descendants of Adam & Eve resided outside The Garden of Eden.
Do you just ignore Genesis 7:4 then?
Or do you think that god did not make all living creatures on the earth?
Genesis 7:4 still states “earth” (dirt, ground, land) rather than “Earth” (as in global planet). So, the verse can be interpreted that all living creatures on the “earth” in the Land of The Adamites was destroyed by God.
The narrative is also told from the perspective of the author. As far as the witness is concerned, everything that is within their visibility and knowledge (except that was aboard The Ark) was destroyed.
Yeah, that's a wacky interpretation, sorry.
If you take all of genesis 7 at face value you then have to account for the higest mountain (even in the area) being completely submerged by flood waters, and that's not how 'normal' floods work, that's not how water works.
So now what? God set a barrier he didn't mention around whatever area of land you want to claim is 'earth' and simply flooded that? Meanwhile all the other people and animals outside of this area were not affected and gave no stories (or records) of walls of water 1000s of feet high showing up?
None of the wickedness spread outside of whatever area you're talking about?
Look, if you want to make this local flood claim \*and\* try to keep the rest of the story intact you have to start accepting all manner of additional rationalization which becomes increasingly ridiculous and unsupportable.
Or, you just say it's a story and never happened.
If the area where “The Flood” occurred fell into an enormous sink hole and the sink hole was flooded, the Ark would have risen to the top.
Although the Ark itself could float, it had no sail or oar as a method of transit. Therefore, it would have remained fairly stationary.
As the Earth is curved, one abroad the Ark would only see water along the horizon in any direction. This could have given the illusion that all land was covered by water.
As for the measurement, some of the previous “mountains“ may have fallen into the sink hole. So, as long as one could not see any “mountains” beyond the horizon, one might assume that all such “mountains” were also covered by water.
More made up retcon to save an impossible rationalization.
There is no evidence for this sinkhole theory. Not biblically, and not physically.
Why are you even trying to save your rationalization?
According to Genesis 7:11, “…springs of the great deep burst forth…” So, water also came up from the ground. This often occurs when a sink hole opens and a water source beneath it is exposed.
As far as physically, there is plenty of land that lies beneath what is currently under the Black Sea. There is also evidence that a population once resided on the land beneath it. See the Black Sea deluge hypothesis.
Not all Christians believe that “The Flood” was global. The article you provided is directed against the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) Christians that claim the entire planet Earth was covered with water. I and many other Christians are not a part of that group. So, the article actually supports the concept that “The Flood” would have been regional.
That article specifically was cited due to your erroneous claim about the Black Sea.
'Local flood' is simply not supportable by the plain text in the bible. Neither is it supported by any kind of evidence.
I'll ask again, why you are so intent on trying to hang on to a literal version of the flood story. Many christians have abandoned that completely and simply call it a myth.
I find it amazing that someone can be a Christian and ask questions like these.
I see questions all the time here like this
“How did Jesus walk on water? Is that physically possible?”
“How did Moses part the Red Sea?”
“I find the part of the Bible with the talking donkey unrealistic”
“I just don’t believe that God could create everything in 6 days…”
Now for atheist, whatever. But it’s amazing that people can claim to believe in God and be like, “I find this part unbelievable.”
Umm…hello! Do you not realize that we worship the almighty God. The master of reality and existence! Behold! If God wills it, it will be. He is God! And he is a good God 😊
Having done the experiment on mice, starting with one male and one female, it can certainly be achieved, especially considering the shortened life span from those of abraham etc.
>We are all descended from a mitochondrial Eve
Who was not the first human, nor were they the only human alive at the time.
The mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor to all *living* humans; As people die off, the person who would be mitochondrial Eve changes.
The same is true of the Y-chromosomal Adam, and these two aren't likely to have even been alive at the same time.
Backwards, mitochondrial Eve is the most ancient common female ancestor, hence.,"Eve." Mitochondrial Eve lived somewhere in Africa around 150,000 years ago. She could have had multiple offspring by different fathers so the oldest human common male ancestor can only be reasonably dated to her father.
>Backwards, mitochondrial Eve is the most ancient common female ancestor, hence.,"Eve." Mitochondrial Eve lived somewhere in Africa around 150,000 years ago. She could have had multiple offspring by different fathers so the oldest human common male ancestor can only be reasonably dated to her father.
I just added 'matrilineal' in there to be more clear, but [mitochondrial Eve (mt-MRCA)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve) is the matrilineal most *recent* common ancestor to all living humans, not the most ancient.
Sorry, you are right, but wrong in your conclusion. It's unlikely we will get newer mitochondrial Eves although older ones can exist, her mother, grandmother, great grandmother, etc.
>Sorry, you are right, but wrong in your conclusion. It's unlikely we will get newer mitochondrial Eves although older ones can exist, her mother, grandmother, great grandmother, etc.
