Adam and Eve

[rossum]

1. Whats imperfect about a perfectly necessary blindspot.

Ask a squid. Squid eyes are very similar to ours, but do not require a blindspot because they do not have our back-to-front retina. A piece of inefficient design - a better designed eye would not need a blindspot.

1. Find me a fossil homosapien who was not designed to walk upright.

All of them. They evolved to walk upright from quadruped ancestors, which is why we are still in the process of adapting and are prone to back pain.

1. Find me a homosapien, or any human fossil, whose knees do not fully support them.

Our knees are weak for the amount of weight they carry. They have not yet evolved enough to accounts for our elbows not carrying half of our weight. We are prone to knee problems due to this relative weakness.

Evidence against?

You made the claim that Adam and Eve had unusual DNA, it is up to you to support it. Without evidence you have no scientific basis for your statement.

What prohibition against incest?

What part of Leviticus 18:9 do you have a problem with?

rossum

 

[Thing]

Ask a squid. Squid eyes are very similar to ours, but do not require a blindspot because they do not have our back-to-front retina. A piece of inefficient design - a better designed eye would not need a blindspot.

Would you like to have squid eyes?

All of them. They evolved to walk upright from quadruped ancestors, which is why we are still in the process of adapting and are prone to back pain.

Speculation. Back pain is mostly due to bad posture, eating too much and being overweight, trying to lift heavy stuff etc.

Our knees are weak for the amount of weight they carry. They have not yet evolved enough to accounts for our elbows not carrying half of our weight. We are prone to knee problems due to this relative weakness.

People need to eat less and excercise their joints and muscles more, to stay in weight and fit. Besides, I said Adam and Eve and their offspring would have been perfect and free from disorders, this obviously changes in time as your beloved mutations start to kick in.

You made the claim that Adam and Eve had unusual DNA, it is up to you to support it. Without evidence you have no scientific basis for your statement.

I did not say they had unusual DNA, if anything they had the only normal DNA that people could have. It is much simpler to see something perfect degrading in time due to the accumulation of a preponderence of detrimental mutations, than to see something approaching perfection as arising out of mutations the bulk of which are not good or beneficial.

What part of Leviticus 18:9 do you have a problem with?

None at all.
We are all related to some degree, rossum. In the Book Of Leviticus
marriage is prohibited in certain degrees of kindred. Why is marriage ok to some degree of kindred but not ok to other degrees of kindred. The only difference is the danger to the children of marriages in close degrees of kindred. Egyptian Pharoahs used to marry their sisters to keep the royal line pure, but it would be well known then and now that the the offspring of such close marriages were weaker and more suseptible to diseases and genetic type problems.

 

[Fox]

I don’t believe the ages of the OT people’s death for the most part. I think the writers didn’t know the deaths for sure and just picked numbers.

 

[Lisa44]

Would you like to have squid eyes?

**That was funny. **

I did not say they had unusual DNA, if anything they had the only normal DNA that people could have. It is much simpler to see something perfect degrading in time due to the accumulation of a preponderence of detrimental mutations, than to see something approaching perfection as arising out of mutations the bulk of which are not good or beneficial.

Interesting.

 

[rossum]

Would you like to have squid eyes?

Would you like to have blindspots or not? I note that you have failed to refute my point that, and that the blind spot is not “perfectly necessary” and that hence human eyes are imperfectly designed.

Speculation. Back pain is mostly due to bad posture, eating too much and being overweight, trying to lift heavy stuff etc.

Back pain is usually due to compression of the spine due to it being vertical rather than horizontal. That puts a lot more weight on the lower part of the spine than on the upper part - in contrast to a quadruped where the load is distributed much more evenly. Our spines have not yet fully adapted to the differing loading they now have.

I did not say they had unusual DNA, if anything they had the only normal DNA that people could have. It is much simpler to see something perfect degrading in time due to the accumulation of a preponderence of detrimental mutations, than to see something approaching perfection as arising out of mutations the bulk of which are not good or beneficial.

You said that they had “perfect” DNA and you also said that modern humans have imperfect DNA because incest nowadays can cause genetic problems. That means you are claiming that there are significant differences between Adam and Eve’s DNA and modern human DNA. I am asking for the scientific evidence you have for your assertion of significant differences. If you have no evidence then you do not have a scientific argument.

We are all related to some degree, rossum.

Correct. All life on earth is related to some degree.

In the Book Of Leviticus marriage is prohibited in certain degrees of kindred. Why is marriage ok to some degree of kindred but not ok to other degrees of kindred. The only difference is the danger to the children of marriages in close degrees of kindred. Egyptian Pharoahs used to marry their sisters to keep the royal line pure, but it would be well known then and now that the the offspring of such close marriages were weaker and more suseptible to diseases and genetic type problems.

So you are agreeing that the moral law on incest is not an absolute moral law, but relative, depending on the degree of relatedness and of “perfection” in the genetic makeup of the individuals involved.

rossum

 

[Thing]

Would you like to have blindspots or not? I note that you have failed to refute my point that, and that the blind spot is not “perfectly necessary” and that hence human eyes are imperfectly designed.

I am growing to love blindspots. Did you know that humans are binocular, so that what one eye may not see in its blindspot the other eye will see.
But better still and more interesting is that the brain, or mind, processes images that fall on the retina in such a strange and perfect way that it fills in the missing part of the image by guessing the colour and shapes of the scene that should be in the blind spots. This it does so perfectly that we cannot tell the difference between what part of an image has been invented and what parts are real, amazing, amazingly perfect solution, no imperfection there.

Back pain is usually due to compression of the spine due to it being vertical rather than horizontal. That puts a lot more weight on the lower part of the spine than on the upper part - in contrast to a quadruped where the load is distributed much more evenly. Our spines have not yet fully adapted to the differing loading they now have.

The fatter you are and the less fit the more you suffer back problems, there is a straight line graph there for someone to draw.

You said that they had “perfect” DNA and you also said that modern humans have imperfect DNA because incest nowadays can cause genetic problems. That means you are claiming that there are significant differences between Adam and Eve’s DNA and modern human DNA. I am asking for the scientific evidence you have for your assertion of significant differences. If you have no evidence then you do not have a scientific argument.

I could say that your usual argument that natural mutations accumulate over time points to earlier and earlier members of a new species having fewer genetic flaws or quantities of flaws than later members of a species. So science in a general sort of way points in the direction I am pointing moreso than in the direction you may point.
*And not having scientific evidence for an argument never shut science up.
You may if you wish provide scientific evidence to prove me wrong.

Correct. All life on earth is related to some degree.

Yup.

So you are agreeing that the moral law on incest is not an absolute moral law, but relative, depending on the degree of relatedness and of “perfection” in the genetic makeup of the individuals involved.

For Adam and Eves extended family it was not an issue. For the guys and gals in Leviticus it was the Law from then at least onwards. You want to say the moral Law on incest is relative, but you don’t want to know why it may be a Law and why it may change to become permanently absolute fairly quickly in time after Adam and Eve.

 

[rossum]

I am growing to love blindspots. Did you know that humans are binocular, so that what one eye may not see in its blindspot the other eye will see.

Humans are binocular because our ancestors, and ourselves, find depth perception useful. A nice side-effect of having two eyes is that we can usually use one eye to cover the blind spot in the other eye.

But better still and more interesting is that the brain, or mind, processes images that fall on the retina in such a strange and perfect way that it fills in the missing part of the image by guessing the colour and shapes of the scene that should be in the blind spots.

You have a strange definition of “perfect”. The brain does indeed guess and fill in the gap, but it does not always guess right. See Finding Your Blindspot.

This it does so perfectly that we cannot tell the difference between what part of an image has been invented and what parts are real, amazing, amazingly perfect solution, no imperfection there.

The brain is not perfect, basically it just copies in some of the surrounding background. That is usually a pretty good approximation but it is not perfect. A squid has no need of such a cludge because it has no blindspots.

As I said from the start, the ‘design’ of humans is not perfect, so if Adam and Eve were human then they were not perfect.

I could say that your usual argument that natural mutations accumulate over time points to earlier and earlier members of a new species having fewer genetic flaws or quantities of flaws than later members of a species.

You seem to be making an incorrect assumption here - that all mutations are bad: “genetic flaws”. This is a common, but mistaken, assumption. The great majority of mutations are neutral having no effect. The majority of the remainder are indeed mostly deleterious but a few are beneficial and will spread through the population. In all cases “deleterious” and “beneficial” are with respect to a particular environment. White fur is an advantage in some environments but not in others.

You still have not provided evidence as to the Adam and Eve’s DNA to back up your assertion.

You want to say the moral Law on incest is relative, but you don’t want to know why it may be a Law and why it may change to become permanently absolute fairly quickly in time after Adam and Eve.

How can something “change to become permanently absolute”? If it changes then it cannot be absolute, but is relative to the time at which you find it. As to my source of morality I get it from Buddhist scriptures. I do not particularly care if that morality is absolute or not. I need a morality that works here and now. If it ceases to work 10,000 years from now then I do not need to worry about that here and now.

rossum

 

[anamchara]

MrIsla, I see that you are a Catholic so I’m assuming here that you are trying to learn the Catholic teaching on the matter of Adam and Eve. I would highly recommend you read through the catechism on the topic of Creation and Mankind. It’s important to understand what the Church teaches and not take things out of context from the bible. Genesis is not a Scientific account of facts. The Church recognizes this.

We don’t rule out the concept of Evolution completely. The big difference is that we believe fully that everything was created by God and the universe is not self-sufficient. God’s presence is constant in the creation of man regardless how it all came about. Faith and human Evolution are not in conflict.

The Church tries to leave Science to Scientists.
Science attempts to answer the questions concerning when, and the how of the making of the universe. But Religion asks the questions of who created everything, why, what for and how?

The message that is important to our faith is that the person was created in friendship with God, meaning in a state of grace, with a perfect interior, harmony and exempt from death.

You might want to read what you can in the area of “The creation of Man and the fall”

You should really get your answers from the catechism

 

[clmowry]

No. That is an empty statement. You need to PROVE it before it becomes fact.

If you are getting at whether they & their later children had incest, then according to this story apparently Yes otherwise I do not see how thy could logically populate the entire Earth. Furthermore I find it interesting how they descendants got on other continents when no such advances water travel was invented yet.

So your conclusion is that man evolved independently on all the current continents.

Do you have any science to back that up?

Chuck

 

[redhen]

The fatter you are and the less fit the more you suffer back problems, there is a straight line graph there for someone to draw.

Sorry, there are several spinal ailments that can be traced back to the evolution of human bipedalism, i.e. scoliosis, extreme lordosis, and spondylolysis.

Lordosis is the S curve in the human spine which gives balance, flexibility and stability to bipeds

At a minimum lumbar scoliosis is seriously debilitating and should have long been a target of strong selection. Why is it still prevalent in humans? The logical response is that selection for effective bipedality must have been so vigorous in the ancestors of A. afarensis that functional lordosis was facilitated despite the increased risk of scoliotic deviations and flexion-induced injury permitted by a semi-competent erector spinae

Lovejoy, C (2003) The natural history of human gait and posture: Part 1. Spine and pelvis (Review)
Matthew Ferrini Institute of Human Evolutionary Research,
Kent State University, Kent, OH

I can show evidence for other evolutionary traits where the benefits outweighed the drawbacks, .i.e. the supralaryngeal vocal tract that allows for the full range of modern human vocalizations. The drawback is the chance of death from a blocked larynx.

The enlarged human cranium which evolved faster than the cervix, because it was more beneficial, resulting in a tight squeeze during child birth.

Homo sapiens if designed, could have been built to better specifications I think.

 

[rossum]

The enlarged human cranium which evolved faster than the cervix, because it was more beneficial, resulting in a tight squeeze during child birth.

