Adam, Eve and Evolution

[buffalo]

Preadamites
(1) Scripture itself points out that the creation of man in Gen., i, 26 sqq., is identical with that mentioned in Gen., ii, 7, for according to Gen., ii, 5, “there was not a man to till the earth”; according to Gen., ii, 20, “for Adam there was not found a helper like himself”; according to iii, 20, “Adam called the name of his wife Eve: because she was the mother of all the living”. Scripture, therefore, knows of no men created before Adam.

 

[SMHW]

buffalo:

Scriptures only mention Eve as the only sexual partner and mother of any descendants for Adam. It follows that the second generation of humans must have been the offspring from sexual unions between sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. In and of itself this was not intrinsically evil, but of necessity.

Scripture may state that all of Adam’s offspring were mothered by Eve but it doesn’t say anything about the spouses of their children. All “true men”, in other words all decendants of Adam and Eve, would have have Adam and Eve as the earliest true human ancestors . But they could also have ancestors who were not truly human.

 

[buffalo]

Read the Preadamite link

 

[steve_b]

Ghosty:

That’s just it. God could easily have inserted Adam and Eve into the general pool, or inserted their Souls. In fact, this is *exactly *what Genesis implies happened.

There are two seperate accounts of the creation of humanity, the first is of the race itself in Chapter 1,

“Man” can certainly be taken in a macro sense as in all humanity comes from God. But here’s one problem. Gen 1:26 says “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.” What’s that make God then, when evolutionists classify mankind as apes? They’re really calling God an ape.

Ghosty:

and the second is specifically of Adam and Eve in Chapter 2. If these are taken as chronological rather than seperate accounts of the same event, then Adam and Eve were indeed created from within the mass of “humanity” and settled in a certain region.

I think Gen 2:5 answers the question. Before
Adam was created, there was no “man” on the earth. THEN Adam was created Gen 2:7

Ghosty:

Another example of this is that Cain is said to have had relations with his wife, but no other children of Adam and Eve are listed besides him and his fallen brother at that time. Where did his wife come from? Was she his unknown sister? More likely, based on the story progression and genetic evidence is that she was from the mass of humanity that had not yet been set apart from the animals with a Soul.

If there was no soul, they wouldn’t be human, but animals, correct?.

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

steve b:

Thanks for asking. The premise is, ape becomming man using fossil fragments to support the premise. As you point out fossils have no genetic material by definition. Therefore, the premise, using fossil fragments sans genetic material, is odd. And that’s the point.

The conclusion is that Hominidae is monophyletic, while the premise is that the fossil evidence sheds light on hominid monophyly or polyphyly (the latter being your opinion in a very, very, loose sense of the term). You seem to think that only genetic data can elucidate patterns of phylogenesis, thus apparently disregarding morphology entirely. If anything that is the odd standpoint. Might you demonstrate why morphological evidence is not to be trusted, or if you haven’t argued that, what you are arguing about morphological evidence?

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Ghosty]

“Man” can certainly be taken in a macro sense as in all humanity comes from God. But here’s one problem. Gen 1:26 says “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.” What’s that make God then, when evolutionists classify mankind as apes? They’re really calling God an ape.

I can’t make any sense of this, I’m afraid. Why would someone like myself who supports evolutionary theory consider God an ape? “God’s image” has long been taken to mean the will and soul, not any physical attributes. God, outside of the Incarnation in which God became a Man, would not logically have any physical attributes, and why would God need or want any? When God made humans into God’s image, It granted us will and a soul, seperating us from the animals who shared our physical form. Fossil evidence provides ample evidence of very human-like creatures that are quite ancient. Humans, as we understand the term in a spiritual sense, could have been shaped in the form of, or brought out of, the population of humanoid animals. These animals could have been very human-like, possessed of a certain intelligence and personality, not unlike dogs or apes, but would have lacked those intangible characteristics that set humanity in the image of God.

