adam and eve incest?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ThisIsMatt

Banned
Aug 4, 2000
11,820
1
0


<<

<< Sorta like when humans were developing through evolution, when did one "being" decide to evolve a womb to give birth, and when did one decide to evolve a wiener.... >>



Even basic forms of life have means of reproduction. Ours evolved from theirs. Not that hard of a concept.
>>

Yeah, if you follow it with *cough**hack*blind faith*hack**cough*. So when one being was forming a womb and another was forming a penis, were there more beings doing the same exact thing? While forming their respective parts, they must have maintained their old reproduction methods, right? Sorry, it's all a little fuzzy to me, maybe you can explain it to me, since it's "not that hard of a concept."
 

StinkyMeat

Platinum Member
Sep 7, 2001
2,079
0
0
Thanks for the kind words. I am allowed my beliefs, just as others are allowed theirs. I'm not a bio major, I wish I could explain it better, but I can't. Give me my right to have an opinion on the whole thing.
 

ThisIsMatt

Banned
Aug 4, 2000
11,820
1
0


<< Thanks for the kind words. I am allowed my beliefs, just as others are allowed theirs. I'm not a bio major, I wish I could explain it better, but I can't. Give me my right to have an opinion on the whole thing. >>

Fair enough, but maybe you should question what you believe, too And I mean that to more people than just you...

I didn't really want to argue anyways, good day
 

bugsysiegel

Golden Member
Jan 11, 2001
1,213
1
81


<< yes, it's been incest from the beginning. that's why the human race is so retarded. >>




bwahahaha that *would* explain a lot!

 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,445
127
106
I have a little bit of a problem with the idea of evolution by small mutations - though I hear that's largely been discarded in favor of major evolutionary changes.
But here, for example: a woodpecker has a tongue which wraps around the inside of his head, so I've heard, a beak specially designed (not implying a Designer in this instance) for pecking holes in trees, and a special layer of liquid to keep him from rattling his brain to death. He gets his food from the inside of the tree. Now, all these would have to evolve fully at the same time - if the tongue and beak evolved and the fluid layer didn't, he'd shake himself to death. If the beak evolved and not the tongue, he'd have no way to get food and starve to death. If these things evolved a little at a time, he'd still die, from lack of food or pounding himself to pieces.
Hasn't the idea of little mutations adding up mostly been disproven, both from the fossil record and examples like this?
 

Capn

Platinum Member
Jun 27, 2000
2,716
0
0
"I would be flamed if I would post such a biased link. "

Seeing as this is a question regarding a literal interpretation of Genesis, it's only fitting you go to a source that believes that. You're not going to get a SciAm article discussing a literal Adam/Eve incest issue.
 

Spendthrift

Senior member
Oct 22, 2001
500
0
0
good link.

and yes i believe in a literal 7 day creation as well. ive studied the subject and havent been convinced otherwise.

hotchic, great post about the woodpecker and special evolution
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0


<< I have a little bit of a problem with the idea of evolution by small mutations - though I hear that's largely been discarded in favor of major evolutionary changes.
But here, for example: a woodpecker has a tongue which wraps around the inside of his head, so I've heard, a beak specially designed (not implying a Designer in this instance) for pecking holes in trees, and a special layer of liquid to keep him from rattling his brain to death. He gets his food from the inside of the tree. Now, all these would have to evolve fully at the same time - if the tongue and beak evolved and the fluid layer didn't, he'd shake himself to death. If the beak evolved and not the tongue, he'd have no way to get food and starve to death. If these things evolved a little at a time, he'd still die, from lack of food or pounding himself to pieces.
Hasn't the idea of little mutations adding up mostly been disproven, both from the fossil record and examples like this?
>>



Woodpeckers weren't always able to peck through wood. Birds aren't stupid enough to peck so hard that they would hurt themselves. Eventually over time they could peck deeper and deeper into a tree.
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,445
127
106


<< Woodpeckers weren't always able to peck through wood. Birds aren't stupid enough to peck so hard that they would hurt themselves. Eventually over time they could peck deeper and deeper into a tree. >>



Unless they learned fast that they could get food from that tree, they wouldn't continue pecking on it, and never would evolve the physical features necessary to let them get the food from it. A pre-woodpecker, without special beak, tongue, and liquid, pecks at tree. Hm. Bark. Oh well. Flies off, finds food. Isn't going to come back the next day to peck more, and his offspring aren't going to have an advantage with slightly stronger beaks or longer tongues because they can't get food from the tree either, not until the equipment is fully developed.
The idea of evolution occurring in tiny steps has become outdated, like I said. Much of what I read about current evolutionary theory proposes the idea of major changes taking place in relatively short amounts of time. They say that this is supported by the fossil record, explain the surprising absence of missing links for one.
 