It is not as there isn’t a better solution to the problem of a narrow pelvis. If we had been marsupials rather than placentals then there would be no problem. Another example of imperfect design.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Human beings were indeed designed. God knew beforehand what He wanted. The first man and first woman were long-lived but the result of their sin affected future generations and the world itself.

Science is not able, as currently practiced, to see beyond a rather narrow portion of reality. For Catholics, other information that confirms our identity is given by divine revelation.

Catholics should know that Evolutionary Psychology is attempting to take incomplete information and tell who we are and why we are. It is summed up in this statement: “You are the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have human beings in mind.” This is the opposite of Church teaching.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Robertsxxx]

attempting to take incomplete information and tell who we are and why we are

Aren’t various religions including Catholic Christianity doing the same thing, except that science relies on objective evidence, while the previous relies more on “supernatural” support & “divine” revelations?
Anyone who claism to have complete information is lying.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I don’t believe the ages of the OT people’s death for the most part. I think the writers didn’t know the deaths for sure and just picked numbers.

And why would they select ages hard to believe? I think the ages are accurate. The bible says later the age was limited ( I think to 120 years)

 

[edwest2]

What we take in with our senses and advanced devices is one thing. Catholics do not just believe divine revelation. It is based on a linear tradition. Over the years, many questions have been put to the Church and the Church has replied to them. The Church recognizes the world’s other religions and, for many, she recognizes some element of truth in them. However, the Catholic, or Universal, Church is the one true and Christ founded Church.

The Church interacts with the world and evaluates various claims made by science. The Church also canonizes saints which requires two thoroughly investigated supernatural events or miracles.

For Catholics, there is truth. Opinions are changeable and not applicable. As Jesus Christ said, “I am the way, the truth and the life.”

Adam and Eve are identified as our first parents. (See Humani Generis, 1950, available online.)

Peace,
Ed

 

[Thing]

Sorry, there are several spinal ailments that can be traced back to the evolution of human bipedalism, i.e. scoliosis, extreme lordosis, and spondylolysis.

Lordosis is the S curve in the human spine which gives balance, flexibility and stability to bipeds

Lovejoy, C (2003) The natural history of human gait and posture: Part 1. Spine and pelvis (Review)
Matthew Ferrini Institute of Human Evolutionary Research,
Kent State University, Kent, OH

I can show evidence for other evolutionary traits where the benefits outweighed the drawbacks, .i.e. the supralaryngeal vocal tract that allows for the full range of modern human vocalizations. The drawback is the chance of death from a blocked larynx.

The enlarged human cranium which evolved faster than the cervix, because it was more beneficial, resulting in a tight squeeze during child birth.

Homo sapiens if designed, could have been built to better specifications I think.

What ailments did Adam and Eve suffer whilst in the paradise Garden of Eden?

 

[Thing]

Humans are binocular because our ancestors, and ourselves, find depth perception useful. A nice side-effect of having two eyes is that we can usually use one eye to cover the blind spot in the other eye.

But you would not tell our readers, if I had not already pointed out that fact for you in my last post, that for binocular creatures there is no blind spot problem.

You have a strange definition of “perfect”. The brain does indeed guess and fill in the gap, but it does not always guess right. See Finding Your Blindspot.

Who said it always guesses correctly. Shut one eye, look out the window, and describe your blind spot to me.

The brain is not perfect, basically it just copies in some of the surrounding background. That is usually a pretty good approximation but it is not perfect. A squid has no need of such a cludge because it has no blindspots.

Your squid is not binocular, it has no alternative way to collect missing information as we do, so a blind spot would be a positive imperfection if there were a better choice of design.

As I said from the start, the ‘design’ of humans is not perfect, so if Adam and Eve were human then they were not perfect.

Adam and Eve were perfect because a properly functioning human who does not get ill, or suffer, or die, and who is given supernatural gifts and who lives in its perfect Creator God and talks with Him and walks with Him, is, by definition, a perfectly designed creature.