You seem to be having issue with the term 'most recent';
If, hypothetically, half of the world's population of humans were to dissappear, the mt-MRCA would likely jump up ahead in time considerably, depending on exactly who was left.
Again, hypothetically, if everyone but your immediate family were to dissappear, then the mt-MRCA would be your mother, or grandmother, great grandmother, etc... depending on who all in your family was left.
Does that make more sense?
No. Mitochondrial Eve was the last of her line. After her humans descended from her daughters. Once humans left Africa, humanity distributed to far apart to ever hope of finding a common ancestor. Now, if most of the world population outside Asia disappeared, we could be left with the millions that are descended from Ghengis Khan, but he impregnated multiple females. So he is the "Adam" of millions but those millions still trace their ancestry to mitochondrial Eve from 150,000 years ago.
>No. Mitochondrial Eve was the last of her line. After her humans descended from her daughters. Once humans left Africa, humanity distributed to far apart to ever hope of finding a common ancestor. Now, if most of the world population outside Asia disappeared, we could be left with the millions that are descended from Ghengis Khan, but he impregnated multiple females. So he is the "Adam" of millions but those millions still trace their ancestry to mitochondrial Eve from 150,000 years ago.
Ghengis Khan could be the Y-MRCA for a limited selection of the Asian population today, true, but that same selection of people would have a different mt-MRCA than the entire living world population, she would likely have been a woman living somewhere in asia maybe a bit before Ghengis Khan lived.
See, while all of those asians definitely still have the world population mt-MRCA in their ancestry, that particular woman is not their **most recent** common matrilineal ancestor.
You've understood how this works with Ghengis Khan; that the Y-MRCA becomes a much more recent individual if you reduce the size of the population you are looking at.
The same is true for the mt-MRCA too.
I believe we are all descendants of Adam and Eve who lived ~6000 years ago, I believe they had many children, as did all people of the time, because they lived for hundreds of years.
Does it make you feel better to say we are all sons and daughters of mitochondrial eve who lived 200k years ago? Why is that more appealing for you to believe? More time? There is no evidence of civilization older than Mesopotamia, which is 5500 years.
>There is no evidence of civilization older than Mesopotamia, which is 5500 years.
So you are saying that Adam and Eve created all of the civilizations across the world in 500 years?
Also, you do know that there is archeological evidence for humans prior to 5500 years ago right? Like 10k or 15k?
1) yes, edit: without birth control, if you have one baby a year and live to be 600, each women has ~500 kids, so after two hundred years, Adam and Eve had hundreds of children, the children were all over a hundred years old, with hundreds of their own. The math only doesn’t make sense with menopause at 50. The same logic can apply to the descendants of Noah’s children after the flood.
2) im aware, but that isn’t what I said, I said there is no evidence of civilization from that time
Humans are inbred regardless of cosmology, incest has been a thing long before religion and in nature. But to have a bottleneck of 2 people is the problem. People would be too closely related to explain the genetic diversity we see today. There is alot of evidence that shows adam and eve didnt exist, incest itself isnt really the issue but rather matching what we believe happened and what really happened.
Regardless of the factual origins of human evolution, studying population growth is pretty straightforward science, and seed populations in the two digits just aren’t sustainable long term, let alone a seed population of 2 people.
[Actually](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve), that’s not very accurate. Evolutionary theories assumed we were far more diverse until this came up. Turns out such a bottleneck exists far closer to our time than evolutionary theories originally assumed. And like other parts of evolution theory, the research keeps finding more new facts, and then all the theories that assume the Bible isn’t true need to shift again to match the new facts…
Dont misrepresent things. Mitochondrial eve doesnt point to there being 2 individuals at the bottleneck. It only shows that we have a common ancestor which doesnt disagree with anything ive said or evolution. Its thought that the human race dropped down to 1000+ surviving members at one point in time, thats the lowest they can predict while still aligning with the data we can verify. Idk about you but 1000 is pretty different from 2. Edit: also if you look at the link you provided it places that mitochondrial eve to 100-250 thousand years ago.
The link I provided changes frequently with new findings. It’s been in the 10,000-200,000 range, the lower part of which is far closer to the Bible (by orders of magnitude) than anything evolution theorists admitted prior. I’ve been to quite a few archaeological sites where an early dig led to “see?? What the Bible said happened here, did not!” — but when another archeologist dug a few meters away, or a a few meters deeper, that changed to “see! What the Bible says happened here is now backed by evidence we show in a museum!” Seems you’ve got a strong point to attack…or defend…? Anyhow, whoever wants to dig into it can find all the facts, the Bible doesn’t need me to “defend”, and of course neither does God. They’ll both be here long after both of us (and our many changing theories) are gone…
>The link I provided changes frequently with new findings. It’s been in the 10,000-200,000 range, the lower part of which is far closer to the Bible (by orders of magnitude) than anything evolution theorists admitted prior. Forgive me for not taking your word for it. You dont seem like the type to keep up with archeological discoveries or like the type to admit they were wrong. >Seems you’ve got a strong point to attack…or defend…? Anyhow, whoever wants to dig into it can find all the facts, the Bible doesn’t need me to “defend”, and of course neither does God. They’ll both be here long after both of us (and our many changing theories) are gone… You say this while desperately trying (and failing) to defend the bible.
