Questions on Theistic Evolution

[Calum]

PaulSacramento:

What's your opinion on Adam and Eve?

They were real people that actually existed in the Garden of Eden that were cast out and had to deal with the rest of the world.
I believe that the rest of the world already had people in it by the time they were cast out.

Do you mean 'people' by non-spiritual hominids, or 'people' by means of spiritual hominids like Homo sapiens sapiens?

[PaulSacramento]

PaulSacramento:

What's your opinion on Adam and Eve?

They were real people that actually existed in the Garden of Eden that were cast out and had to deal with the rest of the world.
I believe that the rest of the world already had people in it by the time they were cast out.

Do you mean 'people' by non-spiritual hominids, or 'people' by means of spiritual hominids like Homo sapiens sapiens?

That is a tougher one, honestly.
I am kind of on the fence on that one, but I tend to think that the other people, while human, were not yet "blessed by God" like Adam and Eve were.

[KBCid]

Are you suggesting that God LITERALLY removed one of Adam;'s ribs to make Eve?

I don't believe I 'suggested' anything. I provided a set of verses which do much more than suggest how Eve was formed. To get an answer to your question it would have to be forwarded to God who did the forming and who also caused the text to be written.
So do you think God was honest about forming Eve from Adams rib? and really why would he relate the story in this way? why not simply state that he formed eve from the dust of the ground just as he did Adam?.

[jlay]

Are people here saying that the bible doesn't LITERALLY suggest that God removed one of Adam's ribs to make Eve?

What else doesn't the Bible literally say?

[KBCid]

Actually, you can be theistic evolutionist and believe in a literal Eve.
Here are some thoughts: When God breathed into Adam the spirit of life, he might have breathed it into his genetic makeup. It would very well explain why God decided to take a genetic sample from Adam and turn it into a woman. There's no reason to think, in a theistic evolutionary perspective, that God would not use preexisting genetic material (already 'breathed' on) and use it to construct Eve with, and from those two new creations, the spirit would be passed on from generation to generation. There is no contradiction. It really is quite evolutionary, as God changed some genetic material around to make Eve. I think evolution better explains the fossil record, and the relation Homo sapiens idaltu has to Homo sapiens sapiens.

Actually you can't without justifying how a female can be formed from a male in an evolutionary setting. Evolution as everyone knows posits the passing on of genetic material from mother and father via birth from the mother. So to justify theistic evolution you would of necessity have to deny that God used a part of Adam as a foundation to form Eve.
You should also note that Adam was formed prior to recieving the breath of life. Thus, the physical genetic makeup is already in place prior to the addition of life and therefore cannot be inferred to be an addition to the genetic makeup. Science can easily show that nothing in your genetic makeup is lost when you die so you would have no basis for asserting an addition to genetics in the presence of life.
Let me further point out that evolutionary theory is based on random mutation and natural selection as its 'engine' (cause) of formation. To assert that God by intelligent design used pre-existing genetic material and intelligently rearranged it into another form removes evolutionary theory entirely from the picture. You are left with only the theistic part as the engine.
Both God and evolution are asserted to be the causal engine of the physical forms that life is observed to have by those who are trying to define what has the power to perform such as action. So you can only choose one of them as the engine of formation for physical structure and as soon as you make that choice then you eliminate the other as a necessity.

No one doubts that there is variability built into living structures but the answer to the question of what had the power to cause this arrangement to occur is what began the assertion of a purely natural cause in opposition to the older assertion of an intelligent designer. Evolutionary theory is a concept intended to provide a complete explanation for how life went from an initial replicator to all the various forms we observe. It has no inclusion of intelligence as part of the equation. If you wish to posit that a designer is responsible for the variability we observe in living systems then you are removing the two foundational concepts that evolutionary theory was built on. Random chance is not random if its intelligently designed and natural selection is not natural if it is done by design.

[KBCid]

They were real people that actually existed in the Garden of Eden that were cast out and had to deal with the rest of the world. I believe that the rest of the world already had people in it by the time they were cast out.

Then your belief is in direct contradiction to the written text;

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:20 ...but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

If there were already women in existence then these verses would be a lie.

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Eve could not have been the mother of all living if she was formed after mankind (male and female) came into existence.

[KBCid]

Are people here saying that the bible doesn't LITERALLY suggest that God removed one of Adam's ribs to make Eve?What else doesn't the Bible literally say?

LOL

Muslims believe that Christ was 'only' a prophet.... I believe that qualifies as something that people suggest and the bible doesn't literally say.

[RickD]

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Eve could not have been the mother of all living if she was formed after mankind (male and female) came into existence.

Not that I believe this, but couldn't one make an argument that Eve is the Mother of all living, as in spiritual, not physical? If there were other hominids alive, but not spiritual creatures, wouldn't that fit the text?

[KBCid]

Eve could not have been the mother of all living if she was formed after mankind (male and female) came into existence.

Not that I believe this, but couldn't one make an argument that Eve is the Mother of all living, as in spiritual, not physical? If there were other hominids alive, but not spiritual creatures, wouldn't that fit the text?

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

apparently the physical side is part of the consideration. One might further point out that if being 'spiritual' was a dividing line then why couldn't God have simply breathed spiritual life into an already existing physical female form if that was the only difference between the two? God would have had no need to form a complete new pyhsical structure for eve if there were already such structures in existence nor would he have had to form Adam structurally. He could have simply grabbed 2 existing structures, male and female and infused spiritual life into them.

[Calum]

For all you people here, this is what my current views on Adam and Eve are:

Adam was formed out of the dust of the ground. (from the Earth)
God gifted Adam with a spirit, and he became alive.
God moved Adam to the garden (Tabriz?).
God wanted a helper for Adam, so He put Adam to sleep, took out a portion of his side, and from that genetic material he made Eve, another spiritual being.
Afterward, there is the Fall, and then the Flood, and after humans spread throughout the planet.

It really is fascinating to see the jump from anatomically modern humans to behaviorally modern humans with all their spirituality 50,000 years ago.
Prior to Adam, man must have just been another hominid amongst several others, until: BAM! “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”, and so then he gifts us with the spirit, allowing us to dominate the planet.

See, in the progressive creationist viewpoint, hominids don't really make sense. It makes much more sense that it was the Earth that produced these creatures. Did God choose from a wide selection of hominids, as seen in the fossil record? I think it's a possibility. Homo sapiens idaltu was apparently the smartest, and might have had more potential, so it would make sense God would pick Adam from that species, and then construct Eve from Adam.

Having a literal Eve would make sense. If God chose Eve from the same species as Adam, genetic 'mistakes' would accumulate much faster. It could explain the longer life spans and why brothers married sisters at first as well.

[dayage]

Calum,
I will respond more, soon.

What is so special about idaltu? We only have one complete adult brain case and its brain size is in the middle of many hominids.
Homo erectus (1.8 Mya-0.3 Mya) - Weidenreich reconstruction (~1043cc);
Sangiran 2 (~815cc); Sangiran 17 (~1029cc); Trinil 2 (~940cc); Hexian (~1000cc);
Zhoukoudian skulls - III, juvenile (~915cc); II (~1030cc); Gongwangling (~780cc);
XI (~1015cc); XII (~1030cc); V (~1140cc); Sm 4 (~1003cc); X (~1225cc)

Archaic Homo sapiens and heidelbergensis (0.6 Mya-0.13 Mya) - Kabwe or
Broken Hill 1 (~1280cc); Bodo (~1250cc); Aragon XXI (~1166cc);
Petralona 1 (~1220cc); Atapuerca 5 (~1125cc); Homo sapien idaltu (~1450cc);
Atapuerca 4 (~1390cc); Dali (~1120cc); Jinniushan (~1350cc)

Homo neanderthalensis (0.25 Mya-0.03 Mya) - La Ferrassie 1 (~1600cc);
La Chappelle-aux-Saints (~1620cc); Ehringsdorf H (~1450cc);
Amud 1 (~1740cc); Teshik-Tash, juvenile (~1500cc); Fontechevade 2 (~1350cc);
Saccopastore 1 (~1245cc); Saccopastore 2 (~1300cc)

Homo sapien sapiens (0.07-present) - Mladec 1 (~1540cc); Mladec 2 (~1390cc);
Mladec 5,6,46 (~1650cc); Cro-Magnon 1 (~1600cc); Qafzeh IX (~1550cc);
Qafzeh XI (~1554cc); Omo 1 (~1400cc+);
Today’s healthy range (900cc-2000cc)
Recorded geniuses (1000cc-2000cc). Today’s average (1350cc-1400cc)

Brain size does not mean much. Idaltu had the same types of tool sets as Neandertals and Erectus.