I think Gen 2:5 answers the question. Before
Adam was created, there was no “man” on the earth. THEN Adam was created Gen 2:7

But there WAS man on the earth, at least according to the preceeding Chapter of Genesis. One can either take these accounts as telling the same story, or as telling a story of different portions of the process, one of creating the human form in animals, and the second of the full creation of humanity in Adam and Eve, and settling them in a special region to be favored by God.

If there was no soul, they wouldn’t be human, but animals, correct?.

Exactly, they weren’t human in any spiritual sense, but highly intelligent animals. They could have been remarkably intelligent, in fact, much like dolphins, capable of holding special relationships and communities, but ultimately lacking true will and the Divine Spark. On a physical level, however, they could have shared the necessary genetic make up to breed with “true humanity”.

 

[Ghosty]

I’d like to point out that the Preadamite article is about 100 years old, and painfully outdated. It plainly states that there is a lack of scientific evidence, which was true 100 years ago, but simply can’t stand up to modern reading. The article was a good refutation a century ago, but it’s irrelevant due to deeper theology and science in modern times.

 

[steve_b]

Vindex Urvogel:

The conclusion is that Hominidae is monophyletic, while the premise is that the fossil evidence sheds light on hominid monophyly or polyphyly (the latter being your opinion in a very, very, loose sense of the term). You seem to think that only genetic data can elucidate patterns of phylogenesis, thus apparently disregarding morphology entirely. If anything that is the odd standpoint. Might you demonstrate why morphological evidence is not to be trusted, or if you haven’t argued that, what you are arguing about morphological evidence?

Vindex Urvogel

Please don’t take offense, but the real job here is to constantly redirect this conversation back to the original premise. Proving apes become human. .

Rather than argue over schools of taxonomy theory, just show direct proof that an ape became human and started a whole new species, Okay? Break it down in laymans terms that a layman can follow easily… Even better, put it in bullet points. Oh, and there can’t be any gaps and swerves in the record. No hypothesis, just proof…

 

[steve_b]

Ghosty:

I can’t make any sense of this, I’m afraid. Why would someone like myself who supports evolutionary theory consider God an ape? “God’s image” has long been taken to mean the will and soul, not any physical attributes. ***God, outside of the Incarnation in which God became a Man, would not logically have any physical attributes, and why would God need or want any? ***

But since God did become man, divine and himan, hypostatically united, it adds another dimension to image and likeness, correct?

Ghosty:

When God made humans into God’s image, It granted us will and a soul, seperating us from the animals who shared our physical form.

True

Ghosty:

Fossil evidence provides ample evidence of very human-like creatures that are quite ancient. Humans, as we understand the term in a spiritual sense,

Are you referring to the soul?

Ghosty:

could have been shaped in the form of, or brought out of, the population of humanoid animals. These animals could have been very human-like, possessed of a certain intelligence and personality, not unlike dogs or apes, but would have lacked those intangible characteristics that set humanity in the image of God.

The question then becomes, how does an animal, that lacks human dignity and all the intangables, evolve into a human with all the intangibles? Personally, I’m not willing to jump over the gaps in the record as if those gaps weren’t there.I’m willing to wait for the gaps to be filled in however.

Ghosty:

Exactly, they weren’t human in any spiritual sense, but highly intelligent animals.

To be fair, the text is silent on that point.

Ghosty:

They could have been remarkably intelligent, in fact, much like dolphins, capable of holding special relationships and communities, but ultimately lacking true will and the Divine Spark. On a physical level, however, they could have shared the necessary genetic make up to breed with “true humanity”.

Biologically and genetically speaking, scientific records show no recorded offspring between ape (24 pairs of chromosomes) and man (23 pairs of chromosomes) breeding together, or that it’s possible for such a union to produce offspring…

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

steve b:

Please don’t take offense, but the real job here is to constantly redirect this conversation back to the original premise. Proving apes become human.

You mean, apart from the fact that humans are apes? If you think otherwise, please tell me what bone, tissue, protein or biochemical process we have that apes – meaning the African great apes – do not. I’m not talking theology here: whether we have souls, or in whose image we were or were not made. I’m just talking straightforward biology. If Equus callabus and E burchelli, say, or Pipistrellus bats, or Geospiza finches, or whatever, are grouped together, on what biological grounds should humans not be grouped with the great apes?

