PDA

View Full Version : One human family?



SearchingSoul
Apr 21st 2007, 08:40 PM
Did all of mankind originate from one human couple - every size, shape and colour - all from one original gene pool?

calidog
Apr 21st 2007, 09:32 PM
yes:eek: :B :help:

fishbowlsoul
Apr 22nd 2007, 02:28 AM
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmNo

atrus912
Apr 22nd 2007, 03:35 AM
It's very much a debated topic.

I personally believe that Adam and Eve were part of one specific bloodline. I don't believe they were alone.

Acicular Oculus
Apr 22nd 2007, 03:44 AM
No. All of mankind came from the children of Noah and their wives.

Joel.

Open Range
Apr 22nd 2007, 04:35 AM
Did all of mankind originate from one human couple - every size, shape and colour - all from one original gene pool?

I think the answer is, yes. Genealogy is meticulously recorded and a crucial aspect of the Bible in both old and new testments. I don't think it can be viewed as allegorical, even in part.

"Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." (Genesis 3:20)

See also Luke 3:23-38 for the lineage of Christ going back to Adam.

atrus912
Apr 22nd 2007, 05:02 AM
I think the answer is, yes. Genealogy is meticulously recorded and a crucial aspect of the Bible in both old and new testments. I don't think it can be viewed as allegorical, even in part.

"Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." (Genesis 3:20)

See also Luke 3:23-38 for the lineage of Christ going back to Adam.

I still stick with my argument about the bloodline, citing the very verses you've given.

Eve was the mother of all living things in the most signifigant family line to ever exist on the planet. That is meant to be an allegorical representation for the female decendent of Christ who was "The Son of Man".

That's my view on the matter.

judi<>><
Apr 22nd 2007, 11:58 AM
Given what we do know about genetics, let me turn the question back on you. If the very first "dog" was actually genetically descended from the very first two animals that could be considered "wolves," how do we have so many different kinds of dogs?

Micro-evolution actually supports the idea that all of humanity could have descended from a single gene pool from two individuals. If so, then that gene pool would have had no (or very few) lethal genes. The lethal genes would have developed over time from mutations. Positive mutations, on the other hand, would have allowed people who lived in areas where there was less sunlight to have lighter skin tones and hair colors, allowing their bodies to more effectively use what UV was available to produce the needed Vitamin D to survive. This explains the Nordic races.

Other positive mutations may have produced the epicanthic folds necessary for living in the wind-swept and snow-blinding areas of the Himalayas and Steppes of Russia/China (now we have explained the Orientals).

There is some discussion as to whether the positive mutation that changed from Adam and Eve was a darker skin (African races) or a lighter one (Semitic races). In either case, micro-evolution explains it.

So.... It is possible, is it not?

TEITZY
Apr 22nd 2007, 12:04 PM
Did all of mankind originate from one human couple - every size, shape and colour - all from one original gene pool?

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

So God created the original couple with great genetic diversity from which come all the different size, shapes & colours (really just different shades of brown) we see today. So in the Biblical creation model you start with a great amount of genetic diversity (information) from which comes variation in the following generations. Evolution works the opposite way by supposedly starting with a very low level of genetic diversity (eg. microbes) and over time producing greater genetic diversity (eg. man). So in terms of genetic diversity:

Creation says > complex to less complex
Evolution says > simple to more complex

So these two views on origins are diametrically opposed to each other. Funnily enough what we OBSERVE in populations today supports the Creation model, not evolution.

Cheers
Leigh

SearchingSoul
Apr 22nd 2007, 08:20 PM
Given what we do know about genetics, let me turn the question back on you. If the very first "dog" was actually genetically descended from the very first two animals that could be considered "wolves," how do we have so many different kinds of dogs?

Micro-evolution actually supports the idea that all of humanity could have descended from a single gene pool from two individuals. If so, then that gene pool would have had no (or very few) lethal genes. The lethal genes would have developed over time from mutations. Positive mutations, on the other hand, would have allowed people who lived in areas where there was less sunlight to have lighter skin tones and hair colors, allowing their bodies to more effectively use what UV was available to produce the needed Vitamin D to survive. This explains the Nordic races.

Other positive mutations may have produced the epicanthic folds necessary for living in the wind-swept and snow-blinding areas of the Himalayas and Steppes of Russia/China (now we have explained the Orientals).

There is some discussion as to whether the positive mutation that changed from Adam and Eve was a darker skin (African races) or a lighter one (Semitic races). In either case, micro-evolution explains it.

So.... It is possible, is it not?

Thank you for your comments.

I sometimes wonder if science will someday know beyond a doubt that there is a creator - but still deny it anyway!

SearchingSoul
Apr 22nd 2007, 08:23 PM
Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

So God created the original couple with great genetic diversity from which come all the different size, shapes & colours (really just different shades of brown) we see today. So in the Biblical creation model you start with a great amount of genetic diversity (information) from which comes variation in the following generations. Evolution works the opposite way by supposedly starting with a very low level of genetic diversity (eg. microbes) and over time producing greater genetic diversity (eg. man). So in terms of genetic diversity:

Creation says > complex to less complex
Evolution says > simple to more complex

So these two views on origins are diametrically opposed to each other. Funnily enough what we OBSERVE in populations today supports the Creation model, not evolution.

Cheers
Leigh

Thank you for this.
Creation says > complex to less complex
Evolution says > simple to more complex

I agree with > complex to less complex :)

Big T
Apr 22nd 2007, 08:30 PM
I don't see why it couldn't be so. Even if we took evolution as factual, there is the one theory (of the many) that there is a common "goo" that created all the different types of living creatures and plants.

Acicular Oculus
Apr 23rd 2007, 12:09 AM
The edit I made, immediately after my initial post, didn’t take. I answered too quick, so, my edited answer is: Yes. Sorry for kicking that off so recklessly.

Joel.

CoveredInHisBlood
Apr 23rd 2007, 11:52 AM
Funnily enough what we OBSERVE in populations today supports the Creation model, not evolution.
Since when did observation become a requirement of the evolution model? The scientific model is reversed for evolution, we don't need to observe it, because we cant observe it we cannot test it and because we cannot test it we cannot get repeatable results, therefore evolution is true...

Honestly, the bible is clear on the matter. How there is even a question about this is beyond me. I guess I shouldn't really be suprised that the babblings of men are more authoritative than God's word, its probably the only book in which people read it and assume that is DOESN'T mean exactly what it says.

TEITZY
Apr 23rd 2007, 12:09 PM
Since when did observation become a requirement of the evolution model? The scientific model is reversed for evolution, we don't need to observe it, because we cant observe it we cannot test it and because we cannot test it we cannot get repeatable results, therefore evolution is true...

Honestly, the bible is clear on the matter. How there is even a question about this is beyond me. I guess I shouldn't really be suprised that the babblings of men are more authoritative than God's word, its probably the only book in which people read it and assume that is DOESN'T mean exactly what it says.

Yes I realize all that, but evolutionists use natural selection and variation within species (micro-evolution so called) as support for their theory but these observable mechanisms actually support the Creation model and not evolution which requires a large net increase of new genetic information within populations.

Cheers
Leigh