Adam, Eve, and incest

[TagliatelliMonster]

The rules are in place to prevent genetic problems from getting bigger.

No. Not from "getting bigger". Rather just "from occurring".

I believe Adam and Eve were created without genetic defects

You can believe whatever you wish, it won't make it true or sensible.
The problem with incest is the lack of genetic diversity. It doesn't matter how "genetically perfect" (whatever the heck that means) the single breeding pair is. The lack of genetic diversity IS going to cause problems.
And in a population of just 2, that problem is going to be so big that extinction will be pretty much inevitable.

In general, population sizes lower then 200 are no longer considered viable.
And upwards of just 200 is still very problematic.

reducing the chance of any problem until the Adamic race started to mix with other races.

That makes zero sense and exhibits deep rooted ignorance of how genetics actually work and what "genetic diversity" is all about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I note how all your statements in these few posts all start with "I believe...."

 

[D. Rajan]

The theists do not advocate incest, because the Church forbids such sin in our days. In the days of Adam, it was not a sin, because God has commanded it. He commanded not to us, but to Adam and Eve. There was no other option to populate the planet from the single blood. We all are blood-brothers, that recognition by all of us should stop the wars.

It seems that God could just as easily have created 100s or 1000s of men and women to circumvent this incest problem.

 

[Colt]

The planet was already populated and the beast had already fallen when Adam and Eve arrived from another world.

 

[questfortruth]

It seems that God could just as easily have created 100s or 1000s of men and women to circumvent this incest problem.

100 original pairs: 100 original kinds. Hence, 100 different humankinds. Not all are brothers and sisters. Hence, we need 100 Jesus crucifixions to save all 100 humankinds. But God is having only one Jesus. Hence, there is only one humankind.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Speaking as a non-Christian with some experience growing up with Christian rhetoric, the most common answer I see to this is that humans that existed close to Adam and Eve's time were more genetically perfect and that incest back then would cause less damage.

The second most common answer I see is Bible non-literalism. This is a story and not a historical event.

I agree with the latter.

It's just a story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The planet was already populated and the beast had already fallen when Adam and Eve arrived from another world.

Except that genetics tells us that this is not so.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It seems that God could just as easily have created 100s or 1000s of men and women to circumvent this incest problem.

One would think something that substantial would be included with the mythology.

 

[Sedim Haba]

When the Israelites were creating the creation story as the basis for their story of origins, they just assumed that Adam and Eve were the first humans. But they failed to remove the parts of the Adam story handed down over the ages that shows the earth was already populated when Adam arrived.

13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

Adam and Eve were incarnate celestial beings who were to replace the administration of the fallen "crafty beast"

Exactly, that's far FAR more telling than unmentioned sisters. There should be NO ONE for Cain to be afraid of at that point, other than his parents. Fixes the genetic problem, if there's a wider gene pool around. Also the long lifespans recounted were not typical of humans in general but specific to Adam's direct descendants only. Once the genetics are 'diluted' that stops.

 

[Colt]

Except that genetics tells us that this is not so.

Genetics tells us that an anomaly was introduced into the gene pool roughly 40,000 years ago. Thats when Adam and Eve arrived or "materialized" from another world. They were to be the fallen worlds new leaders but defaulted themselves soon after getting to work. However they repented and salvaged what they could.

. 2005 Sep 9;309(5741):1717-20.
doi: 10.1126/science.1113722.

Microcephalin, a gene regulating brain size, continues to evolve adaptively in humans
Patrick D Evans 1, Sandra L Gilbert, Nitzan Mekel-Bobrov, Eric J Vallender, Jeffrey R Anderson, Leila M Vaez-Azizi, Sarah A Tishkoff, Richard R Hudson, Bruce T Lahn



Abstract

"The gene Microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size and has evolved under strong positive selection in the human evolutionary lineage. We show that one genetic variant of Microcephalin in modern humans, which arose approximately 37,000 years ago, increased in frequency too rapidly to be compatible with neutral drift. This indicates that it has spread under strong positive selection, although the exact nature of the selection is unknown. The finding that an important brain gene has continued to evolve adaptively in anatomically modern humans suggests the ongoing evolutionary plasticity of the human brain. It also makes Microcephalin an attractive candidate locus for studying the genetics of human variation in brain-related phenotypes."