This in itself is not to argue that we share a common ancestor with Pan and Gorilla; merely that we are apes by any reasonable biological definition of ‘ape’. Linnaeus certainly thought so when he put chimpanzees in our genus (as Homo troglodytes)… and he was a creationist.

Rather than argue over schools of taxonomy theory, just show direct ***proof ***
Maybe you’ve missed my previous posts on this, maybe it’s just lax terminology, or maybe it’s a slip of the typing finger. But just so you know, there is no such thing as proof in science. What we have is evidence. So provided you are happy to accept mere evidence…?

that an ape became human

Leaving aside the aforementioned fact that humans are apes (whether created similar or evolved from common ancestor)… I’ll rephrase your question so as to make it something science can answer: show direct evidence that an ape became human.

To be clear: what you are after, then, is direct evidence that humans are derived by descent with modification from a more ape-like ancestor. Yes?

Rather than wade in with lots of bullets, any of which you might discount as not being what you’re looking for, perhaps I could first ask you: what sorts of things do you think we *should * find, if the claim of shared ancestry were correct? If it’s right:

1. What should chimp and human anatomy be like?
2. What should chimp and human biochemistry be like?
3. What should chimp and human genetics be like? (This one is crucial, since patterns in DNA are copied down lineages, even if the lineages diverge.)
4. What sorts of fossils should we find – what features should the fossils have?
5. What sorts of things should we *not * find?

In other words, what is it you think science is not providing when it claims humans and apes are related? I’d like you – or any creationist who’d like to – to answer these, so we can see if the question can actually be answered by science.

and started a whole new species, Okay?

Speciation has been observed, and is accepted by most creationists. They will say that it is still a fruitfly, still a finch, or whatever. But the apes in question would still be apes too, since we are (whether created or evolved, yeah?), so that objection does not hold.

What you mean, I suppose, is that a whole new ‘kind’ was started. Therefore, please could you tell me what constitutes a ‘kind’? How can we tell them apart? If we ‘evolutionists’ are to show that kinds are not immutable (in order to show that ‘human kind’ has derived from an ‘ape kind’), we obviously need to know what distinguishes ‘kinds’. They aren’t mere species, so simple reproductive isolation is insufficient. What’s a kind?

Sorry for so many questions, but experience tells me that it’s pointless throwing evidence at creationists till we’ve found out what evidence they expect and would accept.

Cheers, Oolon

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

steve b:

Biologically and genetically speaking, scientific records show no recorded offspring between ape (24 pairs of chromosomes) and man (23 pairs of chromosomes) breeding together, or that it’s possible for such a union to produce offspring…

I suspect that nobody has done the experiment (yet ). But since we are not the same species – by at least one definition, meaning that we can’t be interfertile – it wouldn’t exactly be a surprise if we did not get any offspring.

However, you are mistaken if you think that chromosome number is a barrier to reproduction. Many species have variable chromosome numbers, yet they are perfectly fertile (by definition of being the same species!) All chromosomes are is long strings of DNA. And that means that the strands can still line up if one parent has a long piece and the other has two shorter pieces. Furthermore, chromosome fusions and fissions are well-documented facts, and they do not necessarily produce infertility.

I’ll check my books for more specifics; the best I’ve found from a very brief Google is this, which should keep you going for now:

madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/may2001/989331026.Ev.r.html

From which:

…] hybrids of the wild (33 pairs) and domesticated horse (32 pairs) are fertile, and have 32.5 pairs of chromosomes. So clearly, something more than just differences in chromosome number is contributing to the species interbreeding barrier.

 

[steve_b]

Oolon Colluphid:

I suspect that nobody has done the experiment (yet ). But since we are not the same species – by at least one definition, meaning that we can’t be interfertile – it wouldn’t exactly be a surprise if we did not get any offspring.