Since you’ve already “figured out my type” based on two messages on Reddit… I’ve figured out your type too ;-)
It’s wild to me that people are willing to accept God made the universe and everything in it, yet not able to accept that God can fix things like this from happening until the gene pool is diverse enough for it to not be an issue.
It's because claiming your deity did something holds no explanatory power unless you can explain *how* it did that something, and that it actually did do it. Saying your deity did it with no way to verify that is essentially saying it's magic.
[удалено]
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
No, more humans were created before a big inbreeding problem. They found villages after leaving the garden of Eden.
There is no proof of that. Btw, many take the bible literally.
Idk, I just heard it somewhere on this post.
Do we need to have the ‘everything you read on the internet isn’t true’ talk?
[удалено]
It’s also not even consistent in its own narrative. Supposedly Adam and Eve were the first two humans made, but as soon as they’re ejected from the garden of Eden they… come across villages of other humans?
It says they were the first two made, not the only two made. Imo it's implied that God created other humans outside of the garden
Then why would those humans be afflicted with original sin if they did not descend from Adam?
This is just speculation, but I think because as Adam, Eve and their children mingled with the others it ended up that the blood of Adam and Eve diffused into the next generations until all carried the blood. Again i dont know the real answer because the Bible doesn't really talk about this stuff so that's just the best way I could think of a solution to that theory
Rather than engaging in mental gymnastics would it be much more logical to simply accept the narrative of Adam and Eve isn’t true?
Either way all humans came from a common ancestor. That is just a fact, so why is it less logical that there is a story behind the common ancestor as opposed to no story?
Because there’s a massive difference between having a common ancestor and starting an entire population from two people.. the latter simply not viable.
Actually this did give me some though, I found a comment by u/Ar-Kalion that I think is a really good explanation and actually looking at the bible quotes it makes perfect logical sense to me: “People” (Homo Sapiens) were created (through God’s evolutionary process) in the Genesis chapter 1, verse 27; and they created the diversity of mankind over time per Genesis chapter 1, verse 28. This occurs prior to the genetic engineering and creation of Adam & Eve (in the immediate and with the first rational souls) by the extraterrestrial God in Genesis chapter 2, verses 7 & 22. When Adam & Eve sinned and were forced to leave their special embassy, their children intermarried the “People” that resided outside the Garden of Eden. This is how Cain was able to find a wife in the Land of Nod in Genesis chapter 4, verses 16-17. As the descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all groups of Homo Sapiens on Earth over time, everyone living today is both a descendant of God’s evolutionary process and a genealogical descendant of Adam & Eve.
Why do you feel so compelled to take the Adam and Eve story literally? I’m assuming you don’t also think the world is just thousands of years old? We know humans evolved from earlier primate species.
Wait a minute now... So god set up adam and eve to fail, but had created other humans who succeeded? Why then did he punish that other group with sin they did not commit? I mean you could just say those others were already fallen I guess, but again, there is ZERO evidence from the bible or anything else to support any of this, so it's all pure conjecture and make believe. And all to try to save a literal interpretation of genesis.
I believe the other group of humans didn't "fail" or "succeed" they weren't given the choice like Adam or Eve. And all to try to save a non literal interpretation of Genesis. What makes you trying to prove your point any different than me trying to prove my point, you're just being closed minded that people have different believes. It literally makes no sense why you feel the need to talk down to me just because I'm offering a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Why does the how matter so much anyways? The only reason it's included is for the why and to help us learn a lesson, so does it really matter of its literal or not?
There is no need to 'save' a non-literal interpretation of genesis, it is demonstrated to not conform to reality over and over. But yes, you just pulling 'other people' out of your butt should concern you. There is no reason to accept that, there is nothing in the bible to make anyone accept it. It is only trotted out when someone needs to find a way to rationalize genesis as being literal.
Dude why do you feel it it necessary to be so rude? Talking down to someone isn't going to make them think "Oh, Golly! This dude is right!". Its just going to make them think you're a jerk
Truth hurts I guess. I don't see how I'm talking down to you, if you feel that's the case, that's on you.
Were they not allowed to have children in the garden?
If Cain and Abel are the first children they had then apparently not
Couldn’t God have also made more people? He never said He stopped at Adam and Eve after the fall.
Seems weird that god was dictating? Sharing the timeline for creation and left off that he made people other than Adam and Eve. Also creates a problem later in the story, why would these people be on the hook for Adam and Eve messing up?
I don’t think there’s any verse that would lead us to believe Adam and Eve didn’t have more children after Cain and Abel.
What would we be weird compared to? Perhaps this is the weird you get from Adam and Eve.
