Adam and Eve's children...

[MHz]

The bottleneck might not be able to be traced any further back than Noah and those 6 other people. From those 4 groups the settlement of the earth started, scripture also says which ones went in which direction. If the whole earth was flooded then it might be taken that the giants and evil men had gotten into those lands also. If it was a local problem a local flood would have sufficed.

We might be inferior than when we were back then. If Noah was still perfect in his generations any unwanted changes can probably be rectified during resurrection or at the river of life. 3 or 4 generations are all that is needed to stop mutations. If you look at special breeds of dogs today the closer they are to being 'pure' the closer they are to being 'mentally unbalanced' or more prone to very mutated babies (which don't survive). A heinz57 is a more 'stable' dog when it comes to being a companion to a human and it probably also makes a difference in a pack setting.

 

[JLM]

It's just my sick sense of humour. Its like a word association thing. I post whatever pops into my mind, kind of a knee jerk reaction to what I'm reading. The more serious people get about politics and religion, the more irreverent I become. I don't think that is trolling but I have been known to be wrong, rare but not unheard of. :roll:

The most intelligent post on this thead so far.

 

[gerryh]

I guess admitting ones mental instability could be considered a good thing.

 

[JLM]

I guess admitting ones mental instability could be considered a good thing.

That's the one thing the entire human race has in common.

 

[s_lone]

I doubt it, because the Bible then states that they go on to take wives. If you're going to just take it all at face value, then you'd take that at face value as well right?

So if you take the ''wives'' at face value, the literal believers must then admit Adam and Eve are not the ultimate 'parents' of humanity. If they are they must by necessity admit that the ''wives'' in question are unmentioned daughters of Adam and Eve, or as Cliffy suggested rather cynically, Eve herself...

But, even if they do accept the notion... so what? There's a difference between an initial incest of necessity, and routine inbreeding, turning the family tree back in on itself.

If they do accept the notion then they are being consistent with what they believe in I guess...

 

[darkbeaver]

The Official Web Site of Zecharia Sitchinchrome://searchshield/content/clock.gif

Author of The 12th Planet and several other books in the Earth Chronicles series, Sitchin argues that the deities of the ancient Near East were real, ...
www.sitchin.com/ - 71k



Adam

There is a long standing insistance by a particular tribe that they are not the same as the rest of humanity, you would be well advised to consider that when humans are mentioned by them they are not refering to specimins outside that tribal grouping. The daughters of men pleased the gods and they took them unto themselves and made whoopie.

 

[TenPenny]

Read the book. Adam and Eve had three children, Cain, Abel, and Seth, but Cain killed Abel so there were really only two to carry on the blood line. And the book says they took wives from...well, that's not exactly clear, but it means there must have been women other than Eve around at the time.

Just another one of religion's inexplicable little mysteries...

How many children did Adam and Eve have? The Bible does not give us a specific number. Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). With likely hundreds of years of child-bearing capability, Adam and Eve likely had 50+ children in their lifetime.

 

[MHz]

The Official Web Site of Zecharia Sitchinchrome://searchshield/content/clock.gif

Author of The 12th Planet and several other books in the Earth Chronicles series, Sitchin argues that the deities of the ancient Near East were real, ...
www.sitchin.com/ - 71k



Adam

There is a long standing insistance by a particular tribe that they are not the same as the rest of humanity, you would be well advised to consider that when humans are mentioned by them they are not refering to specimins outside that tribal grouping. The daughters of men pleased the gods and they took them unto themselves and made whoopie.

The 12 tribes took care (killed every last one even down to their pets) after the 40 years in the wilderness. 6 fingers was one sign of being a giant. The custom of the "How sign" of Native Americians was not to show the hand was empty it was so the fingers could be counted. That tradition could have been a result of pre-flood 'people'.

 

[MHz]

How many children did Adam and Eve have? The Bible does not give us a specific number. Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). With likely hundreds of years of child-bearing capability, Adam and Eve likely had 50+ children in their lifetime.

If you look at the maximun you take the total age and subract 20 years (childhood) that is how many children could have been born based on 1/yr. Over 900 years that number might even be higher if she got pregnant a month after giving birth. For Adam he became a father at 130 yrs and died 800 yrs later. 800 is how many children he could have had. Assuning a 50/50 boy/girl birth ratio andd each child could have 100 children, that seems to be quite a few people in just that 800 years, do that for all the others mention in the generation upto Noah and the highest number is very large. It would be a guess on how many met an early death.

