Jump to content
Science Forums

After adam and eve, evolution?


cwes99_03

Recommended Posts

Perhaps you'd like to start a thread in the Biology Forum to discuss this. I'd be interested to see any scientific evidence you could present to support such a claim.
I agree C1ay; While this is the Theological forum and speculation is invited, when claims are made as fact they become somewhat more than a theological point of view. If you have facts which you can show evidence for, they belong in Biology forum. If they are claims of proof that have not been accepted by current Biological concensus, they belong in the Strange claims forum. However, if they focus on points of faith they may remain in the Theological forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the diversity of humans is linked to the incest of the second and onward generations? Somehow I don't buy it.

 

Here's where some objectivity might come in handy. Today, and indeed for the past few thousand years, humans have regarded incest as, well, extraordinarily bad. And I agree, it is that. But where did the prohibition against incest begin? It was part of the Mosaic Law given to the Jews. Prior to that, there was no "God given" prohibition against incest. Therefore, had Adam and Eve's children bred amongst themselves (again, an idea I myself find repugnant) it would not, at that time, have been "immoral".

 

Of course, there is the possible issue of the problems that incest presents in terms of genetic goof-ups… defects and such. But there's a feasible explanation for this as well, which is that after thousands of years of reproduction, as the genetic constitution of humans becomes more and more "diluted", it becomes more sensitive to interbreeding. If that's true, then at one time it must have been relatively insensitive to interbreeding. And if that's true, then it would have been least sensitive in the first generations. Now, I'm no expert in genetics, but it's my understanding that these "ifs" do have scientific support, although I'm not prepared at this time to provide you that support should you ask for it.

 

The point is, there may very well be answers to these questions and it would be best not to write them off before considering these answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world Adam and Eve were placed in after being removed from the Garden was obviously also imperfect. Could this be an answer to the scientific evidence suggesting some evolution has taken place? That God in fact did create everything, but once he removed Adam and Eve from the Garden, the imperfect world which he placed them in fell into a similar state of "disrepair" where animals and plants mutated because of their imperfections and the imperfections of the world in which they lived?

 

I believe you are very close to being right. Actually, the only thing I disagree with you about is the "extent" of the evolution. I'm speaking again of the difference between micro and macro-evolution. I believe that God is the Intelligent Designer (my statement based ultimately on faith) and He designed this fabulous system of genetics so that it would generate a certain diversity though natural selection. But, this is again limited to within general categories or "kinds" of animals. I believe, and I have backed this view up in another topic, that natural selection prevent macro-evolution, and that this is "by design". But more to your point, I do believe (on the basis of my Biblical understanding) that Adam's original sin in effect impacted everything and this is why we now live in an imperfect, deteriorating environment.

 

Again, I claim to offer no scientific support for this directly, except that I do believe there is scientific support for the idea that natural selection limits evolution to the micro scale, and that scientific evidence supports the idea of an Intelligent Designer. This does not make the above a "given", but it does lend a certain amount of support for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Again, I claim to offer no scientific support for this directly,

This is the purpse of the Theological forum, where views regarding one's faith may be expressed.

 

except that I do believe there is scientific support for the idea that natural selection limits evolution to the micro scale, and that scientific evidence supports the idea of an Intelligent Designer. This does not make the above a "given", but it does lend a certain amount of support for it.
I agree with your position on micro evolution TRoutMac and would like to see this scientific support registered in the Biology forum where scientific evidence's are required. As I have so often repeated, the Theology forum is a place to discuss faith, not scientific facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incest, whilst being an unsavoury topic, has nothing at all to do with 'wrong' or 'right'. The incest taboo is not unique to humans, and is most probably a device built in through aeons of trial and error in order to protect and enhance the strength and quality of that helix-spiral thingy driving all of us.

DNA is selfish, and mindless. And a conjurer of note! Everything you experience throughout your lifetime, be it love, passion, hunger, ambition - give it a name - is there for one purpose, and one purpose only: To increase the chances of the DNA you've been dealt with to spread around. And if a taboo on incest will help it maintain and better its constitution, so be it. But its got absolutely zip to do with morals.

Cannibals from Bora Bora will kill and cook their enemies, but they will not shag their sisters. And they have never heard of Adam and Eve, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incest, whilst being an unsavoury topic, has nothing at all to do with 'wrong' or 'right'.

 

This is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I would point out that particularly religious Jews do not share your view, and since Christians in general find good reason to comply with various parts of the Mosaic Law, they also do not share your view.

