Adam, Eve, and incest

[thomas t]

Evidence?

... if you believe the Bible. That was what I meant.

You know, my conversation partner previously claimed that if there are divine changes in geneics after the creation... God made them in order to fake the evidence.
My arument: no. Since God had sincere reasons to do so such as creating the woman. That's a great reason to change something.
It wasn't for faking the evidence.
This was what I was commenting at. maybe I sould have made that clearer.

 

[Thief]

... if you believe the Bible. That was what I meant.

You know, my conversation partner previously claimed that if there are divine changes in geneics after the creation... God made them in order to fake the evidence.
My arument: no. Since God had sincere reasons to do so such as creating the woman. That's a great reason to change something.
It wasn't for faking the evidence.
This was what I was commenting at. maybe I sould have made that clearer.

so picture the event.....as someone trying to follow Moses.....as Moses spoke of it

you hear......Adam was laid to a deep sleep
and a rib was cut out of him

!!!!!!

and the man did not die.....!!!!!.......and he slept as it happened
and the people all around Moses are not in a position to make denial
all they can do is nod their heads

but WAIT!.....it could be true!
in THIS time of Man.....we know.....yes we do
the event could actually happen

so how did Moses know?

 

[Thief]

and yeah....increasing that bio sample to full stature ......could also happen
and forcing the sample to form as a female could also happen

and so Adam was given his twin sister for a bride

Eve had no navel......not born of woman

 

[1213]

The problem with incest has to do with the lack of genetic diversity. It has nothing to do with "corruption" of any kind.

Genetic information has been corrupted during all this time. There happen mistakes in the process of DNA copying and those mistakes accumulate, which means it is more corrupted nowadays than in the beginning. And that is the reason why nowadays incest would be more harmful.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

yeah, we've been over it.
So let me provide some new examples from scripture:

Genetic diversity sometimes stems from God altering genetics after he created something:
According to the Bible, when God had finished making Adam, He took a rib from his back and replaced it by flesh, before you claim "faking the evidence"... let me assure you: this was only because he created the woman according to the Bible.
He just did not "fake the evidence" for no reason!
My stance here: if God changes genetics once - to replace a rib in this case - he might do so twice or more often... and this is how genetics change through divine interventions. This is my stance from what I read in the Bible at least.

The bible doesn't say anything about altering genetics.
When you have a population of 2, genetic diversity is by definition as low as it can be.
A population of 2, is doomed to extinction because of that.

You called it magic. I call it God's limitless possibilities.

aka, magic.

Yeah and if you rule divine interventions out, you end up ruling out potential God(s). With no evidence at all.

You need evidence to rule things IN, not out. The point. You keep missing it.
There's no evidence (pro OR con) for graviton fairies. So we don't rule in graviton fairies when trying to explain gravity.

Likewise, there is no evidence of gods or god magic. So we don't rule it in either.
You are insisting on ruling things in without evidence. Why?

If you come up with the claim that there are no miracles whatsoever going on in nature... the onus is on you to prove this claim, I think.

I present to you: a total lack of evidence for any supernatural thing going on anywhere, ever.

The exact same amount of evidence for graviton fairies and leprechauns.

Can you disprove graviton fairies and leprechauns? No.
Do you need to, in order to rationally reject them as playing a role in anything? No.

Because when it comes to graviton fairies and leprechauns, somehow you actually understand how the burden of proof works.

I suggest you hold gods to the same standards of evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Genetic information has been corrupted during all this time.

First of all, that doesn't make any sense.
Secondly, again: the problem with incest is lack of genetic diversity. That's it.
If you have a population of 2, both with "perfect genes" (whatever that is supposed to mean), genetic diversity is still non-existing and a problem.

There happen mistakes in the process of DNA copying and those mistakes accumulate

Yes, it's called mutation. It's what drives species to being better equipped to survive in a certain habitat.

, which means it is more corrupted nowadays than in the beginning

No, it does not mean that at all, nor does that even make any sense whatsoever..
Nor does it matter, because the point is about lack of genetic diversity - which has nothing to do with whatever you are talking about (which isn't even a thing....)

. And that is the reason why nowadays incest would be more harmful.

No. The problem with incest is lack of genetic diversity.
How many times must it be repeated?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

... if you believe the Bible. That was what I meant.

The bible doesn't say anything about anyone - god or otherwise - fiddling with genetics.
That's just you adding stuff to the bible again.

You know, my conversation partner previously claimed that if there are divine changes in geneics after the creation... God made them in order to fake the evidence.

Yes.

And I gave you an analogous example of how that would be the equivalent of strangling someone in an apartment, then carrying the body out on the road and setting up a very elaborate scheme to make it look as if the victim died by being crushed by a truck in a car accident and doing such a good job that no forensics detective, nor anyone else, would ever even consider that the accident hadn't occurred.

It's called "planting and faking evidence" and making evidence disappear as well.

My arument: no. Since God had sincere reasons to do so such as creating the woman. That's a great reason to change something.

