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.

 

Question on Adam Eve and how things came to be?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
If we all came from Adam and Eve in the Middle East, and were not able to cross the oceans until 1400 A.D., how were there thousands of native people already here in North and South America?

There is no possible way enough people could have crossed through Russia, and there was no seagoing vessel capable of getting across the oceans.

Even if they could have came from Russia, it doesn't explain how Islands such as Hawaii and the Falklands could have had any people on it?

Anyone?




posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 03:41 AM
link   
i think even more absurd, how do we have such genetic diversity and different human races if we all descended from 2 individuals and evolution doesn't exist?



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Guys, come on..


"It just does."


Duh.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by cheeser
 


Genetic diversity?!
Every human is over 99% genetically similar to every other human. It is that less than one percent that lets us be able to differentiate between each other.

Not quite sure I understand the OP's question, either. It is common knowledge that the human race originated from Africa, and that from there, it spread all around the world. Why would you think that naval transport didn't exist before 1400 AD? Or that humans couldn't travel by land to all these places?



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scramjet76
Even if they could have came from Russia, it doesn't explain how Islands such as Hawaii and the Falklands could have had any people on it?


Bering Straits. Look it up.

Also, look up Polynesian reed boats. Don't underestimate the Polynesians. True pirates of the high seas; equipped with just a raft they can be as scary as the Vikings. Around these here parts, they're known as orang laut. Basically that means 'sea people'. Go figure.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by cheeser
 


Genetic diversity?!
Every human is over 99% genetically similar to every other human. It is that less than one percent that lets us be able to differentiate between each other.




its estimated that the human genome consist of roughly 3,000,000,000 dna base pairs. "over 99%" would still be a large number i assume.
but thats besides the point. there is genetic difference, as seen most obviously in different human races, this can't be explained rationally with the adam and eve story and absence of evolution.

please address that.



this is your



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by cheeser
 


So what are you saying? Africans and Asians are two distinct species?



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


I was probably a bit off with 1400 AD..

Here is a timeline for water transportation. It says regular shipping begins between northern and southern Europe using the Atlantic Ocean in 1325.

Of course there are reports of Vikings/Pirates raiding and colonizing parts of Europe in the 8th - 11th century. But that entails sailing the North and Baltic seas. That's impressive but hardly on par with crossing the Atlantic or Pacific. They say Leif Erikson was most likely the first European to discover America in approx 1000 A.D.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by cheeser
 


Sorry, I suppose 99% is a bit high, but that is what I read a while back. I cannot find anything to corroborate that, but here is something that may interest you.

The colour of your skin, your hair, your eyes, these are relatively very minor differences (even genetically), as I'm sure any sane person in this century will tell you.
There is very little genetic diversity within humans. Going back less than 50 generations, you and I would very likely find a common ancestor. In fact, it is possible that the most recent common ancestor of all of humanity lived in the 3rd millennium BC! And while I'm not trying to prove some 'Adam and Eve' theory, ALL humans alive today are descended from the Mitochondrial Eve

Apologies if I was a bit snappy before, but I just wish people would leave out the faulty science in these discussions. It damages your arguments as well as the public conception of those theories!

Scramjet76, my point was that prehistoric humans all originated in Africa. Whether you attach religious connotations to this or not, it is irrelevant. Somehow, they spread all over the world. Maybe it was by boats. Maybe the landmass was connected (I think this is the popular theory of how the Native Americans got there from Asia).

[edit on 6-11-2007 by babloyi]



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


That may very well be true the origin of the human species was from Africa. Maybe because it was a perfect 'stew pot' environment with many different dangers and effects that caused humans to evolve how they did from apes. Yes, the biblical concept of Adam and Eve are wrong.

If you dispute that fact, then you cannot say that God created Earth and is a loving God. Those are reversed by the positive existence of Dinosaurs. So now you either believe god doesn’t' exist (truth), or that God killed all of the dinosaurs, the first dominant species, with his famous fire and brimstone meteor, thereby stealing the planet for his own greedy means and made us. Please. I've read much better stories then that.

Second, it is very possible that mitochondria were once actually a symbiotic 'parasite' themselves, and simply fused themselves with our DNA, reproducing in our cells and through our reproduction method. They contain their own DNA (RNA) that is consistent with other bacteria. Basically we adapted bacteria into our own cells and genes.
(Source)

However, to say that all life can be traced back to one mother or two individual’s parents is misguided. Just ONE human wouldn't have evolved when it happened, quite a couple would have. They then evolved and adapted to their environment (losing 92% of body hair, black skin, melanin that protects from the hot suns of Africa and black hair, as black blocks out heat) while the others moved and spread out to cooler regions, retaining their color. Simple. Adam and Eve are impossible if you think rationally.

I need to take a nap now.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 




Whether you attach religious connotations to this or not, it is irrelevant.


Ok this is true. I just meant in terms of adam and eve in around 6000 BC.
If adam and eve came around millions of years ago then I suppose that gives them more time to run around the planet or land masses to move.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Epic Wolf
However, to say that all life can be traced back to one mother or two individual’s parents is misguided. Just ONE human wouldn't have evolved when it happened, quite a couple would have. They then evolved and adapted to their environment (losing 92% of body hair, black skin, melanin that protects from the hot suns of Africa and black hair, as black blocks out heat) while the others moved and spread out to cooler regions, retaining their color. Simple. Adam and Eve are impossible if you think rationally.

But that is the point. All human life CAN be traced back to one 'mother'. I didn't claim that this mother would have been the only human around at that time. The others died out, have strains present in some humans today, whatever. My point was that there are numerous 'nodes' (Common ancestors) in the human family tree where all of us (today) join together. We are all, on a fundamental level, related. Calling someone 'brother' or 'sister' isn't patronising, it is the truth
.

Also, while it is not really relevant to the discussion, I find the idea that many humans evolved simultaneously (in the exact same way) somewhat difficult to believe. The chance that a random mutation occurs in favour of natural selection is remote enough, but then to multiply that chance by thousands, and have it be the exact same condition? While I do not necessarily disagree with the concept of natural selection, I believe your model is overly simplistic and not very plausible.
Side note: I find it very interesting that you believe that the fairer coloured skin was the 'original', with the black skin coming later. BTW, black (the colour) absorbs heat, it doesn't block it.


Originally posted by Epic Wolf
If you dispute that fact, then you cannot say that God created Earth and is a loving God. Those are reversed by the positive existence of Dinosaurs. So now you either believe god doesn’t' exist (truth), or that God killed all of the dinosaurs, the first dominant species, with his famous fire and brimstone meteor, thereby stealing the planet for his own greedy means and made us. Please. I've read much better stories then that.

I wasn't really approaching this discussion from a religious point of view, but I see this comment very often, and find it very weird. The idea of God being loving or not is irrelevant to death. If God 'killed all the dinosaurs', that wouldn't make God evil. Millions of people worship God, and many people die every day.
By your definition, God would be the ultimate killer, as being the ultimate 'cause' of death for EVERY SINGLE LIVING CREATURE in existence, who was in existence, and who will be in existence. This is absurd. Everything must die, otherwise the earth would be uninhabitable. It is all a cycle.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by babloyi]



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Try to stay with me here. If you have an ape, what color would it's skin be under it? If you shave ANY hairy animal, what color would it be? Pinkish-white? White? Exactly.

While you are right to say black does absorb heat, but it blocks out UV rays, which are much more dangerous to the body. Melanin is also for that end.


Melanocytes insert granules of melanin into specialized cellular vesicles called melanosomes. These are then transferred into the other skin cells of the human epidermis. The melanosomes in each recipient cell accumulate atop the cell nucleus, where they protect the nuclear DNA from mutations caused by the ionizing radiation of the sun's ultraviolet rays. People whose ancestors lived for long periods in the regions of the globe near the equator generally have larger quantities of melanin in their skins. This makes their skins brown or black and protects them against high levels of exposure to the sun, which more frequently results in melanomas in lighter skinned people.

(Source)
As you can see, it is a natural selection-mutation ADAPTATION for survival in the harsh climates African descendants stayed in. If just one Homo erectus ergaster, or whatever it was during the time it happened, was created, it couldn't very well mate by itself, could it? My model is plausible, if you look at the fact that they would live in groups in the same conditions for the adaptation to occur.

First, I said 'you' in the general point of way. As in anyone who believes in the bibles version of the origin. Second, It is relevant to death, if you look at how if you don't do what god says, he'll throw down fire, plaques, or other death at you. Or send you to hell for eternal torment. And if god did kill all the dinosaurs that were there first, that WOULD make him evil. Or are you saying genocide is okay as long as it's not you or your race?
Now, saying that god exists, that WOULD make him the ultimate killer of all eternity. Millions died in wars and other tragedies for 'him'. And still do die for 'him'. What about the religious saying that you go when it's your time and god wills you to die? Is that any different than god setting a "death-clock" for every person to die at? Sounds like a killer to me.


Edit: By the way, how could you approach a religious discussion topic without coming here thinking about religion?


[edit on 11/7/2007 by Epic Wolf]



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Epic Wolf
 


I don't know. I've never shaved an ape before
. Although my dog seems to be blueish underneath the hair.
The black (as a colour) doesn't block out UV rays, the Melanin does that. Otherwise people would just paint everything black, and we'd have no skin cancer problems.

Also, about the evolution: The mutations occur at random, so it wouldn't matter if the conditions are the same. The exact same mutation would have to occur in more than 1 person (and preferrably in many, many people), within the time-frame for them to be able to reproduce. Once again, this is not really relevant, because you are approaching it from a weird perspective. A change in colour of skin doesn't prevent one human from mating with another. Most of these changes wouldn't change the person to such a great effect that they wouldn't be able to reproduce with another person who hadn't been affected.

I'm still somewhat amazed at your logic for the evilness of God. It doesn't matter whether they die of him, or they die for someone else. By your logic, all living things die, and therefore God is evil.

PS: I didn't approach the religious discussion part of the topic (until you brought it up). I was specifically talking about certain arguments that were being used that were unscientific.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Black is the absence of light. Objects are black when hit with white light and none of it shows, hence, it is blocked out, or absorbed, like you said. Blocked out, as in the UV rays. Which again, like I said, is what melanin is for. Even black people can have skin cancer. It doesn't make you immune. If you were to paint everything/one black, it would absorb all of the heat energy and REALLY help global warming, heat stroke, and cancer itself.

Mutations occur at random, and for adaptation. Mutations occur because the body sees a need to change and adapt itself to survive. Look at bacteria. They do the exact same thing. Look at MRSA; it's adapted to survive against most of the antibiotics that once killed it. Look at our anti-bodies; they adapt to kill specific types of bacteria they encountered before. It's all similar. And this adaptation doesn't happen over a thousand years, or even 100,000 years. It takes millions. And yeah, because of the slow process, each slowly changing generation would be able to mate with the previous, thus combining traits and furthering the mutation.

About god being an evil being, I’m amazed you're so amazed at my explanation. You missed my point. If you believe in god, you believe you die because he WILLS you to die. If he was so good and caring, he wouldn't have cursed Adam and Eve for eating an apple, curing their trillions of descendants to die painful disease-filled deaths. If he was night, maybe he would make us live forever, huh? The cycle you spoke of isn't Supreme Being made, it's just nature. Your perspectives are the weird ones. It’s all just misinformed conjecture.

Another example, since I’m on a roll; Egypt’s plaques. He loves all of his creations, huh? Well, just the Jews. Kill all off all of the innocent Egyptians and their first borns, their food, and animals too to save the Jews? Nah, he loves just the Muslims. Nah, just the Christians. Nah, must be the Catholics. All of religion is fundamentally the same, yet they differ on such trivial things and call the other the false religion, and theirs is the only way. You'd think after all this, god'd show himself and show the truth, huh?

[Note: I realize you might not be religious yourself, so I’m not debating you on the religious part as I am debating the entire religious community. Where's MajorMalfunction when you need her?
]



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by cheeser
 


Genetic diversity?!
Every human is over 99% genetically similar to every other human. It is that less than one percent that lets us be able to differentiate between each other.

Not quite sure I understand the OP's question, either. It is common knowledge that the human race originated from Africa, and that from there, it spread all around the world. Why would you think that naval transport didn't exist before 1400 AD? Or that humans couldn't travel by land to all these places?


1% difference may not sound a lot but it is. For example chimps are 99.4% the same as humans, yes that's right a chimp is only 0.6% genetically different to a human.

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Epic Wolf
 


If we painted everything black, it would make us all hot and stuffy, and would definitely not help heat stroke or cancer (unless the paint was thick enough to actually block out the sun rays, and that could be done with any paint).

Bacteria doesn't adapt itself to change. It changes due to natural selection of random mutations. It is not a directed evolution. And for the specific example of bacteria, it certainly doesn't take millions of years. Antibiotics that were discovered and used a few decades ago are now becoming useless.

I don't know about the curse of Adam and Eve, it doesn't matter to me, because I'm not Christian.

About death again. Personally, I don't consider death to be 'evil', or a 'great calamity'. It is the conclusion of life. It has to happen. It'd be unnatural to attempt to dodge it. If everyone lived forever, we'd have a pretty crowded Earth, with eternal war and conflict. This is why I wouldn't consider death to be a reason to call God evil.

Phil123, I realise that chimps are very much like us, but what I was talking about was the variation between genes in the same 46 chromosomes that humans have.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Phil123
 


Studies of our genetic similarities seem to vary alot. At the bottom of the link you provided, it says:


Whereas Dr Wildman's team find that chimps and humans are 99.4% similar, other researchers last year put the similarity at around 95%; the figure you get depends on precisely which genetic differences you look at.


I once read in a book that we are 99% similar to ourselves. 99.5% similar to our parents/siblings. And 98.2% similar to chimps. One thing is for sure it doens't take much difference in genetic codes to create diversity.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 




It'd be unnatural to attempt to dodge it.


Why would it be unnatural to dodge it? If we are natural, and we attain a means of doing it, wouldn't it be natural?



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Scramjet76
 


Naturally attain immortality? I don't think that is possible. And for the reasons I mentioned earlier (overpopulation, wars, etc), I don't think it is wise.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join