 

The incest taboo is not unique to humans, and is most probably a device built in through aeons of trial and error in order to protect and enhance the strength and quality of that helix-spiral thingy driving all of us.

 

"Most probably" is the key word here, as you simply cannot know of any other source. I don't claim that other animals' breed with their siblings. I frankly don't know if they do or don't. But my position isn't dependent on the answer to that question.

 

DNA is selfish, and mindless. And a conjurer of note!

 

"Selfish" is an attitude, and attitude requires a mind to generate it, and yet you say DNA is "mindless". "Conjuring" also implies thought. Well, of course, DNA doesn't have a brain… we agree on that. But it most certainly does reflect the intelligence which devised it.

 

Everything you experience throughout your lifetime, be it love, passion, hunger, ambition - give it a name - is there for one purpose, and one purpose only: To increase the chances of the DNA you've been dealt with to spread around. And if a taboo on incest will help it maintain and better its constitution, so be it. But its got absolutely zip to do with morals.

 

Right… and I used to swing from trees, too!! :confused:

 

You can no more prove that this is the case than I can prove that the Biblical account is true. Now, this being the "Theology" forum, I gather that's quite alright. I would say that the taboo was handed to us by the Intelligent Designer at a point in history, and that the Intelligent Designer may just as well have 'embedded' a distaste for same into the instincts of animals. Either position goes beyond what is provable in an empirical fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TRoutMac:

 

Be that as it may. What I mean with 'selfish' and 'mindless', as a description of DNA's ultimate ends, is purely metaphorical. Of course DNA does not have a heart, a mind, a soul, or even a toaster. That should be obvious, and needs no pointing out. Language is a beautiful thing.

 

However.

 

I strongly recommend you get involved in the rest of hypography, and try to post somewhere else as well. Spread your wings. Get involved in some of the other discussions, too, where we're not always talking about ID. Contribute to threads where the line of discussion is about global warming or some such topics. Hypography is not solely about proving or disproving Intelligent Design.

 

Coming back to your post:

 

There are actually plenty evidence of animals not engaging in incest. And none of them can read, so the Mosaic Laws won't mean much to them. It's an inbred, heritable trait. Blame DNA. Mosaic Laws also says a lot about not eating pork - the morals of which escapes me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are actually plenty evidence of animals not engaging in incest. And none of them can read, so the Mosaic Laws won't mean much to them. It's an inbred, heritable trait. Blame DNA. Mosaic Laws also says a lot about not eating pork - the morals of which escapes me.

I REALLY wish someone would have explained this to my dogs last month!!! If so, then maybe I would not now be expecting puppies. They aren't siblings, though. Uncle/niece is their thing. And frankly, that's not so uncommon a thing, from what I have observed. Even sibling matings aren't that uncommon in the canine world, at least on this block.

Hmmmm...maybe I should move back to the city???

 

And eating pork has little to do with morals. It's all about cleanliness, from what I understand (remember that whole Religious Studies degree thingy?).

 

I have so much more to add to this discussion. How enchanting. However, it will have to wait until after I fix dinner for the wee ones. And B- we're having hot dogs, how's THAT for unclean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, where to begin.

 

Thanks mods, and hi Irish, nice to have you all here to help me out.

 

We've gotten off topic, though.

 

I'll repost the question.

 

Is it possible, as far as actual Biblical scriptures go, that after Adam and Eve sinned, all life present in the imperfect world in which they were bannished to, was equally imperfect, and this is the source of mutations, and evolutionary beginnings? Does any scripture that anyone knows of say that this cannot be true? I'm unaware of any.

 

I'll even open this up, if no answers can be found, to other religious teachings on how the earth and it's inhabitants were made that deal with some sort of creationary beginning. But, before I do that, would anyone like to help me out with the first question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I saw it and it skirted the issue.

You like many of our contemporaries see these evolutionary (micro macro i don't care) as part of God's design. However, I myself cannot see any support of this in the Bible as the Bible does not say that God designed the world to evolve, just that he created things and he saw they were good, therefore he would not have designed them to change if he believed they were good.

His determination that they were good, was before Adam and Eve sinned. What occured afterword is what I'm interested in.

I do believe (on the basis of my Biblical understanding) that Adam's original sin in effect impacted everything and this is why we now live in an imperfect, deteriorating environment.

This is what I'm trying to see if anyone else can find a reason why this could not be so, theologically. Though, thanks for your support, even though your reputation may hurt my point, I appreciate that you feel this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I saw it and it skirted the issue.