Microcephalin, a gene regulating brain size, continues to evolve adaptively in humans - PubMed

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genetics tells us that an anomaly was introduced into the gene pool roughly 40,000 years ago. Thats when Adam and Eve arrived or "materialized" from another world. They were to be the fallen worlds new leaders but defaulted themselves soon after getting to work. However they repented and salvaged what they could.

. 2005 Sep 9;309(5741):1717-20.
doi: 10.1126/science.1113722.

Microcephalin, a gene regulating brain size, continues to evolve adaptively in humans
Patrick D Evans 1, Sandra L Gilbert, Nitzan Mekel-Bobrov, Eric J Vallender, Jeffrey R Anderson, Leila M Vaez-Azizi, Sarah A Tishkoff, Richard R Hudson, Bruce T Lahn



Abstract

"The gene Microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size and has evolved under strong positive selection in the human evolutionary lineage. We show that one genetic variant of Microcephalin in modern humans, which arose approximately 37,000 years ago, increased in frequency too rapidly to be compatible with neutral drift. This indicates that it has spread under strong positive selection, although the exact nature of the selection is unknown. The finding that an important brain gene has continued to evolve adaptively in anatomically modern humans suggests the ongoing evolutionary plasticity of the human brain. It also makes Microcephalin an attractive candidate locus for studying the genetics of human variation in brain-related phenotypes."

Microcephalin, a gene regulating brain size, continues to evolve adaptively in humans - PubMed

This is an example of clutching at straws. It is not evidence for your beliefs. In fact it does not appear to support your beliefs at all. The article is about a mutation in a gene that already existed. No need to bring in a couple from anywhere.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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?

No wonder we scream out "Oh my God!" during sex.

 

[KWED]

the most common answer I see to this is that humans that existed close to Adam and Eve's time were more genetically perfect and that incest back then would cause less damage.

So to those apologists, incest is a biological problem, not a moral one. So incestuous sex using contraception would be morally acceptable.

 

[KWED]

On a related note. What did God make everything out of if he existed before creation?

Ah yes, the delicious irony of creationists smugly asking sceptics "So you think the universe came into existence from nothing lol!"
lol! indeed.

 

[KWED]

The theists do not advocate incest, because the Church forbids such sin in our days. In the days of Adam, it was not a sin,

So there is no absolute divine objective morality. It is subject to circumstance.
Glad we finally sorted that out.

 

[KWED]

Creatio ex nihilo - Wikipedia

This doesn't resolve the theist's problem.
1. If something can exist eternally, the same must be possible for the material of the universe. If the material of the universe has always existed, there is no need for god to create it from nothing.
2. If the material of the universe came into existence from nothing at some point, then something from nothing is possible. And as we have hard evidence of natural processes but no evidence of supernatural processes, a natural explanation for the event is the better fit by Occam's razor.

 

[KWED]

Why would there be anything wrong with siblings having sex with each other when they are the only people on earth and God commands them to reproduce? You can't apply today's standard in a world with billions of people to the unique scenario of the first generation children of Adam and Eve. I mean even if you don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve or don't believe in God at all, this is hardly a "gotcha" for a Christian who does.

It is a "gotcha" for those who claim objective, absolute morality, because it is saying that morality is determined by circumstance.

 

[KWED]

I think the flood occurred.

Perhaps you do. But your opinion does not affect the mountains of conclusive evidence that it didn't.

 

[KWED]

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.

Arse backwards there.
If you claim that there are miracles (events that go against the laws of nature; the impossible happening), you need to provide evidence for them. If you can't, we are justified in dismissing your claim as nonsense.

 

[KWED]

I can't understand why atheists cry foul (or "deception") when God wants to add a feature or two. To his own creation.

So you are admitting that god didn't get his plan right at the beginning, thus proving that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent.