I hate to be an anthropology major here (oh, who am I kidding? I love my major), but no one and nothing was a chimpanzee, monkey, or gorilla one quadrillion years ago. ;D ;D
(And, just to clear up a commonly repeated statement: we are not descended from living chimpanzees; humans and chimps share a common ancestor.)

Yes, evolution did happen. Yes, this is very, very interesting. But I'm also cautious so far!
I guess virtually all of my professors will talk about it. :P

I love the name, though. Perfect for the 150-year anniversary of Darwin's Origin of Species!

yes, you're right.
we share a common ancestor, but even as the article does state, that spilt happened long before there was an ape, or a man.
You have to forgive some people, they'll only read the tittle, and than look at the picture, and their mind goes wild............... :D

Wait though say if Adam and Eve were the first people, wouldn't that mean that this whole world is made up of "incest", wouldn't that make us all related? [I tried asking my Mom this, bible hugger, got mad]

of course it would

Since we know the story of Adam & Eve predates Jedaism. It becomes yet another one of those cases whereas when the legend becomes fact, print the legend. The "fact" or Legend, whichever one prefers, yet the reality of it is..... It's a metaphor for the magic mushroom. The "fruit of the forest floor" not an actual vegetable, or fruit for which it was named, plants, but a fungi. Adam & Eve taken the forbidden fruit, the mushroom, from the tree of knowledge is about opening up one's mind, and the battle of right brain vs left, and the pineal gland as the consciousness of reason showing audio and visual to the left. Taken part in the mind expanding drug rituals has been going on for some say about a million years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_mushrooms

Yes it would, but due to the amount of people on the earth today is would be impossible, but then if you apply it to the teachings that the earth is only a couple of thousands of years old, there would be probably the population of America at most covering the entire world.

Yep. Incest. All of us.

Incest makes people stupid though, and gives us birth defects and the like. We can see that in modern day society. That is proof that we can show.

So....what was different some 3,000+ years ago that apparently made it so that human genetics allowed incest without horrible (and not functional) mutation? Either human genetics tolerated inbreeding back then and over time, as the population grew, such a method in order to maintain population survival was unnecessary OR Early humans just had God's blessing until one day he decided "Okay. No more fucking your sister."

The former seems more logical in this case, and as such, a believer in it would in turn, believe in some small facet of the theory of evolution, and thus, why not just adopt that at some point in time, way back when the earth was young, there was a creature whose DNA and Genetics mutated into what modern humans are today.

[Disclaimer: Whatever I said in here was to prove a point, and isn't my actual beliefs.]

[Second Disclaimer: It's 2:24am and my spelling and grammer is sucky because of sleep.]

the reason why there were no birth defects is because the DNA was so simple and basic. the DNA of humans became more complex as they reproduced and that's why it's dangerous to in-breed today. Adam and Eve were the start of it, they carried no DNA from parents because they had not been born, they had been created as adult humans.

Human DNA.

Simple.

You're kidding me right?

read what i said. i said it WAS simple, as in it used to be simple and it's not now.

Oh I know. It's not now, but the notion that it was simple at one point in time, back when there were two people, and now has become more complex because there are millions, is a little skewed.

If it was simple then, it should be simple now. After so many genetic mutations and evolution, a new species, completely different from the original, would arise. Thus, Adam and Eve would be the foundation for humans, but would in no way be related to modern humans by any means both physically and mentally (other than the genetic foundation), using your logic.

We've got an odd blend of evolution and religion here.

Whether it's simple or complex, it's the redundancy of genes that makes inbreeding a problem. When you have the same genes in combination with one another, offspring is weak and dies out easier. It's the differences that make a species better.

Although, I could see where natural selection would allot for inbreeding for so long until a population grew to a point where inbreeding wouldn't be necessary, and would be counterproductive to a species growth as opposed to essential. However, such a development wouldn't happen overnight, and would take thousands of years to show up in the gene map.

I am confused though I don't know exactly HOW to word it but I will try my best.

Adam and Eve were the first two people you say right and their DNA was simple because there were little genes but surly included in genes there is hair color, eye color, skin pigment, height and all of that, how could all of that change to create so many nationalities and races over time? [Sorry if it is difficult, I have always seem to have to know, where did this come from] Surly DNA started evolving when they made their first product/child mixed with their genes.

It's called genetic mutation.

And for the sake of argument, idea, I'm saying that they were the first to two people.