You like many of our contemporaries see these evolutionary (micro macro i don't care) as part of God's design. However, I myself cannot see any support of this in the Bible as the Bible does not say that God designed the world to evolve, just that he created things and he saw they were good, therefore he would not have designed them to change if he believed they were good.

 

Understand that I'm not an advocate of "Theistic Evolution"… I believe that God created what He created exactly as described in Genesis, in 6 literal and consecutive 24-hour periods. However, the Bible doesn't LIST species by species everything that was created on that particular day. It only speaks in broad generalities.

 

I believe that God created every animal "after its kind" and within those "kinds" (maybe that's roughly equivalent to "species", but maybe not) there has been a certain amount of evolutionary change, but none that has created new "kinds" of animals.

 

So the micro-macro thing is definitely crucial here. We DO see micro-evolution, and I certainly don't believe that micro-evolution would happen if God had not intended it to happen. More to your question, then, I believe it's quite possible that in some way the potential for micro-evolutionary change was "unlocked" after the fall. Certainly, I believe that at the very least the environment was changed as a consequence of the fall, and that this is why we live with the threat of disease, eventual death, illness, and suffering in general.

 

That God believed His creation was good does not necessarily mean he didn't design them to change… He could have been speaking of not only His creation's outward and initial appearance and quality, but ALSO the inner complexities and potential for certain adaptability through micro-evolution. But I most definitely do not believe that God created some one-celled organisms and then from there allowed them to "evolve" into fish, lizards, apes and men.

 

Sorry if I didn't address your question as directly as I though I had. I hope I got closer this time 'round. If not, perhaps I'm not understanding your question. I'll also apologize if my reputation precedes me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, so you're one of those who believe that dinosaurs walked the earth with man or you think it's a big hoax? Just curious.

 

Yes, I believe that man existed during the time that dinosaurs existed. I don't know of anyone who believes that the existence of dinosaurs is a "big hoax"… if there are such people, I'm not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, you two go have a discussion on some other thread, or in private messages. As for Rocky, I have no answer as to dinosaurs, or where they fit into the scheme. For me it is a science question. Though it appears to have an impact on creationist theory, I didn't address that in my thread opener.

Back to topic.

Trout, thanks enough said, you think that God designed all things to evolve a bit, though nothing on the large scale. I've understood your view for quite a time, and don't believe that the Bible says anything to support that, and I would only argue against it in that it says that what he saw was good, and what the Bible means by good. Your argument seems to lean toward a God that planned for evolution from the start. My question is, did mutation/evolution only begin once the first sin occured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is, did mutation/evolution only begin once the first sin occured.

 

I think this is a possibility, yes. Even probability. I don't think there's any way to determine this with any degree of certainty, though.

 

Trout, thanks enough said, you think that God designed all things to evolve a bit, though nothing on the large scale. I've understood your view for quite a time, and don't believe that the Bible says anything to support that, and I would only argue against it in that it says that what he saw was good, and what the Bible means by good. Your argument seems to lean toward a God that planned for evolution from the start.

 

You're right that the Bible doesn't explicitly (or even implicitly) say that anything evolved. Certainly not that I'm aware of, anyway. I would just point out that it also doesn't explicitly say micro-evolution did not happen, although I understand your reasoning regarding the "it was good" line and I admit that while that may not be conclusive, it is definitely worth considering.

 

Also, the Bible describes a God with foreknowledge; with a plan to be executed, and a God that foreknew every contingency of every decision ever made. If this is accurate, then the fall of man, though not desirable to God, did not catch Him by surprise, either. Therefore it follows that in anticipation of the fall, life was designed to be mutable to some relatively slight degree.

 

And again, sorry… I'll try not to let Rocky side-track me again. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are actually plenty evidence of animals not engaging in incest. And none of them can read, so the Mosaic Laws won't mean much to them. It's an inbred, heritable trait. Blame DNA. Mosaic Laws also says a lot about not eating pork - the morals of which escapes me.

I REALLY wish someone would have explained this to my dogs last month!!! If so, then maybe I would not now be expecting puppies. They aren't siblings, though. Uncle/niece is their thing. And frankly, that's not so uncommon a thing, from what I have observed. Even sibling matings aren't that uncommon in the canine world, at least on this block.

Hmmmm...maybe I should move back to the city???

 

And eating pork has little to do with morals. It's all about cleanliness, from what I understand (remember that whole Religious Studies degree thingy?).

 

I have so much more to add to this discussion. How enchanting. However, it will have to wait until after I fix dinner for the wee ones. And B- we're having hot dogs, how's THAT for unclean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...