Rakkis

Senior member
Apr 24, 2000
841
1
0
Evolution does not "plan" for things to happen. It is not a sentient being that says "Ok. for a woodpecker, I need to give this normal bird A, B, and C" and then makes all these changes like an engineer would blueprints.

Without going into amino acid and protein nitty gritty stuff... think about this, why ARE children different from their parents? Something happens to the information that stores what we are that changes it from generation to generation. You can say it gets "reshuffled". When this happens, you get different characteristics thatn your parents.

So.. going back to the woodpecker example. Let's say that a certain one now has a longer beak. So he thinks "hey. I can make little holes inside the tree and get worms near the surface now" and he does.. and lo and behold, he gets to eats more than his brother (with a normal beak) In a "normal" stress-free environment, this doesn't necessarily make much of a difference. But here comes the next Winter.. and it is unusually cold. Thus, plants don't start to bloom until about a couple of weeks after they usually do. With food being a scare resource during hard times, this causes a lot of woodpeckers to not be able to find enough food and die. But not Beacky. He was able to find more food by drilling into trees and reaching food others of his kind could not. His random extra long beak has now become an advantage to him.

You can see why this is a good thing to have (GIVEN THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH BEACKY LIVES). Let's say this harsh winter happens twice in a row. End result... Beacky has less competitors and BY CHANCE... only because HE is there and other "normal" unmutated birds are there in a smaller proportion to the whole bird population, he gets luckier with the ladies. Consequently, a lot of baby birds now have long beaks. Give that enough time, this 'rapidly' spreads within the bird population. Give it more time and leave the ADVANTAGE TO HAVE IT (the cold long winters in this case) and Yatta, yatta, yatta... everybody has it.

Of course, it would be nice to have a longer tongue to use and a "brain dampening" system, and BY CHANCE, these happen in certain indivuals. These then have an advantage over Beacky, since they will still be able to see straight by the time they reach middle age. And will therefore have more time to have babies.. Hence.. more time to mate and spread their genes. Just by numbers and statistics alone... these "super" Beackys will reproduce with more ease than normal Beakies.

end result = a combination of advantageous traits is now found throughout a population. evolution. oh my :Q
 

Tdawg951

Member
Nov 28, 2001
169
0
0
i think we might be overlooking the main issue here....

if God created the earth in 6 days (which i believe He did)
i think he probably would have had no problem with dealing with insest
i mean, he created the sun, moom, stars, and humans (which are very advanced creatures, even though they are quite stupid sometimes)

just thought i would share my view

BTW, Nice post on the woodpecker, HotChic
 

Rakkis

Senior member
Apr 24, 2000
841
1
0
addendum to previous post:

yes. a great deal of evolution has tended to happen "suddenly" as opposed as to what is normally thought of as the time scale needed for evolution. this does not disprove the theory of evolution. in fact, it supports it. When things evolve.. they do not ALL change and become a new strain of animal X. a few have traits that help them cope with SUDDEN new environmental conditions. it is these animals that "take over" for the old established strain.
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0


<< Unless they learned fast that they could get food from that tree, they wouldn't continue pecking on it, and never would evolve the physical features necessary to let them get the food from it. A pre-woodpecker, without special beak, tongue, and liquid, pecks at tree. Hm. Bark. Oh well. Flies off, finds food. Isn't going to come back the next day to peck more, and his offspring aren't going to have an advantage with slightly stronger beaks or longer tongues because they can't get food from the tree either, not until the equipment is fully developed.
The idea of evolution occurring in tiny steps has become outdated, like I said. Much of what I read about current evolutionary theory proposes the idea of major changes taking place in relatively short amounts of time. They say that this is supported by the fossil record, explain the surprising absence of missing links for one.
>>



Honestly, I have no answer for your question. However, that doesn't mean there is no answer. I'll look it up though.

I don't really see how micro-evolution is outdated. It happens every day. That's why there are different breeds of dogs and different 'races' of humans. Micro-evolution over long periods of time turns into macro-evolution.
 

whalen

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2000
1,176
0
0


<< I would be flamed if I would post such a biased link. >>



Ok....


EDIT:

btw, I am a Christian too
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,445
127
106


<< Evolution does not "plan" for things to happen. It is not a sentient being that says "Ok. for a woodpecker, I need to give this normal bird A, B, and C" and then makes all these changes like an engineer would blueprints.

Without going into amino acid and protein nitty gritty stuff... think about this, why ARE children different from their parents? Something happens to the information that stores what we are that changes it from generation to generation. You can say it gets "reshuffled". When this happens, you get different characteristics thatn your parents.

So.. going back to the woodpecker example. Let's say that a certain one now has a longer beak. So he thinks "hey. I can make little holes inside the tree and get worms near the surface now" and he does.. and lo and behold, he gets to eats more than his brother (with a normal beak) In a "normal" stress-free environment, this doesn't necessarily make much of a difference. But here comes the next Winter.. and it is unusually cold. Thus, plants don't start to bloom until about a couple of weeks after they usually do. With food being a scare resource during hard times, this causes a lot of woodpeckers to not be able to find enough food and die. But not Beacky. He was able to find more food by drilling into trees and reaching food others of his kind could not. His random extra long beak has now become an advantage to him.

You can see why this is a good thing to have (GIVEN THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH BEACKY LIVES). Let's say this harsh winter happens twice in a row. End result... Beacky has less competitors and BY CHANCE... only because HE is there and other "normal" unmutated birds are there in a smaller proportion to the whole bird population, he gets luckier with the ladies. Consequently, a lot of baby birds now have long beaks. Give that enough time, this 'rapidly' spreads within the bird population. Give it more time and leave the ADVANTAGE TO HAVE IT (the cold long winters in this case) and Yatta, yatta, yatta... everybody has it.

Of course, it would be nice to have a longer tongue to use and a "brain dampening" system, and BY CHANCE, these happen in certain indivuals. These then have an advantage over Beacky, since they will still be able to see straight by the time they reach middle age. And will therefore have more time to have babies.. Hence.. more time to mate and spread their genes. Just by numbers and statistics alone... these "super" Beackys will reproduce with more ease than normal Beakies.

end result = a combination of advantageous traits is now found throughout a population. evolution. oh my :Q
>>



You're sorta backing up my argument here. That beak would have to develop in one fell swoop, not a little at a time, for that woodpecker to gain that advantage you illustrate. The old theories were that a small mutation would happen, then another, and after a long time that beak would develop. Many scientists have reformed their theories to say that evolution would happen in large stages like that instead of in tiny indetectable steps. Where we deviate: I'm saying that the combination of all three traits would have to develop fully at the same time within the same bird for that advantage to work. Not only that, but it would probably have to come in more than one bird at the same time, and those birds would have to choose each other for mates so that the traits get passed on.
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,445
127
106


<< addendum to previous post:

yes. a great deal of evolution has tended to happen "suddenly" as opposed as to what is normally thought of as the time scale needed for evolution. this does not disprove the theory of evolution. in fact, it supports it. When things evolve.. they do not ALL change and become a new strain of animal X. a few have traits that help them cope with SUDDEN new environmental conditions. it is these animals that "take over" for the old established strain.
>>



Although I don't believe in evolution, if you'll look at my posts, I'm not trying here to disprove it, because that only results in endless arguments. Read closely, all I've claimed so far is that scientists no longer hold to the idea of small changes over long periods, rather instead sudden changes in short times. I'm making no claim about validity of their theories, just pointing out a reform in the current thought that more closely fits the fossil record.
 

cmdavid

Diamond Member
May 23, 2001
4,114
0
0


<< Does anyone seriously believe in Creation here? I would really like to know. >>


I also believe in Creation.
 

Drew1082

Member
Sep 27, 2001
68
0
61


<< Does anyone seriously believe in Creation here? I would really like to know. >>






<< yes. >>

 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0


<< Read closely, all I've claimed so far is that scientists no longer hold to the idea of small changes over long periods, rather instead sudden changes in short times. >>



It depends on the circumstances really. A species is going to make a sudden change in itself if there is no need to. If its environment stays the same it will slowly adapt to it until it's best suited for the environment. If the environment makes a quick change species will adapt quicker.
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
Kind of funny, I was just asking my wife about this the other day.

In the bible I have, which is fairly current and mainstream, it says: (paraphrasing) Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel. Cain slew Abel and was banished by God, he couldn't farm anymore, etc. Then it says Cain lay with his wife....had kids, etc.

It never says where his wife came from, and no mention of Adam and Eve having any other children by that point. It did say they had some more later, but to that point there were only Cain and Abel.

So where did Cain's wife come from? That's what I'd like to know, because it surely doesn't say.
 

nirgis

Senior member
Mar 4, 2001
636
0
0
<You're sorta backing up my argument here. That beak would have to develop in one fell swoop, not a little at a time, for that woodpecker to gain that advantage you illustrate. The old theories were that a small mutation would happen, then another, and after a long time that beak would develop. Many scientists have reformed their theories to say that evolution would happen in large stages like that instead of in tiny indetectable steps. Where we deviate: I'm saying that the combination of all three traits would have to develop fully at the same time within the same bird for that advantage to work. Not only that, but it would probably have to come in more than one bird at the same time, and those birds would have to choose each other for mates so that the traits get passed on.>

This is not exactly true.

