Proof That Quranic/Biblical Adam Did Not Exist

[Thief]

In the scheme of regression.....Someone had to be first.....to walk with God.
That man's name would be Adam.

If you say it did not happen....then to whom does that distinction belong?
If no one ever has then ALL of faith is a lie.....
and that becomes a different op and a much larger discussion.

I say it happened.
and that story of manipulation has too much detail to be made up by some wayward shepherd.

 

[The Enlightened One]

I think it was Steve, we will randomly pick one of these apes from their large groups and now name him Steve. I like Steve.

 

[Thief]

I think it was Steve, we will randomly pick one of these apes from their large groups and now name him Steve. I like Steve.

You can call that first man any name you care to.....
Adam works for me.
If the name Steve works for you.....

 

[The Enlightened One]

The point here is that the biblical account of creation doesn't hold water.

 

[Thief]

Well any reference outside of the bible would have nay sayers......

I think it is altogether reasonable to say....Someone had to be first to know the presence of God.
I have no reason then to say his name is other than Adam.

If you prefer another personification.....fine.

but always......someone had to be first.

 

[jonathan180iq]

so the first man may have had sex with a monkey. i think it is easier to believe that a male and female were created together

No. We are still apes, even though we are human. Just like Chimpanzees are still apes, even though they are Chimpanzees.
They're two different classifications under the same umbrella.

still does not make sense. if the 10,000 were a different species then they were not humans. the idea was that there was never a time when there were less than 10,000 HUMANS

There have been multiple species of very human apes which patrolled this Earth long before we modern humans came on the scene. The 10,000 idea simply means that a breeding population which could mate with another breeding population never dipped below 10,000.

wow. so now 10,000 apes suddenly become humans. this gets harder and harder to believe

Humans are apes. Some apes are human. You have to understand context.

well if it wasn't suddenly then there must have been a time when there were less than 10,000. you can't have it both ways

The evolving population that would become modern humans would still have a large breeding population from which to come. Just like you dog came from it's parents, whose parents came from a larger population of similar dogs, who can trace their ancestry back to the wolf... This isn't complicated.

the original post said there could not have been a time when there were less than 10,000 HUMANS. then someone said it could have been 10,000 apes but apes are not humans. so how is it not paying attention to ask how the apes became human if there were never less than 10,000 HUMANS as stated in the original post

You are the only one who implied that these strict rules had to be followed, based on your understanding of populations. One population became another population, became another population, became another population and so on. At some point during that progression, we modern humans started developing out of a previous population. Then, sometime later, our population became so distant from the previous parent population that we were considered a different species. We are still apes, just like our parent population. But we are no longer the same apes that our parent population was.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

if one population became another population and then another population there still had to have been a time when an outside observer would have said "there is a human". all the others were still apes. so to say there were never less than 10,000 HUMANS still does not make sense because the changing populations were not humans. when that first human appeared there was only one not 10,000

 

[jonathan180iq]

if one population became another population and then another population there still had to have been a time when an outside observer would have said "there is a human". all the others were still apes. so to say there were never less than 10,000 HUMANS still does not make sense because the changing populations were not humans. when that first human appeared there was only one not 10,000

I'll just assume your version of these words to better explain it.

As populations very gradually adapt and change into other populations over time, there isn't one specific birth that delineates the dividing line between the two populations. One group of advanced primates doesn't sudden;y give birth to a new group who will go off and become a new species within 3 weeks. That's not how biology works. Just like two North Europeans aren't going to give birth to a child with Sub-Saharan African features, so one population won't spontaneously produce an entirely new population. It takes time and environmental pressure to make that change. It's no different than you having family spread all over the world that you have no idea that you're related to. You probably have cousins in the very town you live in that you've never met. You have grandparent's whose names you've never heard of. You no nothing of their life story. Nothing at all. Over long enough periods of time, the offspring of the people who are your cousins now will be so far removed from your bloodline that you will no longer consider them part of your family, right? See how this works? That exact same concept, spread over incredibly long periods of time results in not just very different physical features between you and the people who you were once related to, but it can produce entirely new species.

Understanding this, and knowing that all complex living organisms had to have parents of some kind, you can see how one population slowly changes into another population. 10,000 humans didn't just pop into existence out of nowhere. They came from very similar preceding populations, which came from very similar preceding populations and so on. No one is saying that one day a group of Capuchins gave birth to a group of Orangutans who one day gave birth to humans and there were 10,000 of them... That's not at all what's being said.