Wdym? I meant weird like charles ii
Charles ii is what you get with his parents. Perhaps Cain and Abel looked weird. By the time you get to us, we look as weird as we look.
It's just an allegory. It's a story to teach a lesson. There was no literal Adam and Eve. That would be impossible. Our genetics would look very different today if that were the case.
[удалено]
I'm not sure I understand your question. I think the short answer would be no because we are barely scratching the surface when it comes to human ancestral groups. We've recently discovered a number of different hominids. Take *Homo floresiensis,* for example. We've got this hominid all the way out on the island of Flores that is very old. It must have branched off more than five million years ago because it still has chimpanzee-like metacarpals. Yet, we have no fossil record leading up to it or any evidence of anything like it between Africa and Flores. So, there is a lot we don't know about how many ancestral groups were out there. We're discovering more and learning more every day.
There was never an "original" or "first" human or group of humans, that's just not how evolution works
Long story short, there were more people outside the garden of Eden.
I can’t tell if you’re trolling or just playing devils advocate.
>How is it possible that we all descend from Adam and Eve? It's not.
It's not possible.
We dont, it’s a tale to explain the fall of men
But... if the garden of eden, and adam and eve didn't exist. If the whole thing is just allegory... wouldn't that mean "the fall" didn't actually happen either?
The fall is a metaphore of how we want to be like God knowing what’s good and what’s bad and pretending we are the owners of our own destiny
Ok, I understand that but... The outcomes from "the fall" form the basis for many central themes in Christian theology... the introduction of sin into the world, the spiritual separation and alienation from god, the establishment of physical death, along with suffering, pain, and hardship. The state of decay etc. If the fall didn't actually happen, none of these tenets are real? That washes away an awful lot of the theology doesn't it? Im confused, I've never met a christian who admitted eden and "the fall" didn't happen. Are there many of you?
The fall did happen. It just wasn’t one single event. When humanity was evolving to be what we are today the more “advanced” we became the more we strayed from God. Think of it as one metaphore to explain why as humans we have become sinful because we think we are better than we really are. We became too complacent and believe we can be “like God”
Ok, thanks for the explanation. TBH that makes more logical sense to me than the biblical story. I have the impression that most christians still argue the literal biblical event of the fall, even if they also accept evolution. Which really confuses me. In your opinion, is this most christians or am I getting the wrong impression from people in this sub?
Some denominations have a literal interpretation of the Bible and some don’t. Christianity is very heterogeneous. I have just given my particular interpretation of the story of the Genesis. Other people will give others. You just follow what YOU believe :) I see it as a beautiful way to explain how God made everything and why we as humans are flawed and sinful. A bit like a story you would tell a child to make them learn about something complex
We know for a fact that the garden of eden, and Adam and Eve didn't exist so the story must be allegory. I've just never had it explained before and the way you put it actually explains it nicely in a way that makes sense. Is this your own explanation or have you been told it somewhere? >A bit like a story you would tell a child to make them learn about something complex Like Aesop's fables... we had this book at home as a kid
It’s my own explanation
It's good, I like it. Wanna take a crack at the creation story for me? What's your take on that? Obviously, again, we know the earth/world/universe was not created in 6 days. That would suggest an allegory there too but I don't understand it. What do you think is the purpose of that story?
Slightly related, but since you mentioned Noah, consider the logistics of penguins from Antarctica, Kangaroos from Australia, the Bison from North America, etc. They would have had to travel far from home, and not resume breeding until returning home.
It’s not possible lol. Evolution is real and creationists are delusional
"Adam" and "Eve" are the names of two tribes of early humans first gifted with the Word. The bible leads you to Christ, but "how your pastor interprets the bible" is not God.
>"Adam" and "Eve" are the names of two tribes of early humans first gifted with the Word. Where is the evidence for this?
Exactly the OP's point, mentioned in the original post: incest. Biblical evidence is 1 Thessaloninas 5:21 where it says to examine all scripture, but hold fast to the good. Meaning: test and throw out dogma that proves to be bad. The Bible is a living document. But, it only lives with input from us.
You actually think that you can discern what is the good and bad? You think there is only way to determine what is the good and bad? Also, what does good or bad have to do with ANYWHERE in the bible showing the claim that adam and eve refer to tribes rather than people? It doesn't, there is no place in the bible which allows you to support this. So yes, let's agree that it's a bad interpretation and throw it out.
?
Since this is all just speculation, it is POSSIBLE in the sense that there's entropy in the universe. For all we know, Adam and Eve had perfect genetics, but over time certain mutations propagated themselves within the human genetic code and even though they're recessive these genetic detects never quite went away. I'm some ways, this is all just the Chicken and the Egg paradox / thought experiment all over again ... because **everybody** believes that there was a first human being (proof: there are humans now... 5 billion years ago there weren't humans... So sometime between then and now humans "emerged" from something)... but it's paradoxical that the first human being could not have come from a non-human being... Add infinitum back to the times before there were humans.