 

[darkbeaver]

The 12 tribes took care (killed every last one even down to their pets) after the 40 years in the wilderness. 6 fingers was one sign of being a giant. The custom of the "How sign" of Native Americians was not to show the hand was empty it was so the fingers could be counted. That tradition could have been a result of pre-flood 'people'.

Very interesting. I'v suspected six finger involvment here for quite awhile, especially from the coughcough scientificos, they're a bit too intelligent, they spell flawlessly and they have perfect teeth. I'm dead certain the burlap bag test proceedure would reveal thier dastardly intent and thier forigne origins.

 

[karrie]

So if you take the ''wives'' at face value, the literal believers must then admit Adam and Eve are not the ultimate 'parents' of humanity. If they are they must by necessity admit that the ''wives'' in question are unmentioned daughters of Adam and Eve, or as Cliffy suggested rather cynically, Eve herself...

I guess if you believe that God plopped Adam and Eve down in the Garden of Eden, then why would it be a stretch to assume that He also materialized women once they were cast out of the Garden, to carry their genetics forward? Adam and Eve's genetic contribution would be the only constant in a scenario where their sons are the fathers of all future generations. The genetic contribution of all others would be variable.

 

[s_lone]

I guess if you believe that God plopped Adam and Eve down in the Garden of Eden, then why would it be a stretch to assume that He also materialized women once they were cast out of the Garden, to carry their genetics forward? Adam and Eve's genetic contribution would be the only constant in a scenario where their sons are the fathers of all future generations. The genetic contribution of all others would be variable.

You're right... If God created Adam and Eve, he can very well make a few women appear out of thin air too... Not that much of a stretch once you decide the story is real...

That makes Adam and Eve's sons some pretty lucky fellows!!! (except for Abel who was killed by his Cain of course... that was pretty uncalled for...)

 

[MHz]

You're right... If God created Adam and Eve, he can very well make a few women appear out of thin air too... Not that much of a stretch once you decide the story is real...

Why not try to stick to what is written. It seems to be one rib is required for each 'new woman', they don't just 'pop up from nothing. As the list of people gets longer it might be assumed that marriages also came from two people as far apart genetically as possible. IE by the 3rd and 4th generations brother and sisters were not getting married to each other. Didn't Lot's daughters try to have his baby because they thought they were the only ones left in the world.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

As Creator Of The Thread, I declare this thread in need of scientific illumination!

Okay, try thinking of it this way.

Consider your own genealogy. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents... The number of your direct ancestors doubles every generation back. If you go back far enough, about 34-35 generations, the number of people on the top line of your family tree will exceed the total number of people who've ever lived, so we're all at least 34th or 35th cousins. In more detail though, what happens is that at some point the same people start showing up on both the maternal and paternal line of descent leading to you, so there's a lot of double and triple and quadruple etc. counting in the family tree. The actual kinship level we all have with each other is a good deal closer than 34th or 35th cousins. And if you could trace everybody's family tree back into the mists of time like that, you will inevitably find that there must be one person from whom everybody currently alive is descended, because the human population shrinks with every step back.

However, considered in evolutionary terms there was no first human, no sharp line exists. We share a common ancestor with chimps, and at some point a few million years ago the breeding population of that ancestor separated into two populations that over the generations gradually diverged enough genetically that they could no longer interbreed. That's the species boundary, but it's really just a human convention, there was no point at which some ancestor produced an offspring that was infertile with the rest of the population, or the line would have ended right there.

And just to tie up any possible loose ends, evolution is true, the story of Adam and Eve is not.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

How many children did Adam and Eve have? The Bible does not give us a specific number. Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4).

You're right, I stand corrected, my memory fooled me again and recalled only the three that are named.

 

[MHz]

Say a brother and sister got stranded and began to have kids, many kids, the whole population expanded at maximum rate. In increments of 5 generations what would be the mutations. I can see physical features being a lot closer than you find anywhere today. Is IQ affected? (some might be quite normal while others expire for one reason or another other than intentional genocide. How many generations before the term distant relative can be used?
How does that compare to having 4 totally different couples (husbands can be brothers, wives would be from diverse groups as found in the whole world today). The 2nd group has more diversity to begin with, that should mean relatives are 'distant' right from the start.

