Is it possible to create all the genetic variations just from Adam and Eve?

J

Joeman

Eviiiiiiiil Clown
Registered Senior Member
Is it possible for a couple to populate the entire earth with all the genetic variations in 7500 years? (Adam's creation has been dated between anywhere from 3760BC to 5411BC according to different versions of bible. Archibiship James Ussher of Armagh calculated Adam's birthday to be exactly March 21, 4004BC assuming there are only 6 days between cosmic nothingness to creation of Adam) Are we really all inbreds of Adam and Eve? If either Adam and Eve possess recessive genes such as blue eye, we should still see blue eyes everywhere. We don't see blue eyes anywhere though. Is it a new mutation that just occured within last 6000 years or somehow blue eyes cannot survive natural selection in Africa and Asia? How about skin color?

Some fundies I met today who self proclaimed to be educated try to convince me that Adam is indeed the first human being ever.
 
We evolved from green soup.

Substantial anthropology indicates that humans have been in existence far longer than the postulated dates above. But how could you create all the skin colors and different races within 7500 years? Sounds unlikely to me.

I have an idea in response to the fundies. Let's create a religion worshipping Lucy. The Heaven-Sent Official Synagogue of Lucyism.

And also, I introduce His, and Only His Holiest Church of AntiInfidelity QuasiBaptist Male Australopithecusism.

Or how about the Holy Green Soup "There Was an Adam, but He Had Gills!" Church.
 
U really have to get a grip on what the bible really means and not turn into a creationist. The bible is metaphorical. We started off with black coloured skin and brown eyes.
 
Adam and Eve can be thought like pure/perfect man & women free from all defects & aging & environmental contaminations. Can we differanciate between present man & women AND Adam and Eve? I mean to say what we gain or lost during this period.
 
Because we all only have one father and one mother it should be possible to go back far enough in time to find the adam and eve ancestors that we all have in common.

They might not have lived at the same time though and might not be human.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
They might not have lived at the same time though and might not be human.
Click to expand...
It interest me a lot-- when some ancient mentioning is shown as human but may actually not be a human in today's human body's form. Some differance of basic & gross or micro or macro. :)
 
IIRC, you need at least 50 members of a species for a viable gene pool.
 
Alpha said:
IIRC, you need at least 50 members of a species for a viable gene pool.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. What happens if you don't have a viable gene pool?
 
no, mitochondiral testing put the first women back much further then 75,000 when people began to leave africa, let alone 7500 years! Though those result are controversial the most important fact was that it was not a single women but a group of proto-homo sapiens (homo erectus?) that we can trace back to, so there most likely never was one women that could have been label as the first human women (mitochondrial eve).

Joeman,

to answer alpha, something weird and usually to inbred to live, it theorized that extra small breeding populations may actually survive, but will result in rapid genetic drift and you could end up with a new species.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand. What happens if you don't have a viable gene pool?
Click to expand...
Inbreeding. Not enough genetic diversity. Offspring are deformed and have defects, etc. Eventually a species would die off.
 
One would guess that Adam and Eve are perfect, absolutely no defects It is possible to create a vast population of humans from just two but you'll have implement very careful breading. By keeping an eye on genetic anomalies and stopping all but the most healthy of the species from breading. I would guess that after about 15-20 generations you could start to feel safe and relax the criteria for breading, but your still on dangerous ground. Modern tech would help a great deal allowing you to screen offspring before implantation allowing for more productive breading. The question is who is in control, who judges every child and determines what is advantageous and what is not.
 
One would guess that Adam and Eve are perfect, absolutely no defects
Click to expand...
No, if they're human, they're certainly not perfect. According to that reason, they'd be much the same as we are now due to the presumption that evolution is false. We certainly are not perfect, so neither would they have been. Unless we evolved to be different and somehow less perfect... ;)
It is possible to create a vast population of humans from just two but you'll have implement very careful breading.
Click to expand...
No it's not. Not without some serious genetic engineering which we won't have the capability to do for a long time to come. Especially if bans on genetic research keep up. With only two members of the species, every instance of breeding after the first generation would be inbreeding. There simply isn't enough genetic diversity to continue a species from two members.
By keeping an eye on genetic anomalies and stopping all but the most healthy of the species from breading. I would guess that after about 15-20 generations you could start to feel safe and relax the criteria for breading, but your still on dangerous ground.
Click to expand...
Genetic anomalies? If you admit evolution then why are you defending the Adam & Eve story?
 
Alpha can you answer something for me that always confuses me


how does a new speicies begin?

i mean whats the chances of 50 people having the same mutations to created man as oposed to chimps?
 
