If you ask any religious person who come first Adam or Eve?, She/he answer blindly that Adam come first, but from scientific view this is impossible and that is because ..
Lets check this video because I believe one video better than a thousand words.

The first known step of sexual differentiation of a normal XY fetus is the development of testes. The early stages of testicular formation in the second month of gestation requires the action of several genes, of which one of the earliest and most important is SRY, the sex-determining region of the Y chromosome. Mutations of SRY account for many cases of Swyer syndrome.
Swyer syndrome:
When SRY gene is defective, the indifferent gonads fail to differentiate into testes in an XY (genetically male) fetus. Without testes, no testosterone or antimüllerian hormone (AMH) is produced. Without testosterone, the wolffian ducts fail to develop, so no internal male organs are formed. Also, the lack of testosterone means that no dihydrotestosterone is formed and consequently the external genitalia fail to virilize, resulting in normal female genitalia. Without AMH, the Müllerian ducts develop into normal internal female organs (uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix, vagina).

A baby who is externally a girl is born and is normal in all anatomic respects except that the child has nonfunctional streak gonads instead of ovaries or testes. As girls' ovaries normally produce no important body changes before puberty, a defect of the reproductive system typically remains unsuspected until puberty fails to occur in people with Swyer syndrome. They appear to be normal girls and are generally considered so.

So Adam come as result of modification of Eve, So Eve have to be created first.


This modification Chang rapidly due to smart sexual selection done by female.
the educated religious people who believe in evolution but with intelligent designer, but not by chance, argue that Adam and Eve tale is just symbolic and to explain how sin start in the world.
But didn't god know about Y chromosome , if he did then he should start the tale by creating Eve and then from Eve come Adam. I mean even the tale is symbolic it have to contain some facts.

Mitochondrial Eve:
refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living anatomically modern humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve".

Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA):
is a hypothetical name given to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal or male lines of their family tree). However, the title is not permanently fixed on a single individual (see below).

The age for the Y-MRCA has been variously estimated as 188,000, 270,000, 306,000, and 142,000 years. A paper published in March 2013 reported an older estimate of 338,000 years.[ Then two simultaneous reports in August 2013 provide younger estimates, one suggested 180,000 to 200,000 years, and another, based on the genome sequence of nine different populations, indicated the age between 120,000 and 156,000 years."

Source: Wikipedia
The scientific Adam and Eve never met, but their offspring met and survive which are modern human.
Scientific Adam have high survival value and scientific Eve have high sexual value, and these values inherited by their offsprings and it lead to the genetic load of existing human, while others extinct.
But there is no way that individual man and woman meet and make population because their offspring will extinct due to genetic mutation, you need at least forty different individuals to make healthy population.

Views: 780

Replies to This Discussion

Hmmm . . . interesting.

Bottom line: evolution is a matter of incremental changes. Homo sapien sapiens gradually evolved from prior species: there were no Adam and Eve proto-humans. And without two original humans to commit original sin, there was no purpose in the sacrifice of Jesus. If there were no original sin, no God-imputed curse . . . then no salvation is necessary. The fact of evolution proves the lie of Christianity (or, at least, the Catholic version of it).

Please, this is just too much stuff for me to grasp. Why don't we do the right thing and simply stay with the biblical version? After all, you guys were the ones always carping on that famous razor you say cuts through complex arguments and contends that the simplest answer is best.

Scientists do massive efforts to reveal the truth

Well, even if you count that as a 'gender swap', it doesn't change anything for the argument, for two reasons that I can think of off the top of my head.

1) They will just say that "Adam" still came first, even if he were 'female' or 'neutral' for a bit at first (pre-birth only counts for life, not gender to them, like anything, it only counts if/when they want it to count, not when we want it), but they will also say that...

2) It didn't happen that way for him because the first man, 'wasn't made by natural reproduction, but rather by god, out of dirt', so it didn't happen that way for the first guy, that only happened for the men from then on... (if they believe that it happens at all. Remember, it happened because ...GOD MAGIC! What was that? A big guy, with the long beard... I know, a wizard did it! Well, if it's Merlin, then he lives backward in time, so he WILL do it... I mean, according to the Arthurian myths, we only passed him in the time stream about fifteen hundred years ago, so it will be a while before he gets to thirteen and a half billion years ago... he can only go so fast, even he can't break the speed of light, he has to bend it like the rest of us...)