However, you are mistaken if you think that chromosome number is a barrier to reproduction. Many species have variable chromosome numbers, yet they are perfectly fertile (by definition of being the same species!) All chromosomes are is long strings of DNA. And that means that the strands can still line up if one parent has a long piece and the other has two shorter pieces. Furthermore, chromosome fusions and fissions are well-documented facts, and they do not necessarily produce infertility.

I made the comments earlier up this string of posts, that humans didn’t evolve through interbreeding of unlike species. And that even though a fertile horse and a fertile donkey, different species, can produce a mule together, albeit the mule will be sterile, an ape and a human together, can’t … uh…er…produce Tarzan! or any offspring. Sometimes it’s good to eliminate certain speculations up front, from the conversation, agreed?.

 

[buffalo]

Ghosty:

I’d like to point out that the Preadamite article is about 100 years old, and painfully outdated. It plainly states that there is a lack of scientific evidence, which was true 100 years ago, but simply can’t stand up to modern reading. The article was a good refutation a century ago, but it’s irrelevant due to deeper theology and science in modern times.

There is still a lack of scientific evidence. The issue is that theologically it cannot stand.

 

[buffalo]

Oolon Colluphid:

You mean, apart from the fact that humans are apes? If you think otherwise, please tell me what bone, tissue, protein or biochemical process we have that apes – meaning the African great apes – do not. I’m not talking theology here: whether we have souls, or in whose image we were or were not made. I’m just talking straightforward biology. If Equus callabus and E burchelli, say, or Pipistrellus bats, or Geospiza finches, or whatever, are grouped together, on what biological grounds should humans not be grouped with the great apes?

This in itself is not to argue that we share a common ancestor with Pan and Gorilla; merely that we are apes by any reasonable biological definition of ‘ape’. Linnaeus certainly thought so when he put chimpanzees in our genus (as Homo troglodytes)… and he was a creationist.

If man is a higher order of animal uniquely created (inserted) by God it is reasonable we should share some or even many attributes. It does not prove that we are descended from animals.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

steve b:

I made the comments earlier up this string of posts, that humans didn’t evolve through interbreeding of unlike species. And that even though a fertile horse and a fertile donkey, different species, can produce a mule together, albeit the mule will be sterile, an ape and a human together, can’t … uh…er…produce Tarzan! or any offspring. Sometimes it’s good to eliminate certain speculations up front, from the conversation, agreed?.

Agreed. My point was simply that a chromosome fusion took place at some point after our lineage split from the chimpanzee line, as evinced by the telomeres in the middle of chromosome 2, and thus explaining the different chromosome numbers. And having different chromosome numbers, as, to start with, the fused-chromosome mutants would have had compared to the rest of the population, is not a barrier to fertility – which I assumed you were implying by referring to it. The different numbers are no big deal.

As to eliminating speculations… how about answering my questions, so that I can more accurately respond to yours?

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

steve b:

Please don’t take offense, but the real job here is to constantly redirect this conversation back to the original premise. Proving apes become human. .

Rather than argue over schools of taxonomy theory, just show direct proof that an ape became human and started a whole new species, Okay? Break it down in laymans terms that a layman can follow easily… Even better, put it in bullet points. Oh, and there can’t be any gaps and swerves in the record. No hypothesis, just proof…

This is your strangest post yet. First and foremost you insist that I am arguing over schools of taxonomy, and yet this is an odd thing to insist upon. Since you do not seem to be familiar with what taxonomy in fact is, let me provide the most standard definition (sensu Simpson 1961): the theoretical study of classification, including its bases, principles, procedures, and rules. Given the disjunct between systematics or phylogenetic reconstruction and taxonomy, which is by definition nomenclatural, if I were arguing about taxonomy I would have perhaps started a debate about the Linnean system vs. the PhyloCode. As far as I can tell I did not in fact argue about “schools” of taxonomy at all in my post as it makes no mention to nomenclatural issues. What I think you were endeavoring to say is that I was presenting an argument about various methods of phylogenetic reconstruction, but even this is a fallacious assertion. My post as far as I can see makes absolutely no mention of any given methodologies of reconstructing phylogenies, such as, e.g., phenetics vs. evolutionary systematics. Might you be good enough to point out where I did so?