In all honesty, I don't believe in most, if not all of, the Bible.

i found something that explains what i'm trying to say a little bit better:

What explanation can be given to those who point out that if Adam & Eve were the first humans that it necessarily follows that their offspring, in order to propagate, had to have incestuous relationships?

generally, there are two main considerations for the incest issue:

1. the incest problem has generally been understood as centered around the blending of identical genes...as weaker genes get amplified during incestuous breeding, so families produce weaker and less thriving offspring...the 'incest' that is allowed in the opening generations of the bible would not have had to deal with this...the gene pool would have been TOTALLY pure at the beginning, and genetic flaws were likely to have been negligible until the water canopy/thermal blanket was destroyed in the Flood...at that point, with radiation now pouring through, the genetic load would begin being a problem...

2. the long lifespans and prolific reproduction of the first few family leaders probably allowed for marriages to be much more distant that brother/sister...cousins, for example, are NOT described as 'incest' in the later prohibitions...there probably was ample opportunity (given the early biblical data) for matches like this to have occurred...

now that's just from a Christian standpoint, i'm not trying to pass it off as a fact but as a theory that makes the most sense to me. incest was pretty much unavoidable, but it wasn't a problem because the gene pool was "pure" in the beginning. i don't know for sure (and really, nobody does) but it makes more sense to me than believing we used to be monkeys XD

"i don't know for sure (and really, nobody does)"

--excuse me? we know the story of adam and eve is not true. Just because you refuse to accept this well known fact. only means you dont know.


"but it makes more sense to me than believing we used to be monkeys"


--Man did not come from monkeys, we share a common ancestor, but the split happened long before there was a monkey, or a man.

if that's what you think, then fine. i said what i believe and i have nothing else to say except that nothing you say will ever change my mind, so don't waste your time. (unchecking the "message me when somebody replies" box now)

that;s called being closed minded lady. go ahead and be naive, is funny

I hate to bring drama... but this is why people still believe in creationism. They're given facts, hard proof with things you can touch, you can see, and they put on blindfolds, put their fingers in their eyes, go "Lalalalalala!"

I get that kind of crap all the time for being an atheist, too. I was trying to have a debate with a girl (which she started) and I quickly realized that she wasn't listening to anything I was saying.

And people say they'll never change their minds. I can't believe so many people in this country still don't believe in evolution. I don't understand why people don't want to actually use their brains and think about it.

ps: Not one single gene exist without an evolutionary heritage. The genomes of about 180 life forms have been sequenced containing maybe a million genes.

A challenge for creationist was put forth, to find one single gene that shows signs of non-evolutionary origin, and of course creationist have failed to do so.

What I'm getting at is this "pure gene" shit is just that. It's shit. If we go with #1's logic, everyone should have looked the same. Everybody Pre-Floor/Noah's arc (I guess that's what it's referring to at the end there) should have looked exactly the freaking same. Same height for males and females. Same skin tone. Same everything. I'm fairly certain there's some evidence against this, somewhere. The second notion is the thermal blanket/water canopy. Should such an even have occurred, solar radiation would and could account for it, and it's a neat theory and all....but there's just so many smaller things to pull up that discredit the idea. 40 Days/Nights Flood + Some shocking atmospheric change. Happens a little too fast to be feasible, imo.

Humans are humans. End of story. The characteristics that are distinct to an individual (eye color, hair color, nose etc. etc) might change and vary, but overall, the DNA is still made the same. It's still the same shape. It still has the same number of chromosome pairs. Babies still need haploid sex cells from each parent.


Hard to believe our ancestors were mammalian apes, much like we are eh? Just think. At one point in time, half of your body was a single cell in your mother's ovary, and half of your body was a single cell in your father's right testicle. Before that, you were probably a million different atoms. After that, you were pushed headfirst through a vagina. Lots of things are hard to believe. :-p

WOOOOOOOOOOOO MONKEH!!!! lol

This has so much win.

I was discussing with a friend once how evolution will change humans in the future. He said we'll eventually lose our pinkies, because they serve no purpose (and the fact that the pinky is SO much smaller than the rest of our fingers! lol) and no pinky toes either. we'll have fingers like the cartoons! we'll also become taller, I guess...it's creepy to think about!

Our surroundings have tons of gloves with five fingers, unless from now on all gloves are made with only 4 fingers, for the next few million years, it could happen.