Besides, they couldn't have 'Eve' come first in their story (or at all, if they can help it most of the time, look at the Muslims and their female circumcision...), it hurts their 'male dominance', and religion had nothing to do with facts, and the only symbolism was one of dominance. They would also say that you have it backwards, that the ovaries, and all of that were formed the other way around, and with their level of scientific understanding that is good enough for most of them. {"If you could reason with a religious person, there would not be religious people.}

While I do not buy into the Adam/Eve garbage, and while this was interesting info, what the embryo starts as, is not germane to the argument of 'which came first', like my #1 point above. This isn't like the chicken and the egg one, where there were eggs long before there were chickens, and the first chicken hatched from one of those eggs, in this case I lean more toward the 'gender neutral' wording for that state anyway.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it could have been either gender first, or both, since there were millions and millions of changes over millions of years, and it is still going... Unfortunately, based on who is doing the most reproducing these days, we are devolving at present. Working hard to get that 'lizard brain' back to being the main one. 

...and just for a bit of silliness, "If you ask any religious person who come first Adam or Eve?, She/he answer blindly that Adam come first," ...not ANY religious person, there are a lot of them who do not follow an Abrahamic religion, they just get ignored in most talks. ;) I am guilty of it as well, I tend to focus mostly on X-ians, because they are the ones who have trying to force their mythology down my throat since I was a toddler, they are the ones we tend to see the most, followed by the other two Abrahamic ones, but we should try to keep in mind there are a lot of other religions out there as well, who may never have even heard the 'Adam and Eve' myth, like the almost billion Hindu people, or the Shintoists in Japan for a couple examples.

Again, off topic, but that wikiquote needs some serious help, "...their offspring will extinct due..." I mean ...wow, just wow. "...would have gone extinct, due..." That whole thing, while trying to make a good point, is just awful. The 'scientific' Adam HAD, the scientific' Eve HAD... (not that there were two such individuals, as the quote tried to point out), "which [ARE] modern humans", "inherited by their [OFFSPRING]", "...meet and make [A] population[,]...", and there are more I am sure, but I just can't read it any longer. The power of Webster compels you! The power of Webster compels you! lol.

Being dyslexic, I am far from perfect, but it really makes it hard to take what they are saying as having any kind of authority on the subject, even if they really know what they are talking about, if their level of understanding of English is that low, then odds are, they are not explaining it very well.

Take care, and may the spell checker be with you.


The Dev, this is why arguing with dogma is futile. They can always reduce everything to God. Rather than question his existence, which is troubling to them, they simply say, "Lord knows" and "that's not fur us to know," &c, and the conversation can proceed no more. Arguing history, science, &c. with them is a waste of time.

Explains everything while explaining nothing.  And they don't understand why we consider theology to be useless ...

Why bother, let us stick with bible version because after all it make sense because it was wretten in ENGLISH

This reminds me of the story about a man from a Bible Belt State responding to a question as to why he would not even bother to try learning some Spanish.

His answer was that if English was good enough for Jesus it was good enough for him. 

Sadly, while it is a joke, it is also reflected in reality.  I've heard stupid fundie sayings bounced around by atheists online, and at the time, I assumed that they were made up to mock a straw-man of fundamentalism, making them look more ignorant than they actually are.

... and then I've gone on to hear just about all of them said by actual fundamentalists.  "If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" comes to mind.  I've heard that one in person, proposed in all seriousness, on multiple occasions.

I have no reason to doubt that a good number of theists echo the Jesus-English thing in all seriousness.

Speaking of languages , I think it's god's plan to confuse our languages

"If you ask any religious person who come first Adam or Eve?, She/he answer blindly that Adam come first"

Has that really been your experience? Most Christians believe in evolution and consider the Garden of Eden to be a story. Meanwhile, religious Hindus and Buddhists don't have any particular opinion about Adam and Eve. When we talk about our "enemies," we should be careful not to overgeneralize. It's human nature to consider a rival group to be more homogeneous and more contemptible than they really are. We atheists are supposed to be the rational ones, so can we do better? 

Most Christians believe in evolution and consider the Garden of Eden to be a story.

Depending upon which polls you look at, that isn't necessarily true.



I'm not sure what accounts for the significant difference in the numbers, between the Gallup and Pew polls.  If the Gallup polls are closer to reality, though, there could be slightly more than half of Christians in the US who are creationists, given about 15% or 16% of the US population being nonbelievers.

A lot of this depends upon your definitions.  When you say 'most', do you mean it in the strictly literal sense of 'over 50%' or do you mean it more colloquially?  When most people say most (eh heh), I think they mean a more significant majority, maybe 60% or 70%.

It also depends upon what you mean by Christians.  There are a lot of nominal believers who kind-of vaguely believe in a God, but they never really think about it, and it doesn't have any real impact on their lives.  They're approaching apatheism.

If you mean believers, in that they ever talk about God in public, and we're likely to end up in a discussion with them ... then yes, over half of those sorts are creationists.  That has absolutely been my experience.

You're going to have a significantly different experience than most do in the US, man.  You're in freaking Seattle.  Seattle, WA and Portland, OR are two of the most atheistic cities in the country.  I don't think your personal experience is at all representative of what most (there's that word again) of us go through.  Those of us in the southeast are swimming in the creationist nuts.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service