Even with our great diversity today an extinction event makes it possible that a brother and sister might be put into Adam and Eve's position, given all the life-giving nutrients in abundance could they rebuild society, if not how big a group is needed to eliminated mutation due to relative status. Being made from a rib would make them relatives, a twin no less.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Two people is too small a gene pool to produce a viable population unless both individuals have extraordinarily clean genotypes. According to this guy, the minimum necessary to provide adequate genetic variation is about 160, 80 men and 80 women. He does concede it's a pretty difficult number to estimate, and cites a study that suggests the aboriginal population of the Americas might all be descended from a band of a mere 70 people. He also answers your questions about the kinds of things that can go wrong with too small a gene pool, except the one about how many generations it'd take before you could legitimately call someone a "distant relative." You'd have to specify "distant" more precisely I think, but in most jurisdictions you can't marry siblings or first cousins. Starting with one couple, all the first generation would be siblings, the second generation would all be either siblings or first cousins, but by the third generation you'd start getting people distant enough that contemporary laws would allow marriage.

 

[JLM]

Regardless of what the original family tree looked like, I'd hazard a guess that, that Cain was a little bugger, but there was a good reason for that, not having wood sheds in those days.

 

[Tonington]

Starting from just a pool of two, incest is of course inevitable. It begins from the start. It doesn't matter how many offspring they have, the first offspring produced by full siblings is increasing the prepotency (performance of offspring not differing much from parents). Inbreeding is just increasing the homozygous gene frequencies, and thus the chances for unwanted traits. The next generation is depressed, because the parents can't produce as many genotypes in their limited choice of gametes.

It's not the inbreeding that creates the problems, as Dexter alluded to it depends on what was in the population, and thus the parents genotype to begin with.

There are formulas to determine coefficients for inbreeding. There is a line of cows that they breed in Colorado, called Prospector. One of the champions in that line, has an inbreeding coefficent of 0.46, 1 being completely inbred, and 0 being completly unrelated. This is actually very high. Two siblings start out with a coefficient of 0.5. It's higher still if the original sire or dam is mated back to progeny.

 

[Goober]

Okay... I haven't had enough coffee today, and don't have the sharp mind Dexter does even at the best of times, to recall the names of the theories and shows that I've seen. But, I did search and dig up a link (not the most reliable I know) to what I was talking about....

Mitochondrial Eve

A common ancestor for all of humanity. So, yes.... we were very possibly begat of incest, even without a hazy Bible story.

I posted this on another forum – But could be where the story of Adam and Eve originated – Will I get a prize if I am right?

Mother of Mankind – Hello Eve

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/417974
WASHINGTON – The human race may have had a brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, two new genetic studies suggests.
The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis published Thursday in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
The report notes that a separate study by researchers at Stanford University estimates that the number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the early Stone Age.
"This study illustrates the extraordinary power of genetics to reveal insights into some of the key events in our species' history," said Spencer Wells, National Geographic Society explorer in residence. "Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions, coming back from the brink to reunite and populate the world," Wells said in a statement. "Truly an epic drama, written in our DNA."
Wells is director of the Genographic Project published Thursday. It was launched in 2005 to study anthropology using genetics.
Previous studies using mitochondrial DNA – which is passed down through mothers – have traced modern humans to a single ``mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/417974


Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans. The MRCA's offspring have led to all living humans via sons and daughters, but Mitochondrial Eve must be traced only through female lineages, so she is estimated to have lived much longer ago than the MRCA. While Mitochondrial Eve is thought to have been living around 140,000 years ago, according to probabilistic studies,[2] the MRCA could have been living as recently as 3,000 years ago.[3]
Allan Wilson's naming Mitochondrial Eve[4] after Eve of the Genesis creation story has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time — she was not. Had she been the only living female of her time, humanity would most likely have become extinct due to an extreme population bottleneck.
Indeed, not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have descendants alive today. They may have left descendants via either son or daughters (and grandsons or granddaughters, and so on). Nuclear genes from these contemporary women of Mitochondrial Eve are present in today's population, but mitochondrial DNA from them is not.[1]
What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her contemporaries have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve.