Does it make sense for humanity to be derived from two humans and their offspring?
Does it make sense for humanity to be derived from two humans and their offspring?
Austin Sanders
Other urls found in this thread:
Matthew Long
If its true, who did the children breed with ? Coz the only female is either the mother or the sister ;)
Ryder Reyes
Does life makes sense? If you knew better, would you make such indagation? So, we arrived at a conclusive response.
Without the tools and knowledge that humans have been gifted through the millenium, they wouldn't be any more advanced than they were thousands of years ago.
Who is the master of this orchestra you ask? You want to talk to him but he can't listen to you because maybe you haven't tried hard enough to reach him. Maybe you are insignificant, maybe you can do better than that. Maybe you are too lazy to evolve, expecting things to happen for you. But anyway you'll learn this. You will be good.
Ian Adams
For a while, until a disease comes along and wipes them to extinction.
Christian Phillips
There is supposedly a kind of "mitochondrial eve" which was the originator of all of our mitochondria. Doubtful though that she was ever the only female to ever live at the time. There were probably others, her "family" just happened to take over after enough time of population bottle-necking. Then again, very few non western european humans have been genetically tested so an anomaly may still be out there.
No, a population cannot survive and maintain genetic fitness with only two individuals. Depending on the species, at least a dozen to about a hundred breeding pairs have been determined to be the minimum required to maintain long-term genetic diversity. A loss of diversity eventually results in inbreeding and genetic problems down the line.
Easton Brown
The bible is so obviously full of shit you may as well debate norse mythology
Religions are fairytales nothing more
Alexander Gomez
gradual transitions from one species to another is more sensible. prove me wrong or i shall take rule of this board ho!
Liam Mitchell
>Religions are fairytales nothing more
My parents attempted to raise me vaguely Christian (no church because churches had treated them like shit), but told me when I entered elementary that Santa was a fairytale for kids but I shouldn't tell them that. I suspect never believing in Santa may be related to why I never believed in biblical tales. I accepted God until I was probably around 14, but all of the stories were nonsense to me from the beginning.
I never said this much. I feel like in some sense I didn't understand that they believed it. The majority of religion to me was some sort of shared ritualistic lie like a holiday. Easter. It was a shared fiction.
I'm an adult now and they're renewing their faith. Shit is disturbing to me.
Th--Thanks for listening anonpai.
Gabriel Brown
Several hundred generations, all with plenty of genetically unique organisms, breeding a diverse population of new organisms whose best coalesce into groups and worst die off, is how new species are formed between social creatures like Humans and their ancestors.
Cameron Green
...
Ethan Edwards
ur'e the same as the banan fag that shit up ylyl threads
Adrian Jones
Yep. Likely isn't how it actually happened, and the probability of a viable population arising is low, but it's not impossible.
Most people interested in science have a knee jerk hatred of creationism because they don't separate it in their mind from dogma and religious fundamentalism. In reality the two are not intrinsically linked. Older sci-fi writers, theologians, and philosophers knew and readily accepted this. In modern mass media culture there's a tribal and emotional dilemma getting in the way of intellectual honesty when it comes to evaluating possibility.
Christian Myers
If they and there immediate offspring had an insanely high mutation rate and somehow never got a fatal mutation then its possibleish
Jose Davis
Only if the first two humans were rap artists.
Which they probably were (we can make a safe estimate that this is true due to modern science).
Sebastian Taylor
you're talking about a book that did not exist among the jews until their captivity in babylon. there, they found stories of the garden, which is certainly true btw, see Juris Zarins work on the location of Eden. the reason we can't go back is both literal and allegorical. literally because Eden is under the sea now.
allegorical because adam and eve represent men and women living in harmony with God and nature as foragers being thrown butt naked into a completely new world of agricultural technology. and this is not glossed over in Genesis, Cain was outcast to civilization itself, already fully populated.
where the real bullshit starts is when the cobblers of Genesis try to graft people like Methusela onto allegorical Adam by making him over 900 years old. the jews wrote themselves a pedigree to make themselves seem more special than they are.
tl;dr - adam and eve are ancient versions of modern naked south american tribes meeting civilization for the first time.
Kevin Parker
What is considered the most accurate version of the Bible? I'm aware I can't fully control for a lack of knowledge about historical culture and context, but it's important the data is there in a decent form relative to the source.
Luis Carter
When comparing a modern translation of the Bible to the original Dead Sea Scrolls, the message has remained exactly the same from then to now.
Use any version you like.
Eli Flores
I've heard some are more lossy than others, or otherwise accumulated distortions from previous translations done within different cultures and political interests. Potentially not accurately preserving finer aspects.
I have a King James version around, I'm fairly sure.
William Sanchez
Ehhhh King James is accurate, if a bit hard to understand.
Give it a shot if your Middle English is on point, otherwise I personally prefer ESV.
John Thomas
...
Camden Bell
as much sense as a round basin 10 units across and 30 units about the rim