Actually how a new species arise is still a controversial and debatable phenomena in biology.
 
Here's what I think:

'New' species are created when offsprings that branch out - far enough - from the original evolutionary tree. Should apply to us as well. So that means we must have evolved from somewhere, some single-celled microbe... and not created from abrupt and sudden appearance of Adam and Eve.
 
Asguard said:
Alpha can you answer something for me that always confuses me


how does a new speicies begin?

i mean whats the chances of 50 people having the same mutations to created man as oposed to chimps?
Click to expand...
Imagine a species with maybe a few million members. Say they start expanding into other territory. So there's several thousand, say, in a new environment. They start adapting to the changes in environment. Now the species is spread across a couple slightly differing environments. Over new generations, they evolve to be better suited to their differing environments, and since these several thousand members are in a different environment, they start to differ from the rest. Eventually they differ to the degree that, while they can still procreate among themselves, they can no longer procreate with members of the species they branched off from. That's where their genes start to diverge more rapidly, because there's no more combining genes with the same species. Now there's two species, that while similar, can no longer produce offspring amongst each other. The new species may also be better suited to a wider variety of environments and may outlast the species it branched off from.
 
No, if they're human, they're certainly not perfect. According to that reason, they'd be much the same as we are now due to the presumption that evolution is false. We certainly are not perfect, so neither would they have been. Unless we evolved to be different and somehow less perfect...
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. Perfection is the ability to breed, to survive until the next generation is independent. Perfect does not mean beauty, or athletism, or even intelligence. Perfection is simply a lack of congenital defects that impair the ability of the species to breed now or many generations away.
No it's not. Not without some serious genetic engineering which we won't have the capability to do for a long time to come. Especially if bans on genetic research keep up. With only two members of the species, every instance of breeding after the first generation would be inbreeding. There simply isn't enough genetic diversity to continue a species from two members.
Click to expand...
Selective breading does not requirer advance genetic knowledge. It simply requires a control that will stop the breeding of individuals that do not meet a set criteria. That being the ability to breed fertile offspring. Inbreeding is only a problem if it is left unchecked, allowing for the pollution of the gene pool of undesirable congenital defects. In 1788 just five rabbits where brought to Australia with the first fleet, from these 5 a large feral population had been established and first reported in 1827. In 1857 another 27 rabbits where introduced. It is clearly possible to have a successfully population from very few individuals, even without selective breeding.
Genetic anomalies? If you admit evolution then why are you defending the Adam & Eve story?
Click to expand...
Im not defending anything but the possibility of producing a viable species from a single healthy breeding pair.

Genetic aberrations that do not influence the fertility are highly desirable in any small population.
 
I beg to differ. Perfection is the ability to breed, to survive until the next generation is independent.
Click to expand...
Um, no. Most species do that, are you saying they're all perfect too?
That's BS, there are so many flaws in human biology, sometimes it seems a wonder we're here.
Inbreeding is only a problem if it is left unchecked,
Click to expand...
It's also a problem when there's less than 50 members of a species. A big problem. With less than 50 members, there can't not be inbreeding after a few generations.
 
Inbreeding is a problem if there are faults in the gene pool. These faults may not become apparent for many generations, so the path is dangerous but not impossible. There are many examples of successfully inbreeding as long as there is control. Look at the canines.

That's BS, there are so many flaws in human biology, sometimes it seems a wonder we're here.
Click to expand...

Well I must retract the word perfect for it is too subjective. No. Iis aging an imperfection. No it is required. Some would say that the Kidneys are imperfect. Why process all that salt just to put it back into the system, what a waist of energy. But if it does not hinder us does it really matter. What about obesity, but without the ability to store excess energy it is unlikely that we would be here now.

Every life form that is flourishing on this world is perfect. It is not about the individual. Its about the species. We are the most successful mammalian species on this earth, apart from our domesticated animals, and the hanger-on ferals. We are Perfect. You may not be???
 
Inbreeding is a problem if there are faults in the gene pool.
Click to expand...
And there always are. The "perfection" of a species is relative to it's environment, and there are flaws in humans that make us imperfect. And if we haven't evolved from Adam & Eve, then they had the same flaws.

We are far from perfect, and so is just about every other creature. Admitted, sharks and crocodiles have barely evolved at all in the past several million years; they are almost perfectly suited to their environments.

Regardless, we cannot have stemmed from Adam & Eve as described in the bible. I suggest you read these:
- http://www.netpets.com/dogs/reference/genetics/diversity.html
- http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may99/926380864.Ge.r.html

Even if Adam & Even did somehow produce enough genetic diversity and population, there's still the supposed global flood that would have set them back to day one, only with less than "perfect" members.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top