Every specie contains slight mutations. This is why people have different color hair, different height, weight, etc. For woodpeckers, some woodpeckers have longer than normal beaks, some have shorter. The point is that, assuming that it is in an appropriate environment, those woodpeckers with longer peaks will have a better percent chance of survival. Of course, normal woodpeckers would survice too, it's just that as years progress the woodpecker population as a whole gains a longer beak. Now the other characteristics may evolve at the same time and again it is an issue of increased chance of survival/reproduction.


But back to the central issue

Let's face it, if god is powerful enough to create the world in 6 days, then no one needs to concern themself about incest.

If god doesn't exist, then this is just another example of the hypocrisy and inconsistancies of the church
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
I don't see why creation and evolution can't both be true. Say you believe in God, fine. He created the Earth, started the ball rolling, and made evolution possible, maybe tweaking things here and there throughout history. There's too much evidence for both theories to totally discount either. If you're a hardcore religious type, you should be the first one to realize that God was so powerful and smart that he made the earth with evolution in mind.
I'm not saying that's what happened, I just don't see why it has to be 100% one way or the other.
 

Rakkis

Senior member
Apr 24, 2000
841
1
0
HotChic:
----- you posted -----
Where we deviate: I'm saying that the combination of all three traits would have to develop fully at the same time within the same bird for that advantage to work. Not only that, but it would probably have to come in more than one bird at the same time, and those birds would have to choose each other for mates so that the traits get passed on.
--------------------------



it's not a simple matter of working or not working. But more of a "this works better than what we had before" and "this does not work". Yes.. repeated banging on trees by a bird without a mechanism to safeguard its brain would tend to make it fall over and die sooner than other birds. However, having a long beak does not dictate that a bird is now FORCED to hit on trees to get food. Behavioral patterns change over time. Does the bird not feel unusually woozy after a bark splitting adventure? yes he does. it is easier for him to catch food the "normal" way. however, it is when you conditions prevent you from doing the "normal" thing, that the 'new' organisms show their stuff. does a SINGLE change gie a bird an advantage? yes. does a single change give a bird a DISadvantage? once again.. yes. it depends on what the trait is. in this case... it is better to eat and have a headache, than to die of starvation. and as populations keep changing, changes in other parts of the organism that compliment previous changes (tongue, extra fluids) arise. do they arise in ALL cases? no. but the individuals that DO have them reproduce better.. spreading them in the same way the beak was spread.

example: let's say you have ants that can hold their breath under water. they live in a tiny tiny island inside a pond. there is food across 10 cm of water. sure they go there once in a while.. but why WOULD they when they have food right there? it is only when they HAVE to cross the water to get food, that their oddness helps them. do they die because some can't make it all the way? yes. but evolution does not happen to single organisms - but to a population. the ones that make it are the ones that eat. and the ones that survive to repopulate the anthill if they want to swim and go back.

Organisms do not work like cars, we are not as modular in that respect. One does not become something else by merely adding on components or extra chromosomes. At the very core of it (what they don't spend enough time with in HS biology) is that most change comes from point mutations in DNA and their consequent role in protein manufacturing. i assume you're refering to how we have two copies of each chromosome and pretty much every gene. you do not NEED a gene to be present in BOTH chromosomes for it to "work". A very clear example are the X and Y chromosomes. they do more than just say "man" or "woman". there are a TON of genes that have nothing to do with gender in them. the Y chromosome is comparably smaller than the X one. There are many genes in the X chr. that not have a matching allele in the Y. yet they still work. getting back to proteins... genes express themselves because the protein that they code for is being made. you do not necessarily need to make it at 2 places in order for it to exist.

At the end it comes down to how you define "evolution". You can use very clear logic to say that evolution occurs everytime a baby of any species (let's leave asexual species out of this for the sake of argument) is born.
 

Rakkis

Senior member
Apr 24, 2000
841
1
0
I am not trying to prove creationists wrong, however, I fail to see how the bible is evidence of anything. I believe that it is, for the most part, a reliable historical account of early Judaism/Christianity. But much like science, it explains the process of thing happening... but not how they got started.

I do not see how it PROVES that God created anything or even exists. It is an account of people that believe that is the case. By the same logic, God is playing poker with Buddah and Vishnu right now.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |