Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Maybe, maybe not....You, nor I could never know for sure unless we were there at the time.
No. Studies of human populations have shown that in order for a new land to be populated with a sustainable population of humans there has to be at least 80 matting couples to start with. If there had only been two people in the beginning, we would have died out long ago.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I thought the minimum sustainable population was in the thousands?
I am basing this off of a study of Aborigines in Australia. Population studies and models showed there had to have been at least 80 couples. Now I admit, I am going off memory. Therefore, I could have gotten the information wrong, but it wasn't a number in the thousands, and it wasn't a few for the minimum. I recall the number 80, but I can't find anything on the net to back it up. Oh well.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. Studies of human populations have shown that in order for a new land to be populated with a sustainable population of humans there has to be at least 80 matting couples to start with. If there had only been two people in the beginning, we would have died out long ago.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I thought the minimum sustainable population was in the thousands?
there is genetic evidence that at one point the human population was reduced to, iirc, under a dozen breeding females.
Originally posted by Sado22
i'm shedding light on the usage of words and translations. i'm not vouching for christianity as such because i'm not a christian but since its origins are in Hebrew and I know enough the proto-semetic languages, I thought it would do good to point out how Latin translations can (and have) been in error.
No, you did good, bro. Well well put.
Originally posted by inimalist
there is genetic evidence that at one point the human population was reduced to, iirc, under a dozen breeding females.
I thought it was a number in the tens of thousands.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I thought it was a number in the tens of thousands.
I heard it on a science podcast sometime in the past couple of years.
The number was well lower than 1000, and probably goes back even further than 100 -200 000 years. "Human" might have been a stretch. I'll try to look it up?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. Studies of human populations have shown that in order for a new land to be populated with a sustainable population of humans there has to be at least 80 matting couples to start with. If there had only been two people in the beginning, we would have died out long ago.
Well, if that is the basis of scientific reasoning, then life shouldn't exist at all. According to science, all life(animal and man alike) is derived from what...the first ameobas or some crap like that. Those eventually developed and evolved into all known species to ever exist. Why didn't those "amoebas" are whatever just die out. In the beginning, it would've had to have started with a single self-replicating singularity, which would then evolve over time into different species. Even with the evolved species(say a fish for instance), there would've had to have been one of its kind in the beginning, according to scientific reasoning. Why didn't that "fish" just die out?
In the beginning, there could have only been one "human" like creature that is responsible for every man alive today....since there could only have been one of "our" kind in the beginning to evolve into homo erectus. Why didn't that creature die off...since there could not have been..as you say...80 mating couples to populate a given region.
In essence, scientific reasoning has its flaws too. They base the origins of life on mere chance...a cosmic coincidence. The theory of Adam and Eve being the first humans, according to the Bible...is not nearly as far fetched as science would have us believe....when compared to their "theories" concerning the origin of life.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Well, if that is the basis of scientific reasoning, then life shouldn't exist at all. According to science, all life(animal and man alike) is derived from what...the first ameobas or some crap like that. Those eventually developed and evolved into all known species to ever exist. Why didn't those "amoebas" are whatever just die out. In the beginning, it would've had to have started with a single self-replicating singularity, which would then evolve over time into different species. Even with the evolved species(say a fish for instance), there would've had to have been one of its kind in the beginning, according to scientific reasoning. Why didn't that "fish" just die out?
Why didn’t they die out? The answer to your question is asexual reproduction. As far as the first forms of life, this form of life did die out. Sense the formation of this planet, 95% of all life has gone extinct. However, they were able to reproduce before they died.
Where do you get this false idea that life shouldn’t exist at all? That is just plane silly.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
In the beginning, there could have only been one "human" like creature that is responsible for every man alive today....since there could only have been one of "our" kind in the beginning to evolve into homo erectus. Why didn't that creature die off...since there could not have been..as you say...80 mating couples to populate a given region.
If there were only one human in the beginning, then we would have died out when that person died. Sense we are all here, then there must have been a lot more humans in the beginning when we all became human.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
In essence, scientific reasoning has its flaws too. They base the origins of life on mere chance...a cosmic coincidence. The theory of Adam and Eve being the first humans, according to the Bible...is not nearly as far fetched as science would have us believe....when compared to their "theories" concerning the origin of life.