Your god supposedly created 2 people from scratch, without them having biological ancestors, and then changed the entire world - including their very own genetics, so that everything would look as if the lowest that human population size every was, was around 10.000 individuals dating back some 70.000 years, with homo sapiens as a species being some 200.000 years old and having common biological ancestors with chimps some 7 million years ago, while also planting "fake fossils" in the ground of creatures that have never lived etc etc etc.

If this isn't deception to the extreme, then nothing is.

 

[thomas t]

There is no deception involved in what God is doing according to the Bible.
God has reasons to alter genetics.
Creating languages was one such reason.
I can't understand why atheists cry foul (or "deception") when God wants to add a feature or two. To his own creation.
When the German Bundestag planted an adult tree right in front of the house... noone cried deception. It looked like the tree was there for decades.
Yet, they only hired an agency that sells old trees. Old big trees. After they did their job, it looked like the tree always having been there. and the tree is old.
No deception.
The Bundestag simply wanted and old tree in front of their house.
Same with God and his features for creation.
However, atheists cry foul when they read this.

The old tree in front of the Bundestag should be the comparison. Not a criminal strangling someone. God is not a criminal.

You need evidence to rule things IN, not out. The point. You keep missing it.
There's no evidence (pro OR con) for graviton fairies. So we don't rule in graviton fairies when trying to explain gravity.

Likewise, there is no evidence of gods or god magic. So we don't rule it in either.
You are insisting on ruling things in without evidence. Why?

No.
My point was also to show that you cannot back your allegations up about the general absence of miracles.
We don't need resort to miracles to explain gravitation. You can leave the fairies out if you want to explain gravitation,
however, that does not give you any credence when you rule out miracles always and in general. That was only one case that you cited.
Still, you could not show that miracles aren't there anywhere, I think.

In one case, a miracle is not needed to explain something. Hovever, this does not mean that miracles are superfluous in any circumstance, I think.

I say: I believe in God. I am entitled to my belief.
You said there are no miracles and passed it off as factual, that's the difference.
The burden of proof is not on me when I say I believe something. I can give evidence that I do believe, yes.
However, you made a bold claim, so the onus is on you.

I suggest you hold gods to the same standards of evidence.

when I say "there is no elephant in the room".
I could go ahead and prove it.
You can do nothing to bolster your claim about miracles and the absence of divine miracles.
So: why even claim something you can't back up by evidence?

The bible doesn't say anything about anyone - god or otherwise - fiddling with genetics.

reducing the number of ribs means fiddling with genetics, that was my point.

It's called "planting and faking evidence" and making evidence disappear as well.

creating the woman for the sake of creating her has merit on its own.
No need to call that "faking evidence".
He had a reason to alter gentics. The reason was creating the woman.

Leprechauns are not relevant.
Actually, I don't even believe they don't exist.
I just don't care, that's all.

 

[Thief]

The bible doesn't say anything about altering genetics.
When you have a population of 2, genetic diversity is by definition as low as it can be.
A population of 2, is doomed to extinction because of that.

oooops....

Man was created on Day Six.....male and female
no names
no garden
no law
go forth and be fruitful
dominate all things

there was a population in play

the garden event was a DELIBERATE alteration of body and mind

and Eve is a clone
not born of woman
no navel

Adam is a CHOSEN son of God

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

oooops....

Man was created on Day Six.....male and female
no names
no garden
no law
go forth and be fruitful
dominate all things

there was a population in play

the garden event was a DELIBERATE alteration of body and mind

and Eve is a clone
not born of woman
no navel

Adam is a CHOSEN son of God

Congratulations are in order.
You did an excellent job of completely ignoring the points being made.

 

[Thief]

Congratulations are in order.
You did an excellent job of completely ignoring the points being made.

thank you

like notations.....please

 

[1213]

First of all, that doesn't make any sense.

Secondly, again: the problem with incest is lack of genetic diversity. That's it.

If you have a population of 2, both with "perfect genes" (whatever that is supposed to mean), genetic diversity is still non-existing and a problem.

The real problem is that genetic mistakes accumulate. In the case of incest, there is not as good chance to fix genetic problems, because the material is too similar, has the same mistakes. If DNA has no mistakes yet, then there is no such problem.

So, in a way, I think we agree, but the key is not really the diversity, but the amount of genetic information that has errors. If the DNA is without errors, it is no problem genetically to have no genetic diversity.

Yes, it's called mutation. It's what drives species to being better equipped to survive in a certain habitat.

DNA copy process has systems that try to prevent mutations (mistakes in the process), because they are normally always harmful. The goal in the system is not to have mutations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The real problem is that genetic mistakes accumulate.

That's not a problem. That's a survival mechanism.
If DNA wouldn't mutate, and if these mutations wouldn't accumulate, then species wouldn't be able to equip themselves against new threats in an ever changing environment and it would only lead to extinction.

Calling them "mistakes" isn't going to change that.
And once again, the problem with incest = lack of genetic diversity.

In the case of incest, there is not as good chance to fix genetic problems, because the material is too similar, has the same mistakes

"mistakes", aka mutations, have nothing to do with the fact of lack of genetic diversity.
How many times must it be repeated?

Sounds like you really have no clue what genetic diversity actually is and sounds even more like you don't want to know either.

If DNA has no mistakes yet, then there is no such problem.

Once again: mutation has nothing to do with diversity.
A population of a single breeding pair, by definition, has virtually no genetic diversity and is thereby doomed to extinction. No sexually reproducing species is able to overcome that.

In general, the viability threshold of a population is around 200 individuals (who, off course, can't be closely related to eachother). Anything below that is pretty much doomed to extinction due to lack of genetic diversity.

Your whole case about "corrupt DNA" has nothing to do with that. Nore is that even a thing. There's no such thing as "corrupt DNA".

You like to claim that mutation is a bad thing. If mutation wouldn't happen, the species would go extinct. Mutation is crucial for survival in an ever-changing environment.

So, in a way, I think we agree

We most definitely, absolutely, do not. Not even remotely.
For starters you're still showing deeply rooted willful ignorance about what genetic diversity actually is...
And secondly, you keep on rambling about the nonsensical notion of "corrupt DNA" and "perfect genes". Neither makes any sense in context of genetics. They are non-issues. These are "invented problems" by creationists who have no clue what they are talking about and who are talking out of their behinds.

, but the key is not really the diversity

Except that it is.
Genetic diversity is crucial for the viability of any given population / generation.

Incest is a problem, because of the lack of genetic diversity.

, but the amount of genetic information that has errors.

No. This is mumbo-jumbo. It makes no sense and it is an invented problem - not an actual problem.

If the DNA is without errors, it is no problem genetically to have no genetic diversity.

You make zero sense. I don't even know how to respond to this any more. You are really insisting on being incorrect.

DNA copy process has systems that try to prevent mutations (mistakes in the process), because they are normally always harmful.

This is false. The vast majority of mutations are neutral.
A minority is harmful (they are quickly out of the genepool, as organisms with harmful mutations don't usually get to survive and reproduce).
Another minority is beneficial (these spread thoughout the genepool and achieve fixation, as organisms with those mutations have an advantage over their peers in terms of reproductive succes and overal survival).

The goal in the system is not to have mutations.

First of all, there is no "goal" in the "system". The "system" is a chemical process.

Secondly, regardless of "self repair" mechanisms, every newborn comes with a set of mutations. It's generally referred to as the "mutation rate" of a species. In humans, the mutation rate is about 55-ish.

That means that every human newborn has about 55 mutations in its DNA.




Off course, none of this has anything to do with the fact that lack of genetic diversity is what causes the problems in off spring that is the result of incest / inbreeding.

 

[1213]

....
A population of a single breeding pair, by definition, has virtually no genetic diversity and is thereby doomed to extinction. ...

So, basically you are saying cloning can’t work?

 

[Muffled]

So...

According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve with the intention that they were to reproduce and populate the entire world

But as there were only two of them, this would necessitate incest, in order to expand the population beyond the first generation of offspring which Adam and Eve would themselves produce:

The offspring of Adam and Eve would have to have children together, if they were to populate the world and produce a subsequent generation - this would mean brothers and sisters would have to have sex with each other...

And if you believe the biblical account, that is exactly what must have happened

That doesn't sound very wholesome and God-fearing to me

How do people who believe in a literal, biblical, Adam and Eve address this rather glaring issue of necessary incest?

I believe one must understand the reason for rules. The rules are in place to prevent genetic problems from getting bigger.
I believe Adam and Eve were created without genetic defects reducing the chance of any problem until the Adamic race started to mix with other races.

 

[Muffled]

I know that JW's say that there was enough genetic diversity in Adam and Eve and that they were closer to perfection, so their offspring would not be affected by genetic deformities.

On a related note. What did God make everything out of if he existed before creation? Did he make everything out of himself? And if he did, does that mean that everything is a part of God and that reproduction is basically God having sex with himself?

I believe God everything out of nothing.

 

[Muffled]

For me, i don't understand how certain believers can say that nothing can come from nothing, yet don't make the logical link then that if God was alone in existence before creation then he had to get the material for creation from somewhere. He couldn't make something out of nothing as nothing comes from nothing.

So the Phallus is the stylus and the seed flows from the creators stylus to create the world? Makes sense.

I believe what is impossible for man to conceive is not impossible for God.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I believe God everything out of nothing.

Should I insert "made" in your sentence?

Do you believe that it is logical for God to have made everything out of nothing?

 

[Samael_Khan]

I believe what is impossible for man to conceive is not impossible for God.

Yes, which is sort of my point.

I was explaining how weird and inconsistent it is for certain theists top say that we must believe in god because of logic but ignore logical when it is inconvenient for them.

I wouldn't use logic to come to any conclusions about how the world is made or how any god would operate because our knowledge is too limited.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, basically you are saying cloning can’t work?

A clone is a copy. Not the result of sexual reproduction.
A population of clones will not last very long if left to themselves to produce new generations "the natural way".
Because the lack of genetic diversity is going to cause problems in off spring.

Clones aren't off spring. They are copies.