You seem to be making an incorrect assumption here - that all mutations are bad: “genetic flaws”. …

Au contraire… you have made that assumption not me. I said fewer genetic flaws or quantities of flaws, I did not say all mutations are flaws, as you say I said. Beneficial mutations are not part of the question, the quantity of non-beneficial mutations accumulating over time was the thing in question.

You still have not provided evidence as to the Adam and Eve’s DNA to back up your assertion.

Fie, fie, on you I say! If you think I am wrong you always have the option of proving me wrong.

How can something “change to become permanently absolute”? If it changes then it cannot be absolute, but is relative to the time at which you find it. As to my source of morality I get it from Buddhist scriptures. I do not particularly care if that morality is absolute or not. I need a morality that works here and now. If it ceases to work 10,000 years from now then I do not need to worry about that here and now.

rossum

It is not morality that changes but the subject, in this case irreversibly.

e.g. It is immoral to claim disability benefits if you are perfectly healthy. If you, the subject, change and lose a leg, then it is no longer immoral for you to claim disability benefits, the moral laws have not changed a bit.

 

[rossum]

Adam and Eve were perfect because a properly functioning human who does not get ill, or suffer, or die, and who is given supernatural gifts and who lives in its perfect Creator God and talks with Him and walks with Him, is, by definition, a perfectly designed creature.

And round and round in a circle we go. Where is your evidence for your assertion of perfection. We know that humans are imperfectly ‘designed’ and you say that Adam and Eve were both perfect and human. You provide no evidence for your, on the face of it absurd, assertion. Science does not work on assertions, it works on evidence. I have provided evidence while you have provided nothing but asseertions.

In a scientific argument if you have no evidence you lose.

Au contraire… you have made that assumption not me. I said fewer genetic flaws or quantities of flaws, I did not say all mutations are flaws, as you say I said. Beneficial mutations are not part of the question, the quantity of non-beneficial mutations accumulating over time was the thing in question.

Both (mildly) deleterious and beneficial mutations will accumulate over time. You need to provide evidence to support your assertion that deleterious mutations have accumulated faster than beneficial mutations. Natural selection increases the presence of beneficial mutations while decreasing the frequency of deleterious mutations. What evidence do you have of any mechanism that works to drive things in the opposite direction?

Fie, fie, on you I say! If you think I am wrong you always have the option of proving me wrong.

I have evidence of human DNA - none of which is “perfect”. If Adam and Eve were human then all the available evidence indicates that their DNA was also imperfect. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

It is not morality that changes but the subject, in this case irreversibly.

The morality is still relative then, relative to the subject. Incest between siblings with perfect DNA is not immoral while incest between siblings with imperfect DNA is moral. Hence the moral law on incest is a relative not an absolute moral law.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

The fatter you are and the less fit the more you suffer back problems, there is a straight line graph there for someone to draw.

Not quite right. You are very likely to experience back problems if you regularly put more than 740 lbs of force on your L5/S1 vertebral disk. Doesn’t matter how that happens, from over exertion at work, or from carrying around extra poundage.

BTW, the “keep your back straight, lift with legs” advice is very likely to increase the compression force on the disk, if the load is too big to fit comfortably between your legs when you lift. The trick is to keep the load as close to your back as possible, to reduce the amount of force.

The reason it’s a problem is that the vertebrate spine evolved to be mostly horizontal, a framework for quadrupeds. But even a blown disk would be no great problem, if it wasn’t for the fact that the spinal nerve roots were in a position where a prolapsed disk is almost certain to press on a nerve root, causing pain, weakness and disability.

 

[JPUSC]

Mrl,
First come to grips with genesis of being a symbolic story on creation and how the Earth was populated and you’ll be fine.

Adam and Eve (homo sapiens) were the first humans with souls correct, but there were other homo species whom their children mated with thus propagating homo sapien while the other species of homo died out or became assimilated. Simple answer.

Um…I’ve never heard of that one before. I don’t think that is an official teaching of the Church.

I don’t think God would create “almost humans” with no souls. I don’t know where you got that from. If you are talking about evolution, the Church is neutral on that theory.