Your confusion aside, the crux of the post to which you offered this muddled reply was your evidentiary standard. And that will be the point of this reply, as well. As it were any debate is meaningless so long as one party refuses to clarify an evidentiary standard with explicit examples of what they would regard as data falsifying their standpoint. To date you have utterly failed to do so, as far as I can see. Consider for instance, that at first you asked for fossil evidence, but apparently rejected morphology altogether, demanding instead chromosomal counts. If you reject morphology as a data set you cannot use the fossil record since it by definition preserves morphological data only, not genetic material. Thus I asked why you were rejecting morphology as a data set which might clarify your question. You failed to answer and now appear to have simply asked for any “proof” of hominid monophyly. This is problematic on a number of grounds, since formal proofs are not possible within the deductive framework of empirical science and are strictly limited to Math and formal Logic. Secondly, you have not clarified what you consider valid data demonstrating hominid monophyly. This is highly disingenuous in that it allows you to present any ad hoc hypothesis to preclude your own position from falsification, upon receipt of new data. Until your evidentiary standard has been explicitly enumerated, and nomenclatural confusion and logical inconsistency in your argumentation have been clarified, it is not possible to proceed with any meaningful discussion with you of hominid monophyly. And until such time as you have rectified these problems, I would strongly urge you not imply others have violated the standards of logical propriety.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Ghosty]

But since God did become man, divine and himan, hypostatically united, it adds another dimension to image and likeness, correct?

Yes, but if you mean to say that God, at the time of Creation, had the form of a human then you raise a conundrum that is outside of what we’re discussing. It seems that you are suggesting a time-loop wherein God created Man in the image of Man whose form God had taken centuries later. This, I suppose, is possible, but it’s far from the simplest reading of the text, and it’s also far from the traditional reading by the Church.

Are you referring to the soul?

Not just the soul, because humans are more than a soul, and more than a body, but a soul and body united. God could have taken the body of the humanoid animal, and united it with a human soul in order to make a “full human” in the sense we speak of today. More literally, God could have formed clay in the shape of the humanoid animal and given it a soul; the result would be the same.

The question then becomes, how does an animal, that lacks human dignity and all the intangables, evolve into a human with all the intangibles? Personally, I’m not willing to jump over the gaps in the record as if those gaps weren’t there.I’m willing to wait for the gaps to be filled in however.

As I’ve stated before this comes with the insertion of the human soul by God. There is no “spiritual evolution”, and none is being argued for on any side of the argument. Biology only measures physical evolution. Read my above paragraph for just two dogmatically sound possibilities.

To be fair, the text is silent on that point.

I was refering to my argument, which you were questioning, not Scripture, which you weren’t.

Biologically and genetically speaking, scientific records show no recorded offspring between ape (24 pairs of chromosomes) and man (23 pairs of chromosomes) breeding together, or that it’s possible for such a union to produce offspring…

Who said anything about apes and men interbreeding? I said “full humans” and humanoids (read: soulless homo sapiens, if you prefer). Genetically speaking they would be identical as the soul is not an attribute of biology.

Buffalo wrote:

There is still a lack of scientific evidence. The issue is that theologically it cannot stand.

I’m afraid there IS scientific evidence that biological humanity is much older than a few thousand years. Much MUCH older, in fact. The mutation of mitochondria is very constant because it is passed from only one parent (therefore there is not the same recombination, or random sorting, of DNA within mitochondria), and the amount of mutation present in seperate human populations, such as Aborigines and Europeans, indicates tens of thousands of years of maternal seperation. This knowledge was not present during the time that article was written. We can now measure almost perfectly the time at which human lines deviated, and this can be replicated by matching mitochondrial variation with recorded family trees. This can also be done to a lesser extent with patrilineal traits, as has been done with isolated Jewish populations that have recently been “reincorporated” into Israel after thousands of years of seperation. The same science that is beign used to prove Biblical incidents such as the Lost Tribes is also being used to measure the actual biological age of humanity.