They did not look like us. They did not act like us. Anatomy is not reliable:
Phylogenetic tree problems
Fossils and DNA tell two different evolutionary stories. Which are you going to believe? Virtually all "evidence" for evolution is from fossils, yet DNA is the new big thing in evolution. These two studies do not leave much hope for human evolution research.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/5003.f ... 39a924d3ae
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084304.htm

Hominids, as all other animals, played a role in the ecology. God may have used them to prepare other animals for the arrival of humans. Studies have shown that in the continents where hominids did not exist, large mammals were quickly pushed to extinction by humans. This did not happen where hominids existed.

[Ivellious]

Phylogenetic tree problems
Fossils and DNA tell two different evolutionary stories. Which are you going to believe? Virtually all "evidence" for evolution is from fossils, yet DNA is the new big thing in evolution. These two studies do not leave much hope for human evolution research.

Care to explain this further? I totally disagree that DNA evidence contradicts fossil evidence as it pertains to evolution (both in human evolution and in other evolutionary lines). DNA studies have made scientists re-examine the evidence for human evolution and has raised questions about where the lines on the phylogenetic tree are drawn.

You are right in saying that anatomy should not be the end all in terms of drawing evolutionary lines and connections, but they are a helpful tool when looking at closely-related species and finding where the similarities and differences are. You can trace identical or nearly identical features back through the fossil record, but again, it is a somewhat arbitrary measure. We did a lab in a biology course where we analyzed skulls from about 15 currently living primates and had to find similar features, features that were present in different skulls but were altered slightly, features present on some but not others, etc. We used that information to create phylogenetic trees and then cross-referenced that with phylogenetic trees based on DNA analysis we had done. There were differences, of course (it was the point of the lab). The differences weren't huge, but several lines had to be re-drawn and some species were found to be more or less related than our skull analysis had shown. The point is, DNA evidence is a stronger tool for drawing phylogenetic trees, with anatomical studies being better for checking the DNA evidence and perhaps clearing up gray areas.

[dayage]

Did you read the articles?

DNA evidence is a stronger tool for drawing phylogenetic trees, with anatomical studies being better for checking the DNA evidence and perhaps clearing up gray areas.

This is all arbitrary. You are assuming evolution and then trying to put together a story that will work. When one line of evidence does not fit your model, you chose another that does.

The DNA evidence shows the common designs used by God to create different life forms.

Dr. Fanning on the assumptions made during the process of generating phylogenetic trees.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/assumpt ... am-and-eve

Here is a recent podcast by Dr. Rana:
http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... -evolution

[PaulSacramento]

They were real people that actually existed in the Garden of Eden that were cast out and had to deal with the rest of the world. I believe that the rest of the world already had people in it by the time they were cast out.

Then your belief is in direct contradiction to the written text;

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:20 ...but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

If there were already women in existence then these verses would be a lie.

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Eve could not have been the mother of all living if she was formed after mankind (male and female) came into existence.

The genre in which genesis was written does NOT demand that we take all verses as literal and concrete.
If you choose to do so that is, of course, up to you.

[Calum]

They were real people that actually existed in the Garden of Eden that were cast out and had to deal with the rest of the world. I believe that the rest of the world already had people in it by the time they were cast out.

Then your belief is in direct contradiction to the written text;

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:20 ...but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

If there were already women in existence then these verses would be a lie.

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Eve could not have been the mother of all living if she was formed after mankind (male and female) came into existence.

The genre in which genesis was written does NOT demand that we take all verses as literal and concrete.
If you choose to do so that is, of course, up to you.

But there's no reason not to believe Adam and Eve were two real people. Personally, I take an interpretation that is very concrete. The whole reason I became theistic evolutionist was because I took Genesis very literally, and Genesis seems to speak for evolution. It's strongly hinted throughout.