I find it AMAZING that people can criticize the Bible and negatively write about all the incest that came from the first two people, Adam and Eve, and how gross or sick that is. My question is this...wasn't there the 'first two people' somewhere in the evolutionary tree? How is that any different?
2007-06-19 03:32:15 · 12 answers · asked by cbmultiplechoice 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Also, KNOWING through genetic studies that when a mutation occurs, information is LOST, NEVER GAINED, where do we go from here?
2007-06-19 03:50:07 · update #1
Simon: You are correct in stating that I don't 'understand evolution', if by 'understanding' I must believe what goes directly against what my science background has taught me. What I do understand is the Scientific Law of Biogenesis and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...and on and on. I am the first to say that MICRO-evolution does happen (change within a species-which is observable) but MACRO-evolution? Well enough said.
2007-06-19 12:21:30 · update #2
I agree with you,cb. As Nikki said,bestiality had to have also been a factor in the evolutionary process for humans to come into existence. Yet,those same people you speak of think bestiality is sick.At least most of them do according to a question asked a few weeks ago. Then of course I'm sure there are a few people who feel bestiality is well within a person's rights and all that. But,since incest had to be a factor in the Bible between Adam and Eve's children in order to start a population,in their eyes it is a total abomination. I'm sorry to say it,but I have to. These people live by a constant double standard,and they don't even realize it,or at the very least,they won't recognize it. Any argument on their part to try and disprove or discredit God is always justified in their eyes whether it makes sense or not.
2007-06-19 03:55:39 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
You seem to not understand evolution.
Man was not suddenly born one day from a primate parent. one species of primate blends smoothly with the ancestor species and the offspring species. Because fossils are so rare we only see snapshots every few hundreds to thousands of years. And then because we like classifying things we put them into separate boxes.
New species occur when the environment changes and the entire population slowly becomes something different that is better adapted to the new environment. Or when part of the population gets isolated from the rest and then adapts to a new environment while the old population evolves in a different direction.
If you go back far enough to the first "life" then yes, but all life for the first billion years or so all life reproduced asexually, like bacteria and viruses do today. I was not aware that we frowned on incet in the single celled life forms!
2007-06-19 10:45:04 · answer #2 · answered by Simon T 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Evolutionary change does not happen within single individuals, it happens within populations. A mutation happens in a single individual, but it survives only if it is carried over to offspring, therefore the individual will necessarily mate with a "non-mutated" partner. And mutations do not mean that an individual suddenly becomes a new species. This is a subtle process that takes many, many generations.
Therefore, there never were "first two people".
2007-06-19 10:37:48 · answer #3 · answered by NaturalBornKieler 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There were no 'first two people' in the human race. There was a population of ape-like proto-hominids that gradually (VERY gradually) evolved into homo sapiens. If you take a snapshot of the population at any given time, all the individuals were of the same species. If you compare two individuals that lived 1,000 years apart, they too would probably be able to breed. But if you take them far enough apart - say, a few million years - they would have drifted far enough apart to be of different species.
No Adam and Eve required.
2007-06-19 10:42:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
well technically I think it would have been bestiality if we were derived as theorized from evolutionary process i.e primates because evolution works one adaptation at a time. So at some point there is a primate with a mutation that makes him just a little bit more human than primate. Well all there is to mate with is his tribemates all of which lack that specific mutation, but he survives well enough to mate with one of the primates, and this gene becomes dominant in all their children. and so on...
2007-06-19 10:37:56 · answer #5 · answered by Goddess Nikki 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Before speciation the intermediate apes/humans were still breeding with any number of the species from which they evolved over the next several thousand years. Evolution is SLOW! - none of this six-days-of-magic nonsense.
The nature of this kind of speciation is exemplified by the phenomonon of ring species:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
2007-06-19 10:39:18 · answer #6 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, the gradual changes happen to groups of individuals, not just one family.
2007-06-19 10:39:04 · answer #7 · answered by atheist 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not people, no... animals.
By the time modern man came around, I'm sure there were plenty of genes to go around.
2007-06-19 10:38:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Here's the difference.....your religion preaches about the right way to live, what to do, and to live by a set of rules. The problem is that it's hypocritical!! Evolution makes no such moral claims, it simply IS, and you're just guessing about how man evolved. Do you think ti happened in just one generation?? Think about it for a moment and you'll get it.
2007-06-19 10:35:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
It sure doesn't bother me. Yes you are correct. They are judging from a culturally biased viewpoint.
2007-06-19 10:36:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