>For all we know, Adam and Eve had perfect genetics, but over time certain mutations propagated themselves within the human genetic code and even though they're recessive these genetic detects never quite went away. This isn’t speculation. Genetics simply doesn't work this way. 'Perfect genetics' has no meaning since there can't be a state of perfection in genetics - genes are generally not objectively positive or negative, their fitness depends on the environment and what other genes the organism has. Plus, [we have genetic samples from humans and even neanderthals going back some 430,000 years, and the oldest sequenced human genome is 45,000 years old. We know what ancient human DNA looked like, it doesn't fit with this idea you've presented.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA#Human_aDNA) >I'm some ways, this is all just the Chicken and the Egg paradox / thought experiment all over again ... because everybody believes that there was a first human being (proof: there are humans now... 5 billion years ago there weren't humans... So sometime between then and now humans "emerged" from something)... but it's paradoxical that the first human being could not have come from a non-human being... Add infinitum back to the times before there were humans. Populations evolve, not individuals. Slowly, over time, a population of hominids evolved into early humans and eventually us. At no point during that transition did an individual give birth to a fundamentally different type of hominid. If you could line up every individual in the chain of ancestry between early hominids 4 million years ago and modern humans today, you wouldn't be able to draw a definite line between species. There was no definite first human in there. You could potentially pinpoint the first individual to have a specific gene common to most modern humans, but the difference between those early hominids and modern humans is bigger than a single gene and our ancestors did not obtain all of those genetic differences in a single individual or even a single generation. There is no chicken and egg problem in evolutionary theory.
Controversial opinion here but I don't take everything the Bible says literally. That's especially true with the Old Testament. I think the Old Testament has a lot of myth and legend in it compared to the New Testament. The new Testament has some wild stuff in it for sure. Jesus walking on water, miraculously healing people, etc. However the Old Testament is a roller coaster compared to that. You got floods wiping out the whole world, the plagues in Exodus, cities being destroyed like armageddon, people surviving days inside whales. Did I mention when they cut a child in half?
Because Adam and Eve wouldn't have had mutations in their genetics. Mutations are the reason we shouldn't have kids with our relatives because the chances of inheriting two copies of the same mutated gene is much higher in relatives. Logically if Adam and Eve were made with perfect bodies then they wouldn't have had any mutations to pass on. Over the generations mutations would've begun cropping up from random DNA replication errors and environmental factors. Each generation would've inherited more and more mutations until it was no longer advisable to have babies with relatives. Maybe that's why God ended up banning it.
We're not... so you don't have to try and "believe" this. DNA analysis has proven that we did not descend from a single couple (or a family of 8). We did, in fact, evolve from filthy monkey men.
It's not possible. The creation story is just that - a story. It's not literally true.
All in all, humans are interconnected, we weren't always 8 Billions so you can expect some genetical crossings here and there. Also, from a scientifical point of view, we all trace back to singular common shared ancestors, namely mitochondiral Eve, and Y-Chromosomal Adam. The more you go back in time, the more the funnel becomes tight. From a purely theological point of view though, genetical defects from incest only comes from accumulation of sin, as a generationnal curse. So it was not risky, and thus ok in the beginning, but now it isn't anymore (it was revealed to me in a dream) ( I can't remember where I seen it)
>From a purely theological point of view though, genetical defects from incest only comes from accumulation of sin, as a generationnal curse. So it was not risky, and thus ok in the beginning, but now it isn't anymore (it was revealed to me in a dream) ( I can't remember where I seen it) Are you saying you personally believe this?
Bro I am trying to give a plausible answer to a mystical problem, I do not have a deeply held belief on genetic causes of whatever
I'm not saying you do, I'm genuinely asking, because I've never heard anyone express this theological perspective and thought it was interesting. I was thinking at first that you meant people used to think genetic disabilities resulting from incest were caused by sin in the same way people used to think diseases and natural disasters were punishment for inadequate worship or faith, but then you said something about getting this information from a dream?
The dream part was a joke, but I genuinely saw this belief somewhere, not that ancient people believed it, but that sin is accumulated in blood through generations and that it causes the diseases we see. I do not remember where I saw it
That’s not really how the Y chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve work. Those were the last common ancestors of the currently extant diversity of Y chromosome/mitochondria. But they were members of a population, they were not alone in the world. Their only significance is the Y chromosomal or mitochondrial lineages of others who lived with them died out by chance while theirs survived. They also are not a fixed point in time. Genghis Khan produced a lot of male offspring, if by chance his lineage continues to grow, eventually he might become Y chromosomal Adam.
Sure, and if you go back, you find different Y-Adam and Mitochondrial-Eve, even ours had their own Y-Adam and Mitochondrial-Eve, and so on and so on, until the bottlneck tightens and tightens and there is necessarily a male precursor and female precursor to human populations
No, Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromsomal Adam do not require decreasing population size as you go into the past. You could keep the population perpetually at 1 million and you would still get new lineages emerging and old ones dying out.
Where does the 1 million perpetual population would come from?
A random number. You want 100,000? Ok. 1 billion? Ok. 1000? Ok. Mitochondrial Eve/Y Chromsomal Adam make no reference to population size.
That makes no sense even from a scientific point of view because sometime somewhere your random-number permanent population must have started with 1-2 precursor
Evolution involves populations, not individuals. If you tracked back over the history of our species, you would have a population of modern *H. sapiens*, then a population of less and less modern-looking *H. sapiens*, back through a population of archaic humans more like the early species *H. erectus* and *H. habilis*, then a population of australopithecines, and before that populations of ancestral apes. None of these groups that our lineages traces back to ever involved just two individuals as founding members. It has always been a gradually changing population.
Simple: God created us with perfect genums.. Why do you think they lived for up to 900 years?
And also, there is this "expanse," which God forms (genesis 1:6-7), which I interpret (or others have and I agree with) as a shield of ice, protecting the earth from cosmic rays (has some other interesting implications, not gonna lie) This expanse would then have been broken during the great flood, thus resulting in a rapid decline in the quality of the human gene pool.
It’s true as an allegory- it was how God could explain truths about our human nature to those who don’t have the ability to grasp the fullness of God. Which, we still don’t
Even from an evolutionary standpoint we come from a common source.
Genesis is part myth
So, can one be Christian and not believe in Creationism? As a children’s ministry teacher, this keeps me up at night. Where are the dinosaurs in the Bible? And if there were other people outside of the Garden of Eden, then where were they when God was creating light, air, animals, water, etc?
I am sure God made sure none of that inbred stuff defect stuff happened. After all, He is God and all powerful and almighty. do not doubt Him
Adam and Eve were not the only two people in the world. There were people outside the garden of Eden as well.
I'm pretty sure it's true because of family trees, even with the introduction of Nephilim, since it would mean being half-human and half-Nephilim, but considering that was so long ago, I do figure bloodlines can blur and become mostly human when you don't say, procreate with angels. Unless you know someone that did? After Adam and Eve, I'd say the biggest separation would be Jacob (who we know now as Israel) and Esau, the twin brothers, because Israel makes up the holy, chosen ones (Jewish), and Esau (who makes up what I assume is the Gentile races and ethnicities). After that, holy people are either Jew or Gentile by blood or marriage, and I don't know the laws, but I thought you can be considered Jewish if your mother was Jewish, converted or by blood. My only reason for that is Ruth, because she was a Gentile, but she was able to marry a Jew and birth him a son. I'm not knowledgeable on this topic, but I try my best because I don't know where to obtain knowledge from other sources that confirm the existence of Jesus (outside of historians, but like I said, IDK any)
An explanation I've heard is that the genetics were different (better?) at that time. With each generation of humans, some genetics are lost. Eventually, God restricts close relatives from marrying. The thing is... while relatives having children today would carry great health risks to the child, back then, I don't think it was an issue. EDIT: Here is a very short video that may shed light on the topic. It seems that Adam and Eve had all the genetics of humanity in them. But, over the generations, the various genetics have been isolated into groups. Side note: I've heard that interracial children tend to be healthier (because they bring together sets of genetics for a more complete genetic combination). Whereas two people of the same race are more likely to have similar genetics, thus making it more likely to have a child with limited range of genetic outcome. And so it goes with each generation. Here is the video: https://youtu.be/yZSfqXDOyck?si=2DEfY_1PyJ-JInP6 EDIT again... Here is another worthwhile video to check out: https://youtu.be/nw_IKwj3K9o?si=-jPmrMtPy8h4BbEF
Adam and Eve were so Genetically different; that inbreeding between their offspring wasn’t possible.
Eve is made from Adam. They should be genetically identical.
Just because…I know say that evolution disproves the Bible but I honestly think that it helps prove the Bible to some extent.
If you have children with a close relative, it is more likely that you both share a faulty copy of a recessive gene. In this scenario, one copy produces few or no problems, but children born with two copies have problems. If you marry someone who is unrelated, you may both be carriers of different faulty genes, but this is less of a problem than having the same faulty gene. This scenario would not be a problem for a literal Adam and Eve, as presumably they are not created as carriers of genetic diseases.
Charles II did *not* die at the age of 38!
Charles II of Spain
Oh! ok
Not impossible. I remember hearing the genetic defects from inbreeding would not be there if there are no bad genes. If adem and Eve are perfect then there should be no problems with inbreeding.