 

[Ghosty]

Until your evidentiary standard has been explicitly enumerated, and nomenclatural confusion and logical inconsistency in your argumentation have been clarified, it is not possible to proceed with any meaningful discussion with you of hominid monophyly. And until such time as you have rectified these problems, I would strongly urge you not imply others have violated the standards of logical propriety.

Amen! We can’t address your questions until you tell us what specifically you are looking for. Simply saying “proof” means nothing because there are many different types of evidence, some of which we can provide and others we can’t. Once we’ve narrowed this down, we can address the issue properly. I’m obviously more than happy, as a scientist, to admit the limits of science when they exist.

 

[steve_b]

Vindex Urvogel:

This is your strangest post yet. First and foremost you insist that I am arguing over schools of taxonomy, and yet this is an odd thing to insist upon. Since you do not seem to be familiar with what taxonomy in fact is, let me provide the most standard definition (sensu Simpson 1961): the theoretical study of classification, including its bases, principles, procedures, and rules. Given the disjunct between systematics or phylogenetic reconstruction and taxonomy, which is by definition nomenclatural, if I were arguing about taxonomy I would have perhaps started a debate about the Linnean system vs. the PhyloCode.

I probably ought to ignore you at this point but I’ll play along for awhile longer.

You said

“The conclusion is that Hominidae is monophyletic, while the premise is that the fossil evidence sheds light on hominid monophyly or polyphyly (the latter being your opinion in a very, very, loose sense of the term). You seem to think that only genetic data can elucidate patterns of phylogenesis, thus apparently disregarding morphology entirely. If anything that is the odd standpoint. Might you demonstrate why morphological evidence is not to be trusted, or if you haven’t argued that, what you are arguing about morphological evidence?”

Now, whether you believe we come from one ancestoral stock (polyphyletic) or from more than one ancestral stock, (polyphyletic), one tries to classify organisms in an ordered system of natural relationships (taxonomy) from this ancestral stock view.

Poly, and Monophyletic refer to taxons, of which I certainly would not be polyphyletic as you quessed.I believe we came from one ancestreal stock.

So let’s cut the crud. I’m not impressed with your avalanche of terms. Quite frankly, I think it’s a cover up because you can’t connect the dots.
Vindex Urvogel:

As far as I can tell I did not in fact argue about “schools” of taxonomy at all in my post as it makes no mention to nomenclatural issues.

When you ask me about poly and monophyletic, and do I know what it means, in my book you’re talking about schools of ancestral thought. And that has to do with taxonomy.
Vindex Urvogel:

Your confusion aside, the crux of the post to which you offered this muddled reply was your evidentiary standard. And that will be the point of this reply, as well. As it were any debate is meaningless so long as one party refuses to clarify an evidentiary standard with explicit examples of what they would regard as data falsifying their standpoint. To date you have utterly failed to do so, as far as I can see. Consider for instance, that at first you asked for fossil evidence, but apparently rejected morphology altogether, demanding instead chromosomal counts.

Form and structure will get you only so far. DNA is absolutely a crucial componant
Vindex Urvogel:

You failed to answer and now appear to have simply asked for any “proof” of hominid monophyly. This is problematic on a number of grounds, since formal proofs are not possible within the deductive framework of empirical science and are strictly limited to Math and formal Logic.

Thanks for the answer.
Vindex Urvogel:

Secondly, you have not clarified what you consider valid data demonstrating hominid monophyly. This is highly disingenuous in that it allows you to present any ad hoc hypothesis to preclude your own position from falsification, upon receipt of new data.
Vindex Urvogel

I have provided none so far. I have let you guys define the terms and control the tempo. All I have done so far is play off of what you guys have said.

 

[Ghosty]

I have provided none so far. I have let you guys define the terms and control the tempo. All I have done so far is play off of what you guys have said.

But you haven’t addressed the genetic tests we CAN perform, such as the age of mitochondrial deviation. I don’t know what your stand is on biblical literalism, but we know genetically that human mitochondrial DNA is far older than a literal reading of Genesis would suggest.