Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 69980

Let us work from the premise that Adam and Eve were the first two humans. Some points to consider.

1. The concept of inbreeding is based on current biology. We like to think that humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder and hence have the most complex of the DNA strands, but in truth, much lower forms of life have more chromosome pairs than humans. Odd since we are so specialized by comparison. Perhaps the early humans were more "evolved" on the DNA level and multiple generations of inbreeding had no ill effect. Likewise, environmental changes since the dawn of creation may have damaged human DNA to the point that inbreeding produces problems where it previously had not. Since we can't examine a living person from that time, we will never know.

2. Since both in the garden and after the great flood God ordered man to be fruitful and multiply, it is possible the dangers of inbreeding for several generations was negated by supernatural means.

3. There is contention that Adam and Eve had many kids but only their first two sons (Cain and Able) were documented in the Bible. This would be consistent as the Bible does chronicle the lives of men in greater detail and more frequently than it tends to focus on women. Remember Lot's wife? She had a name, but nobody saw fit to record that.

zer0netgain, Wrong Planet 69 Comments [2/1/2010 1:47:05 PM]
Fundie Index: 44
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Efrain

Except Evolution ISN'T a ladder. :/

2/1/2010 1:51:59 PM



"it is possible the dangers of inbreeding for several generations was negated by supernatural means"

No, it isn't. I suppose you'd also like to argue that it's possible the Harry Potter books are based on actual events, wouldn't you?



"There is contention that Adam and Eve had many kids but only their first two sons (Cain and Able) were documented in the Bible."

So, you're saying that God planned for Adam and Eve's daughters to be forced to have sex with their own brothers?

Your theories really aren't helping your cause.


2/1/2010 1:55:05 PM

MK

This is what I read:

"Let's start with an assumption guaranteed to fail.

1. This leads us to making up a lot more assumptions, enough to throw up our hands and say "i jez doan no!"

2. Maybe Goddidit.

3. Maybe the Bible is just an imperfect, anti-women book."


2/1/2010 1:55:14 PM



But since you have no way to prove this other than assumptions there's no way to take this seriously.

2/1/2010 1:55:42 PM

solomongrundy

Let us NOT work from the premise that Adam and Eve were the first two humans.

There is no such thing as an 'evolutionary ladder'.

2/1/2010 1:55:52 PM

breakerslion

"Let us work from the premise that Adam and Eve were the first two humans."

Premise Fails
END GIGO Loop

NEXT


2/1/2010 2:03:14 PM

anevilmeme

Translation: I have no idea what these big words mean therefore Goddidit!

2/1/2010 2:04:18 PM

Doubting Thomas

Or it could be that the whole Adam & Eve story is a stupid myth. (Occam's razor)

2/1/2010 2:07:00 PM

Abdul Alhazred

Almost every specification comes along with a genetic bottleneck, in our case, Homo sapiens approx. 35 females max.

And regarding point 3., you forgot Set.

2/1/2010 2:08:01 PM

Osiris

Basically in order for your belief to be real we have to assume that human biology was at one point completely different, for no other reason then your belief doesn't make sense.

2/1/2010 2:13:42 PM

RavenWood

Evolution is not a ladder.

2/1/2010 2:15:26 PM

Berny

However, since Adam and Eve were fictitious, your whole argument goes to shit.

2/1/2010 2:18:21 PM

Doctor Whom

1. Did you even stay awake during 10th-grade biology, or did they put you into earth science instead?

2. Goddidit Goddidit Goddidit.

3. That would still be incest.

2/1/2010 2:20:19 PM

Joe Mama

Didn't your parents ever teach you not to believe in fairy tales?

2/1/2010 2:21:34 PM

aaa

This is fucking retarded.

2/1/2010 2:23:39 PM

Percy Q. Shunn

But since the bible is all bullshit and lies, your silly arguments have no merit.

2/1/2010 2:29:40 PM

Mister Spak

"Let us work from the premise that Adam and Eve were the first two humans."

As long as I work from the premise that they were migets created by the Fying Spaghetti Monster.

2/1/2010 2:31:24 PM

Smilodon

We do not have the most complex DNA, this simply proves that you are completely unqualified to talk about biological evolution.

2/1/2010 2:39:15 PM

Paler_Face

Let us work from the premise that Adam and Eve were the first two humans.

Let's not. Science has already found that there were no 2 first humans. Read up on your evolution.

The concept of inbreeding is based on current biology.

There's nothing to indicate that it didn't have the same effect on ancient life forms.

We like to think that humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder

That's evolutionary tree. The ladder is an ancient Greek idea. Your terminology is about 2000 years out of date.

and hence have the most complex of the DNA strands but in truth, much lower forms of life have more chromosome pairs than humans.

Your point?

Odd since we are so specialized by comparison.

Bullshit. We aren't all that specialized. All we have is a bigger brain. The rest of our body plan is rather general.
Dolphins are specialized: they can only live in the water. Their entire body shape is specialized for efficient movement in water, and nothing else.

Perhaps the early humans were more "evolved" on the DNA level and multiple generations of inbreeding had no ill effect.

There is no such thing as "more evolved". The lowly earthworm has evolved just as much from the first living cells as we have.

Likewise, environmental changes since the dawn of creation may have damaged human DNA to the point that inbreeding produces problems where it previously had not. Since we can't examine a living person from that time, we will never know.

We can know. We know how and why inbreeding results in weaker offspring, and it will happen to all living things that inbreed, regardless of the amount of DNA, number of chromosomes, or number of tentacles.

2. Since both in the garden and after the great flood God ordered man to be fruitful and multiply, it is possible the dangers of inbreeding for several generations was negated by supernatural means.

Oh, you are one of those literalists, aren't you. One of those kooks that think the entire bible is to be taken literal.
Wake-up call: there was no global flood. There was no garden of Eden. Genesis up to and including the Tower of Babel story are not to be taken literal, ever.

I'm not even going to bother with the third notion.

2/1/2010 2:41:06 PM



Humans aren't specialized at all. In fact, I'd say humans are anti-specialized, especially in all physical traits except our brain. Our brains let us adapt to a multitude of environments by making tools.

2/1/2010 2:47:34 PM

John

There is contention that Adam and Eve had many kids but only their first two sons (Cain and Able) were documented in the Bible.

Adam also had Seth, and during the following 800 years of his life, "begat sons and daughters". Jeez, even I knew that. Don't you read your own damn book?

2/1/2010 2:51:21 PM

Wehpudicabok

Applying science only whenever it doesn't directly contradict the Bible, while not the stupidest form of reasoning I have seen, is still hilariously wrong.

2/1/2010 2:56:45 PM

DaMentalFunism

Let us work from the premise that Adam and Eve were the first two humans. Some points to consider.

Ahh here we go again. Another whole new pile of stupid to smear over reality in order to try and treat an ancient metaphorical poem as scientific fact.

2/1/2010 2:56:52 PM

David B.

"Odd since we are so specialized by comparison."

Humans are generalists, not specialists. We are neither the fastest, strongest or hardiest, not the best armed or best armoured, most colourful or most camoflaged, loudest, tallest, most nimble, most flexible or most venomous. We are not the best diggers, flyers, runners, fighters, swimmers, divers, gliders, stalkers or spotters.

About all we have going for us is complex language, big brains and versatile hands, and fortunately that's been enough. But all our advantages add up to only a couple of percent difference between us and our nearest non-human relative.

2/1/2010 3:24:05 PM

Sisyphus

1) Humans are specialized? For what? Where are our poison spurs? Where are our flippers? Gills? Fangs? Claws? Thick warm fur? ETC ETC ETC.

2) Yes of course dear now ssshhh the adults are talking.

3) Personally if I were to chronicle the human race I'd follow the females of the line. A man can never be 100% sure (without a paternity test) that kids that come out of his wife are his. A woman can be 100% certain that any kids she pops out are hers.

2/1/2010 3:25:28 PM
1 2 3