Some people think that life happened by chance, but there is no evidence to support that. It is more likely that life is a natural part of the universe and comes into existence were the conditions are right. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for this either. If we find life somewhere else in the universe then we will know that life was not by chance. I personally believe that the universe is filled with life.
Adam and Eve are mythology and not theory. Please stop getting the two confused.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why didn’t they die out? The answer to your question is asexual reproduction. As far as the first forms of life, this form of life did die out. Sense the formation of this planet, 95% of all life has gone extinct. However, they were able to reproduce before they died.Where do you get this false idea that life shouldn’t exist at all? That is just plane silly.
If there were only one human in the beginning, then we would have died out when that person died. Sense we are all here, then there must have been a lot more humans in the beginning when we all became human.
Some people think that life happened by chance, but there is no evidence to support that. It is more likely that life is a natural part of the universe and comes into existence were the conditions are right. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for this either. If we find life somewhere else in the universe then we will know that life was not by chance. I personally believe that the universe is filled with life.
Adam and Eve are mythology and not theory. Please stop getting the two confused.
There is no evidence to support many scientific claims...but, you state it as fact.
In any event, you are avoiding my question. According to science, there had to be a "first" human...there had to be a "first" of our kind somewhere in the past. According to science, homo erectus had to evolve from something....and that something had to evolve from something else. So, what you're saying is that when the "first of our kind" appeared....many appeared out of the blue...at the same time...just like him/her??? That's a bunch of gibberish from scientists who do not have a clue about anything. Why? Because they were not there to see it happen. So, they can only speculate.
Also, if the first lifeforms reproduced asexually...why couldn't the first human do the same?
As for the rest of your post...you're just speculating...there are no facts...only theories for the origin of life.
Why do you persist on saying that Adam and Eve were myths? I could say the same for Buddha. You actually believe the garbage about how he came to be "enlightened". Buddhism is nothing more than a pagan religion that you endorse.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
There is no evidence to support many scientific claims...but, you state it as fact.
That is not true at all. There is a great deal of evidence to support the theory of evolution. However, this evidence requires a basic understanding of evolution. There is a good chance that people have presented you with this evidence, but you rejected it because of your lack of understanding.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
In any event, you are avoiding my question. According to science, there had to be a "first" human...there had to be a "first" of our kind somewhere in the past. According to science, homo erectus had to evolve from something....and that something had to evolve from something else. So, what you're saying is that when the "first of our kind" appeared....many appeared out of the blue...at the same time...just like him/her??? That's a bunch of gibberish from scientists who do not have a clue about anything. Why? Because they were not there to see it happen. So, they can only speculate.
I did not avoid your question. Your question is based on a misunderstanding of evolution on your part. Evolution does not happen one person at a time. Evolution works on a population.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Also, if the first lifeforms reproduced asexually...why couldn't the first human do the same?
Because we are not single cells beings.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
As for the rest of your post...you're just speculating...there are no facts...only theories for the origin of life.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution is how species change over time.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Why do you persist on saying that Adam and Eve were myths?
The story of Adam and Eve derives from the mythology of older religions.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I could say the same for Buddha.
How could you do that? Buddha was a real person. I bet you don’t know anything about Buddha.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You actually believe the garbage about how he came to be "enlightened". Buddhism is nothing more than a pagan religion that you endorse.
You fail. Your attempt to make this personal is down right stupid.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is not true at all. There is a great deal of evidence to support the theory of evolution. However, this evidence requires a basic understanding of evolution. There is a good chance that people have presented you with this evidence, but you rejected it because of your lack of understanding.I did not avoid your question. Your question is based on a misunderstanding of evolution on your part. Evolution does not happen one person at a time. Evolution works on a population.
Because we are not single cells beings.
You made it personal for calling Adam and Eve myths. For all we know, the Buddha was a myth. How do you know someone just didn't invent him and wrote all these things about him?
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution is how species change over time.
The story of Adam and Eve derives from the mythology of older religions.
How could you do that? Buddha was a real person. I bet you don’t know anything about Buddha.
You fail. Your attempt to make this personal is down right stupid.
You made it personal for calling Adam and Eve myths. For all we know, the Buddha was a myth. How do you know someone just didn't invent him and wrote all these things about him?
And yes, I've read about his "supposed" path of enlightenment...written by someone else. Sure, you can say the same about Jesus not being a historical character...but, you would be contradicting yourself to believe that the Buddha was an actual person....not just the figment of someone's imagination.
As far as Adam and Eve being derived from older religions....sure, because all of humankind had its beginnings with Adam and Eve...so, every culture would hav a similar story...just with different names. The same thing is applied to the "Great Flood". Most every culture worldwide has a similar story about a Great Deluge!!! Coincidence...I think not.
The last thing I'll say is this...It takes more faith to believe in Evolution and the "Origin of Life" as science puts it....than to have Faith in God...the Creator of the Universe and humankind.
Let's say you die right now for instance...and you stand before God...and realize that the Bible had been right all along...and that scientific theories concerning the origins of life had been wrong. What do you say then, when God asks you to account for not believing in His Word, but instead you believed in the modern god...humanism and scientific theory.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
The last thing I'll say is this...
not really a fan of this whole "discussion" thing, hmmm?
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
It takes more faith to believe in Evolution and the "Origin of Life" as science puts it....than to have Faith in God...the Creator of the Universe and humankind.
so what you are saying is that religious people are intellectually lazy?
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You made it personal for calling Adam and Eve myths. For all we know, the Buddha was a myth. How do you know someone just didn't invent him and wrote all these things about him?And yes, I've read about his "supposed" path of enlightenment...written by someone else. Sure, you can say the same about Jesus not being a historical character...but, you would be contradicting yourself to believe that the Buddha was an actual person....not just the figment of someone's imagination.
As far as Adam and Eve being derived from older religions....sure, because all of humankind had its beginnings with Adam and Eve...so, every culture would hav a similar story...just with different names. The same thing is applied to the "Great Flood". Most every culture worldwide has a similar story about a Great Deluge!!! Coincidence...I think not.
The last thing I'll say is this...It takes more faith to believe in Evolution and the "Origin of Life" as science puts it....than to have Faith in God...the Creator of the Universe and humankind.
Let's say you die right now for instance...and you stand before God...and realize that the Bible had been right all along...and that scientific theories concerning the origins of life had been wrong. What do you say then, when God asks you to account for not believing in His Word, but instead you believed in the modern god...humanism and scientific theory.
The major problem with your comparison of Christianity and Buddhism is that is isn't relevant to most Buddhists whether or not Buddha was a myth. Their doctrine isn't dependent on the historical veracity of the Buddha character. Christianity is dependent on the veracity of Jesus. I'm guessing shakya might even agree.
As for this laughable comment: It takes more faith to believe in Evolution and the "Origin of Life" as science puts it....than to have Faith in God...the Creator of the Universe and humankind. ...I suppose I've just missed the hundreds of scientific books and articles, backed by thousands of controlled tests, that support the theory. The Bible hardly qualifies as that kind of evidence, nor do the thousands of as-yet-unconfirmed claims of divine or paranormal intervention in the world. There's a reason skeptics balk at religious claims: it's not because their thick-headed or not open-minded. It's because they need a good reason to believe, something that appeals to reason instead of emotion. Very few, if any, such reasons are provided.
All things, science, religion, what have you, are a leap of faith. That much I'll agree to. But there's different kinds of faith. There's faith that is based on probable conclusions from mountains of evidence. It's not certainty, no. Never will be. So it's faith. And there's blind faith, from very little evidence but a whole lot of hope. It's comforting, but not backed with a rational foundation.
Also, the appeal to the angry God made me laugh. If I stood before God, assuming it was the Christian God and not one of the infinite possibilities of Gods, I'd apologize for not believing in him but explain that he gave me no good reason to believe. I have no regrets in my life and live it according to what I deem to be right and true. I'm not scared of such an encounter, as the only way it ends badly is if God is a petulant, irrational being....in which case it wouldn't be worthy of worship anyway.
I'd also argue that there was no choice in the matter, as his universe is perfectly causal, and therefore could not have happened any other way. He'd either have to concede or show me how something can be outside deterministic causality. Either way, I'd enjoy the response. But that's a different story.