By this definition, 10,000 breeding members of a population who could or would go on to produce modern humans have, so far as anyone knows, always existed.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

well obviously there were once 10,000 dinosaurs so i guess they eventually became human. I go back again to the original post (please read it) it says there were never less then 10,000 humans. no mention of populations or breeding stock. just never less than 10,000 humans. if the original post was wrong then point that out

 

[jonathan180iq]

well obviously there were once 10,000 dinosaurs so i guess they eventually became human. I go back again to the original post (please read it) it says there were never less then 10,000 humans. no mention of populations or breeding stock. just never less than 10,000 humans. if the original post was wrong then point that out

Technically, yes... We don't share a link with the Dinosaur line directly but we do share a common ancestor with them, at some point down the chain.

Let me ask you this, if there was ever a population of 100,000 proto-humans, and they gave rise to a single generation that would, for all intents and purposes, be considered human, wouldn't that generation of humans be over 10,000? The original post is not wrong. There are some legitimate studies behind what Salvador is talking about. Similarly, there are some studies that validate Outhouse's claim that there have also been some bottlenecks in our history. We came very close to extinction a couple of time. You are a result of the fact that we didn't.

 

[The Enlightened One]

Well any reference outside of the bible would have nay sayers......

I think it is altogether reasonable to say....Someone had to be first to know the presence of God.
I have no reason then to say his name is other than Adam.

If you prefer another personification.....fine.

but always......someone had to be first.

Nah, there could have been many at first, the evidence supports it so I shall too. Nobody "had" to be first.

 

[The Enlightened One]

well obviously there were once 10,000 dinosaurs so i guess they eventually became human. I go back again to the original post (please read it) it says there were never less then 10,000 humans. no mention of populations or breeding stock. just never less than 10,000 humans. if the original post was wrong then point that out

This issue with semantics is a non-issue. To get hung up on it is just a derailment.

 

[paarsurrey]

wow. so now 10,000 apes suddenly become humans. this gets harder and harder to believe

You are wrong here.
The apes are still apes they can be seen, what humans looked like at that time (millions of years ago) that could be anybody's guess, but humans did also existed at that time in a different form from now. They could be 10000 in numbers or many more or numerous at that time.

Regards

 

[The Enlightened One]

You are wrong here.
The apes are still apes they can be seen, what humans looked like at that time (millions of years ago) that could be anybody's guess, but humans did also existed at that time in a different form from now. They could be 10000 in numbers or many more or numerous at that time.

Regards

It would seem that the issue now is the wording of the OP. The arguments against the OP are now heavily hinting that the OP has implied that humans are eternal in origin.

 

[paarsurrey]

Genome Research. 17 April 2007 Recent human effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium

Somebody please paraphrase it for common understanding, it it too technical.

Regards

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

at some point there were 100,000 proto-humans that eventually gave rise to humans. but the proto-humans were not humans. there had to have been a day when ONE proto-human gave birth to a true human. then there was only one true human. they perhaps went on to give birth to many more untill there were over 10,000 humans. there was still that day when there was only one. again it goes back to the wording of the original post. there had to have been a day when there were less than 10,000 humans even though there may have been many times that many prot-humans

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I was referring to a phenomenon in evolution when we humans were in a state of having not much intelligence, so they instead of being described as "he" or "she", they were more suitably to be described with "it". They could be many in number still evolving on journey to become human beings.

Regards

Namaste,

Sorry, but i don't understand what you mean? Can you be more specific and clear?

This is not making any sense.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

what does intelligence have to do with being he or she?

 

[The Enlightened One]

Somebody please paraphrase it for common understanding, it it too technical.

Regards

Agreed, way over my head. I'll try.

There was still that day when there was only one. again it goes back to the wording of the original post. there had to have been a day when there were less than 10,000 humans even though there may have been many times that many prot-humans

The point at which we decide the species became human is blurry, it's not a specific day. Still, more than one birth would have likely occured on any given day anyway.

 

[Thief]

Nah, there could have been many at first, the evidence supports it so I shall too. Nobody "had" to be first.

No really.....unless God made approach to many people all at once.....

Someone had to be first.

Evidence?....you know a work done by many?......all in agreement to what shall be written?