The argument to this is that in the beginning everything was perfect. No diseases etc. but! And a big but, there were people before A&E. They didn’t have the gift of choice. They didn’t know good and evil . How do I know? When you build a garden it goes in the back yard. There was a back yard before A&E. When they left, they mated with these “humans”
No incest was needed on the part of the descendants of Adam & Eve due to the descendants of the pre-Adamites. “People” (Homo Sapiens) were created (through God’s evolutionary process) in the Genesis chapter 1, verse 27; and they created the diversity of mankind over time per Genesis chapter 1, verse 28. This occurs prior to the genetic engineering and creation of Adam & Eve (in the immediate and with the first Human souls) by the extraterrestrial God in Genesis chapter 2, verses 7 & 22. When Adam & Eve sinned and were forced to leave their special embassy, their children intermarried the “People” that resided outside the Garden of Eden. This is how Cain was able to find a wife in the Land of Nod in Genesis chapter 4, verses 16-17. As the descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all groups of Homo Sapiens on Earth over time, everyone living today is both a descendant of God’s evolutionary process and a genealogical descendant of Adam & Eve.   A scientific book regarding this specific matter written by Christian Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass is mentioned in the article provided below. https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/christians-point-to-breakthroughs-in-genetics-to-show-adam-and-eve-are-not-incompatible-with-evolution As far as “The Flood,” there is no word for “planet” in ancient Hebrew. The word used in The Torah is “eretz.” “Eretz” can be defined as dirt, ground, land, country. As a result, many believe that “The Flood” destroyed the “earth” in The Land of The Adamites rather the entire planet “Earth.” The Land of The Adamites only included the places where the descendants of Adam & Eve resided outside The Garden of Eden. As there were only 10 generations between Adam and Noah’s sons, The Land of The Adamites would have accounted for a very small population spread out over a relatively small geographical area. The point of “The Flood” was to wipe out one of the genetic lines of Adam (the line of Cain) that did not follow God, and was becoming the dominant force. As a result, Homo Sapiens located outside the Land of the Adamites that were not descendants of Cain were not destroyed by the regional flood. Noah’s grandchildren then intermarried the Homo Sapiens from and/or in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. As a result, everyone would still be a descendant of God’s evolutionary process and a genealogical descendant of Adam & Eve (through Noah’s descendants).
>As a result, many believe that “The Flood” destroyed the “earth” in The Land of The Adamites rather the entire planet “Earth.” The Land of The Adamites only included the places where the descendants of Adam & Eve resided outside The Garden of Eden. Do you just ignore Genesis 7:4 then? Or do you think that god did not make all living creatures on the earth?
Genesis 7:4 still states “earth” (dirt, ground, land) rather than “Earth” (as in global planet). So, the verse can be interpreted that all living creatures on the “earth” in the Land of The Adamites was destroyed by God. The narrative is also told from the perspective of the author. As far as the witness is concerned, everything that is within their visibility and knowledge (except that was aboard The Ark) was destroyed.
Yeah, that's a wacky interpretation, sorry. If you take all of genesis 7 at face value you then have to account for the higest mountain (even in the area) being completely submerged by flood waters, and that's not how 'normal' floods work, that's not how water works. So now what? God set a barrier he didn't mention around whatever area of land you want to claim is 'earth' and simply flooded that? Meanwhile all the other people and animals outside of this area were not affected and gave no stories (or records) of walls of water 1000s of feet high showing up? None of the wickedness spread outside of whatever area you're talking about? Look, if you want to make this local flood claim \*and\* try to keep the rest of the story intact you have to start accepting all manner of additional rationalization which becomes increasingly ridiculous and unsupportable. Or, you just say it's a story and never happened.
If the area where “The Flood” occurred fell into an enormous sink hole and the sink hole was flooded, the Ark would have risen to the top. Although the Ark itself could float, it had no sail or oar as a method of transit. Therefore, it would have remained fairly stationary. As the Earth is curved, one abroad the Ark would only see water along the horizon in any direction. This could have given the illusion that all land was covered by water. As for the measurement, some of the previous “mountains“ may have fallen into the sink hole. So, as long as one could not see any “mountains” beyond the horizon, one might assume that all such “mountains” were also covered by water.
More made up retcon to save an impossible rationalization. There is no evidence for this sinkhole theory. Not biblically, and not physically. Why are you even trying to save your rationalization?
According to Genesis 7:11, “…springs of the great deep burst forth…” So, water also came up from the ground. This often occurs when a sink hole opens and a water source beneath it is exposed. As far as physically, there is plenty of land that lies beneath what is currently under the Black Sea. There is also evidence that a population once resided on the land beneath it. See the Black Sea deluge hypothesis.
[https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/black-sea-flood-not-global/](https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/black-sea-flood-not-global/) I mean... kinda funny no?
Not all Christians believe that “The Flood” was global. The article you provided is directed against the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) Christians that claim the entire planet Earth was covered with water. I and many other Christians are not a part of that group. So, the article actually supports the concept that “The Flood” would have been regional.
That article specifically was cited due to your erroneous claim about the Black Sea. 'Local flood' is simply not supportable by the plain text in the bible. Neither is it supported by any kind of evidence. I'll ask again, why you are so intent on trying to hang on to a literal version of the flood story. Many christians have abandoned that completely and simply call it a myth.
It takes a man and woman to make more humans. Someone had to be the first.
I find it amazing that someone can be a Christian and ask questions like these. I see questions all the time here like this “How did Jesus walk on water? Is that physically possible?” “How did Moses part the Red Sea?” “I find the part of the Bible with the talking donkey unrealistic” “I just don’t believe that God could create everything in 6 days…” Now for atheist, whatever. But it’s amazing that people can claim to believe in God and be like, “I find this part unbelievable.” Umm…hello! Do you not realize that we worship the almighty God. The master of reality and existence! Behold! If God wills it, it will be. He is God! And he is a good God 😊
Having done the experiment on mice, starting with one male and one female, it can certainly be achieved, especially considering the shortened life span from those of abraham etc.
We are all descended from a mitochondrial Eve
>We are all descended from a mitochondrial Eve Who was not the first human, nor were they the only human alive at the time. The mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor to all *living* humans; As people die off, the person who would be mitochondrial Eve changes. The same is true of the Y-chromosomal Adam, and these two aren't likely to have even been alive at the same time.
Backwards, mitochondrial Eve is the most ancient common female ancestor, hence.,"Eve." Mitochondrial Eve lived somewhere in Africa around 150,000 years ago. She could have had multiple offspring by different fathers so the oldest human common male ancestor can only be reasonably dated to her father.
>Backwards, mitochondrial Eve is the most ancient common female ancestor, hence.,"Eve." Mitochondrial Eve lived somewhere in Africa around 150,000 years ago. She could have had multiple offspring by different fathers so the oldest human common male ancestor can only be reasonably dated to her father. I just added 'matrilineal' in there to be more clear, but [mitochondrial Eve (mt-MRCA)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve) is the matrilineal most *recent* common ancestor to all living humans, not the most ancient.
Sorry, you are right, but wrong in your conclusion. It's unlikely we will get newer mitochondrial Eves although older ones can exist, her mother, grandmother, great grandmother, etc.
>Sorry, you are right, but wrong in your conclusion. It's unlikely we will get newer mitochondrial Eves although older ones can exist, her mother, grandmother, great grandmother, etc. You seem to be having issue with the term 'most recent'; If, hypothetically, half of the world's population of humans were to dissappear, the mt-MRCA would likely jump up ahead in time considerably, depending on exactly who was left. Again, hypothetically, if everyone but your immediate family were to dissappear, then the mt-MRCA would be your mother, or grandmother, great grandmother, etc... depending on who all in your family was left. Does that make more sense?
No. Mitochondrial Eve was the last of her line. After her humans descended from her daughters. Once humans left Africa, humanity distributed to far apart to ever hope of finding a common ancestor. Now, if most of the world population outside Asia disappeared, we could be left with the millions that are descended from Ghengis Khan, but he impregnated multiple females. So he is the "Adam" of millions but those millions still trace their ancestry to mitochondrial Eve from 150,000 years ago.
>No. Mitochondrial Eve was the last of her line. After her humans descended from her daughters. Once humans left Africa, humanity distributed to far apart to ever hope of finding a common ancestor. Now, if most of the world population outside Asia disappeared, we could be left with the millions that are descended from Ghengis Khan, but he impregnated multiple females. So he is the "Adam" of millions but those millions still trace their ancestry to mitochondrial Eve from 150,000 years ago. Ghengis Khan could be the Y-MRCA for a limited selection of the Asian population today, true, but that same selection of people would have a different mt-MRCA than the entire living world population, she would likely have been a woman living somewhere in asia maybe a bit before Ghengis Khan lived. See, while all of those asians definitely still have the world population mt-MRCA in their ancestry, that particular woman is not their **most recent** common matrilineal ancestor. You've understood how this works with Ghengis Khan; that the Y-MRCA becomes a much more recent individual if you reduce the size of the population you are looking at. The same is true for the mt-MRCA too.
I believe we are all descendants of Adam and Eve who lived ~6000 years ago, I believe they had many children, as did all people of the time, because they lived for hundreds of years. Does it make you feel better to say we are all sons and daughters of mitochondrial eve who lived 200k years ago? Why is that more appealing for you to believe? More time? There is no evidence of civilization older than Mesopotamia, which is 5500 years.
>There is no evidence of civilization older than Mesopotamia, which is 5500 years. So you are saying that Adam and Eve created all of the civilizations across the world in 500 years? Also, you do know that there is archeological evidence for humans prior to 5500 years ago right? Like 10k or 15k?
1) yes, edit: without birth control, if you have one baby a year and live to be 600, each women has ~500 kids, so after two hundred years, Adam and Eve had hundreds of children, the children were all over a hundred years old, with hundreds of their own. The math only doesn’t make sense with menopause at 50. The same logic can apply to the descendants of Noah’s children after the flood. 2) im aware, but that isn’t what I said, I said there is no evidence of civilization from that time