It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

About Adam & Eve

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Though Adam and Eve were not the first people on Earth, at one point in time there were only two humans. Twins (male and female) born from the pre-human primates, suddenly. These twins quickly realized that they were something more than their family and left the group. They mated and thus began the human race. This aboriginal human stock kept multiplying and it took hundreds of thousands of years before the colored races suddenly appeared.




posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: UB2120
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Though Adam and Eve were not the first people on Earth, at one point in time there were only two humans. Twins (male and female) born from the pre-human primates, suddenly. These twins quickly realized that they were something more than their family and left the group. They mated and thus began the human race. This aboriginal human stock kept multiplying and it took hundreds of thousands of years before the colored races suddenly appeared.


Minimum viable population


There is a marked trend for insularity, surviving genetic bottlenecks and r-strategy to allow far lower MVPs than average. Conversely, taxa easily affected by inbreeding depression – having high MVPs – are often decidedly K-strategists, with low population densities while occurring over a wide range. An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored.[3][4] When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.[5]


A Magic Number?


A group of Australian researchers say they have nailed the best figure achievable with the available data: 5,000 adults. That’s right, that many, for mammals, amphibians, insects, plants and the rest.

Their goal wasn’t a target for temporary survival. Instead they set the bar much higher, aiming for a census that would allow a species to pursue a standard evolutionary lifespan, which can vary from one to 10 million years.


If there were ever a point in our history where there was just 1 male and 1 female, we'd be extinct within a few generations. Especially so if that male and female were related, and your narrative of making them twins pretty much signed their death warrant.
edit on 23-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why would the first ever humans be extinct in a few generations if they were twins that mated? These two humans were the first, there was no one else to mate with. Obviously they did not go extinct within a few generations. These were the pure aboriginal humans, mating brother to sister would not cause defects.

What do you purpose? That one day on Earth there were no humans and the next there were 5000?



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

Because two twins that mated is direct inbreeding. Their children would have to further inbreed to reproduce. Besides this opening your kin up to all sorts of nasty genetic ailments, it reduces genetic drift down to 0. The entire population would be susceptible to the first disease that came along. You know there is a reason no pandemic has ever wiped humans off the planet. Genetic drift ensures that some segment of the population remains immune to the disease. Genetic drift is ensured by reducing inbreeding to a low point to maximize different DNA combinations.


What do you purpose? That one day on Earth there were no humans and the next there were 5000?


No... Such ideas are ridiculous. First, species don't just appear one day on the planet. They slowly change over time until they most closely resemble the shape that we know them of. Eventually genetic drift makes it so the offspring wouldn't be able to mate with its ancestors from many generations prior.

What likely happened is that a segment of great apes utilized certain traits that it evolved to allow it to develop its thinking. As the thinking evolved, they slowly started to behave like humans. Clearly this population would be many thousands of apes strong to ensure genetic drift. The population would remain able to breed within the population, but not with its ancestors. This wouldn't matter though because its ancestors would be dead anyways.

Human evolution
edit on 23-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We are talking about the aboriginal humans. Pure line if you will. All future genetic potential would have been present but not yet expressed. At this early date in human development any abnormals would most likely be killed as infants. Thus ending that defective genetic line. Also child birth was not as traumatic as it is for moderns, so the numbers would grow quick as would diversity.


If interested check out this account of the dawn of the races of early man: (www.urantia.org...)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

Also child birth was not as traumatic as it is for moderns

What are you basing that on? The 'moderns' have options like an epidural and C-Section.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

You are just making up science. Nothing about the first humans suggested that the race could survive an extreme bottleneck where only a pair of twins are left alive. Your link by the way is flawed science. We know for a fact that more than two humans evolved at the same time, and no they weren't related. You can't just pretend genetic drift doesn't happen just because you want it to fit your new age religion book (yes, I've heard of the Urantia book before).

I don't know why you'd think that child birth would be less traumatic back then when now we have modern science and medicine that helps ease child birth. You DO realize that back in times of old child birth could potentially kill the mother right? I don't know about you, but that is pretty damn traumatic in my book.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: gottaknow

I'm an atheist, so I see the entire story as a fable at best, but mostly engineered to establish male dominance in the Christian faith rather than how Pagan beliefs held the female in higher regard.



Great points re Adam and Eve, you have a good understanding of what you read into that part of Genesis at least
Though
I am remiss how you could then go on to suggest there is a male dominance in the Christian faith.
How do you arrive at that? Jesus taught equality and love for all, even slaves were to be treated well by there masters according to the Gospel


Sorry. I missed this earlier.
But honestly, um, no?
The Bible is well known to have a large lean on male dominance. Especially the OT of course. In your Corinthians and Ephesians there are good examples. There's a lot of information on this out there. Jesus(if he actually existed), wasn't followed by Peter, John, James and Tequisha. (although, I'd love to see a skit on that)
When Christianity was being enforced, they had to eliminate the higher standing of the female that the pagan religions upheld, to ensure male dominance in the society. There's been a lot of study on this as well, but I see no point in adding links in this particular post.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Well that is interesting. Does scripture then explain the origins for the people in the land of Nod? If not that's a little odd considering the intent of Genesis.


It doesn't say a word about it. At least not in the bible. Extra biblical sources have their various speculations (along the reasoning of Adam having a wife before Eve by the name of Lilith, etc), but the bible we read today is completely silent on how there could have already been people in Nod at the time, but it specifically indicates there were.

This is part of the problem with taking a strictly literal approach to Genesis (just one of many, really). Most of the earliest parts of Genesis are from much older stories which have their origins in Mesopotamia, as I'm sure you know. Genesis even states that Abraham came from Mesopotamia, yet rather than viewing these correlations as positive, Biblical literalists tend to ignore them or discard these connections altogether, simply because they don't fit the version of events they've been brought up to believe in. Sadly dogmatic when there are other ways to look at the issue of biblical creation in Genesis.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am a student of the Urantia Book and it is mentioned that childbirth became more difficult when once the various races, when once they emerged, began to mix. There is scientific evidence to support that. Below is one link. It is also seen with other animals. When mixed birth is more stressful than when not mixed.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I sent the same reply to Krazysh0t, but wanted to reply to you as well.

I am a student of the Urantia Book and it is mentioned that childbirth became more difficult once the various races, when once they emerged, began to mix. There is scientific evidence to support that. Below is one link. It is also seen with other animals. When mixed birth is more stressful than when not mixed.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

That doesn't say what you think it is saying. Nor does it prove that genetic drift would be prevented in the first two humans being twins and trying to mate to create the human race.

Though I think it is funny that you can try to use a scientific paper to prove your point, but when I post science it isn't valid enough.


ETA: Since you gave me a study, instead of giving you educational material on MVP, I counter with a scientific study further confirming MVP.
Minimum viable population size: A meta-analysis of 30 years of published estimates


We present the first meta-analysis of a key measure in conservation biology: minimum viable population (MVP) size. Our analysis is based on studies published since the early 1970s, and covers 141 sources and 212 species (after filtering 529 sources and 2202 species). By implementing a unique standardization procedure to make reported MVPs comparable, we were able to derive a cross-species frequency distribution of MVP with a median of 4169 individuals (95% CI = 3577–5129). This standardized database provides a reference set of MVPs from which conservation practitioners can generalize the range expected for particular species (or surrogate taxa) of concern when demographic information is lacking. We provide a synthesis of MVP-related research over the past 30 years, and test for ‘rules of thumb’ relating MVP to extinction vulnerability using well-known threat correlates such as body mass and range decline. We find little support for any plausible ecological and life history predictors of MVP, even though correlates explain >50% of the variation in IUCN threat status. We conclude that a species’ or population’s MVP is context-specific, and there are no simple short-cuts to its derivation. However, our findings are consistent with biological theory and MVPs derived from abundance time series in that the MVP for most species will exceed a few thousand individuals.

edit on 25-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In the end it is just a guess from a scientific or religious stand point. I am more inclined to believe the religious side, more specifically the Urantia Book's account. It is a plausible explanation to me. Here are a few quotes:

"These migrating tribes finally reached the salubrious region lying between the then expanded Mediterranean Sea and the elevating mountainous regions of the Indian peninsula. In these lands to the west of India they united with other and favorable strains, thus establishing the ancestry of the human race.

With the passing of time the seacoast of India southwest of the mountains gradually submerged, completely isolating the life of this region. There was no avenue of approach to, or escape from, this Mesopotamian or Persian peninsula except to the north, and that was repeatedly cut off by the southern invasions of the glaciers. And it was in this then almost paradisiacal area, and from the superior descendants of this lemur type of mammal, that there sprang two great groups, the simian tribes of modern times and the present-day human species."

"The large beasts native to these regions were not carnivorous, and the larger species of the cat family, lions and tigers, had not yet invaded this peculiarly sheltered nook of the earth’s surface."

"While we were all greatly concerned with what these two little savages were planning, we were powerless to control the working of their minds; we did not — could not — arbitrarily influence their decisions. But within the permissible limits of planetary function, we, the Life Carriers, together with our associates, all conspired to lead the human twins northward and far from their hairy and partially tree-dwelling people. And so, by reason of their own intelligent choice, the twins did migrate, and because of our supervision they migrated northward to a secluded region where they escaped the possibility of biologic degradation through admixture with their inferior relatives of the Primates tribes."

You appear to be more inclined to the mindset of an accidental/chance appearance of man. I guess you have a similar idea for the origin of all species that at no time could there ever have been just a few.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


I'm not sure I agree with you. The way I see it, we are all "spiritual" or "celestial" beings, an emanation of "source", or God, if you like, temporarily residing in physical bodies, coexisting like in a relationship that can be compared to "marriage". We humans, and in my mind all living things, are aleady operating on at least two levels of existence, the spiritual, or celestial universe, AND the physical universe.

Good evening windword,
Always glad to hear from you. You always give much to contemplate.

I see some of your perspectives and I agree with much of what you always bring to the table. Yes we are all spiritual entities but we are not celestial entities till we are judged and allowed in to the celestial realm. There are both spiritual and celestial existences but then that all depends upon how we believe our theology. My understanding is that the spirit which has not been justified resides in Sheol while the spirit that has been justified resides in the celestial ream. Both are spirits but the spirit in Sheol does not have a celestial body to house the spirit. Some call this the naked spirit.

The spirit that is not justified is always in the terrestrial realm which is this universe. Some are in the confinement of Sheol and some are upon the face of the earth but nevertheless all spirits that are not justified are in the realm of the terrestrial universe. So by that I understand that till the spirit becomes celestial it is restricted to the sciences of the terrestrial. I believe the terrestrial flesh is subjected to the terrestrial spirit and both are bound to the terrestrial universe till death of the flesh. According to that hypothesis the spirit is bound to the terrestrial elements till it is judged and released from whatever the restrictions are.

Two terrestrial animate objects cannot occupy the same space in time. Either one or the other must be removed or substance changed to prevent colliding. Now I don't know if the same science pertains to celestial substances simply because i don't know of any way to show this. Anyway all of this hinges upon the understanding of our theologies as i see it.

I need to rest my brain. I think I am scaring myself into another nightmare. Sleep well windword.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: UB2120
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In the end it is just a guess from a scientific or religious stand point. I am more inclined to believe the religious side, more specifically the Urantia Book's account. It is a plausible explanation to me. Here are a few quotes:


Plausible sounding doesn't mean you are allowed to just discard scientific evidence saying you are wrong. I don't really care about your quotes. I just care about objective evidence and the picture it paints as to how reality works. That is all that matters.


You appear to be more inclined to the mindset of an accidental/chance appearance of man. I guess you have a similar idea for the origin of all species that at no time could there ever have been just a few.


I'm inclined to believe what the evidence dictates. It's not a belief system. It is just following the evidence.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How do you know for a fact that there were more than two humans that started the human race? How do you know for a fact that new species don't suddenly appear? You don't know. You even say as much by saying "What likely happened...". Evolution moves forward. There is no way a true human would mate with a primate cousin.
edit on 27-3-2015 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: UB2120
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How do you know for a fact that there were more than two humans that started the human race? How do you know for a fact that new species don't suddenly appear? You don't know. You even say as much by saying "What likely happened...". Evolution moves forward.


Because we have evidence of all of these things.


There is no way a true human would mate with a primate cousin.


You think so?
Neanderthals and Humans First Mated 50,000 Years Ago, DNA Reveals



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Neanderthals are human. They just developed from the less progressive human aborigines. Yes, they did mate with what you could call normal humans and were greatly benefited there from.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

What do you think the term "primate cousin" means and entails exactly?



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It means pre-human and that is determined more by mind quality levels than physical attributes. More specifically the ability to have worship and wisdom.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join