Genesis is not fact, there for Jesus is not necessary?

[ManMachine]

Please forgive me if this has been covered. I did search, but didn't find anything that seemed to address this directly.

I'm having trouble with what to me seems like a very simple concept.

In it's simplest possible terms:
Evolution is a Fact, we evolved as a species, not from a single human.
Therefor, Genesis in the Bible, in particular Adam can't be fact.
Without Adam, there is no Original Sin.
Without Original Sin, there is no need for Jesus Sacrifice.
Jesus Death is THE pillar of Christianity.
Christianity is unfounded, and therefor false.

What am I missing? Why is this seeming simple progression not a total refutation of Christianity?

Again.. if this has indeed been covered, I apologize, and ask for a quick link.

Try this out as an alternative take on the issues in your post (for the sake of debate).

Assuming most right minded people buy into the concept of evolution, at some point in history there is one male we are all descended from (Most Recent Common Ancestor - MRCA), also there is a single female who is the MRCA of us all. So, while there is no Adam and Eve per se and these common ancestors are thousands of years apart it does seem that we are descended from one man and one woman.

This doesn't mean they were the only male and female alive in their times, just the male and female from which we are all descended, he is called Y-chromosomal Adam (50-60,000 years ago), she is called Mitochondrial Eve (150-200,000 years ago).



Secondly, at some point in the very distant past there would have been a male/female pairing that gave rise to the mutations that became our ancestors and eventually Homo Sapiens, so while they were almost certainly not Homo Sapiens there will be some kind of convergence in our far-off distant past.

Which unravels the rest of your argument.

MM

[FiveSpotCharlie]

I don't for a moment buy into MRCA for our ENTIRE race leading back to a single male and female. A species evolves as a whole, not as a single mutation. One single mutation in one single Man or Woman isn't how a new species is formed. Though, a single mutation can easily grow and spread as as dominant mutation over time, especially if it is massively favored in natural selection . That's far from a single human that all humans "evolved" from as put forth in Genesis. The very best this argument could show is that all humans on earth should be able to trace a single gene back to a single common ancestor, and another gene should trace back to yet another common ancestor. Go back far enough, and you'll be able to trace a gene back to a common ancestor that isn't even Homo Sapien. Mitochondrial DNA, the one in your example, is found in.. uh... pretty much all life (grade 9 biology class, don't fail me now)! In fact it's an example of a gene that scientists use to show the relationships among various species.

Also, your eg of mtDNA fails with one single sentence. "Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.[2] Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, her female contemporaries, excluding her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living woman in the present day."

So much for the "first" woman argument, just happened to be the better evolved one.

Secondly, at some point in the very distant past there would have been a male/female pairing that gave rise to the mutations that became our ancestors and eventually Homo Sapiens, so while they were almost certainly not Homo Sapiens there will be some kind of convergence in our far-off distant past.

My favorite part of MRCA is the fact that in order for this to support Christianity, Y-Adam and M-Eve would have to have mated. A mathematical improbability. This convergence you speak of doesn't not for a moment have to be a single pairing of man and woman. Not to mention, we're still tallking only about a subset of our genes. What makes us Human is more than a single gene.

"... By definition, it is not necessary that the Y-MRCA and the mt-MRCA should have lived at the same time, even though current (as of 2014) estimates suggest the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous (albeit with uncertainties ranging in the tens of thousands of years)."
Talk about a "leap of faith".

Thanks for what on face value is a decent response, but one that isn't hard unravel. Unlike my initial argument which points to the Christian faith being founded on a single, and first, "fallen" man (not single gene) and woman. to which we all owe for his sin. Evolution shows there clearly was not a single first man and woman.

No first man, no fall, no need for Jesus.

[ManMachine]

I don't for a moment buy into MRCA for our ENTIRE race leading back to a single male and female.

This male and female actually live thousands of years apart. There is less confidence in Y-chromosomal Adam (about 95%) than Mitochondrial Eve, but the genetic evidence is fairly persuasive.

A species evolves as a whole, not as a single mutation.

Sorry, you're just flat out wrong here. Accumulation of mutations lead to organism changes that are more or less efficient in the prevailing environment. These drift into what we call 'species', they do not just erupt as distinct organisms out of the sea of genes,. that's nonsense.

One single mutation in one single Man or Woman isn't how a new species is formed.

Uh-hu.

Though, a single mutation can easily grow and spread as as dominant mutation over time, especially if it is massively favored in natural selection.

So, it can then.

That's far from a single human that all humans "evolved" from as put forth in Genesis.

I agree, but Genesis could be analogous, as I said.

The very best this argument could show is that all humans on earth should be able to trace a single gene back to a single common ancestor, and another gene should trace back to yet another common ancestor.

That is exactly what I'm saying.

Go back far enough, and you'll be able to trace a gene back to a common ancestor that isn't even Homo Sapien.

She is believed to have existed as Homo Sapiens Sapiens was developing as a distinct species.

Mitochondrial DNA, the one in your example, is found in.. uh... pretty much all life (grade 9 biology class, don't fail me now)! In fact it's an example of a gene that scientists use to show the relationships among various species.

Yes, but each mtDNA sequence is uniquely identified by it's haplotype (DNA signature). This means we are able to identify unique sequences and there is one we all carry, all of us (with the exception of later mutations), everyone in the world, and we get it from her.

Also, your eg of mtDNA fails with one single sentence. "Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.[2] Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, her female contemporaries, excluding her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living woman in the present day."

So much for the "first" woman argument, just happened to be the better evolved one.

I didn't call her the 'first' woman. I did say,

"This doesn't mean they were the only male and female alive in their times, just the male and female from which we are all descended..."


Have a look, it's there, near the top.

My favorite part of MRCA is the fact that in order for this to support Christianity ...

I'm not a Christian by the way, I'm an atheist putting forward the idea that Genesis story of Adam and Eve does work as a crude analogy and given when it was written is a pretty neat one given what we now know. That doesn't make it true, just interesting...

... Y-Adam and M-Eve would have to have mated.

No. Nowhere have I suggested a literal interpretation of Genesis, never have, never will.

A mathematical improbability. This convergence you speak of doesn't not for a moment have to be a single pairing of man and woman.

I said 'male/female' but whatever - you don't seem to be reading what I've written so far why would I expect you to start now...

Not to mention, we're still tallking only about a subset of our genes. What makes us Human is more than a single gene.

This highlights the folly in the abstraction of concepts like 'species'. There is no such thing as a 'species' just a tide of genes that throws up environmentally stable organisms momentarily.

"... By definition, it is not necessary that the Y-MRCA and the mt-MRCA should have lived at the same time, even though current (as of 2014) estimates suggest the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous (albeit with uncertainties ranging in the tens of thousands of years)."
Talk about a "leap of faith".

Again, I did say all of this.

Thanks for what on face value is a decent response, but one that isn't hard unravel.

?

Unlike my initial argument which points to the Christian faith being founded on a single, and first, "fallen" man (not single gene) and woman. to which we all owe for his sin. Evolution shows there clearly was not a single first man and woman.

No first man, no fall, no need for Jesus.

[FiveSpotCharlie]

Actually... no.. I think it is in fact you that misses the point. Or.. Context to be specific.
You .. like the Theists you are playing devils advocate for, throw out context, and focus on a single point at the expense of context. Your whole argument is based on my use of the word "first". You fail to include the context of that word with reference to Genesis. First is not just the "first" man, but the first and ONLY man. As always, context makes a difference. If I must be forced to type out "first and only" every time just to maintain context, we'd get no where. TLDR;

It's far more simple than the complex one you attempt (as devils advocate) to layout. Making a case for a traceable lineage, does absolutely nothing to support the Theist claim of there being a first/only Human that we all owe our Original sin to. Remember, this is the point of the original post. Jesus absolved us from our Sins handed down to us thanks to the Fall.

Evolution = Fact
There was a first Male and Female Human = False . There were many.
Original Sin = False, as there clearly was not a first man and woman.
Need for Jesus = False due to there not being an original sin.
Christianity = Unfounded.

You (or they) can attempt to find nuance to explain how there is some sort of common ancestor traced by a single gene, but that common ancestor, no matter how you get back to it, is still 1 in a larger group of many in the same species. Tracing our lineage of just mtDNA to a single Female, is not to say she is our one and only ancestral mother (again, the point of the original post). All one has to ask is, what happened to the mtDNA from other women contemporary to mtEve? "So what about all of the mtDNA of the other women who lived during "Eve's" time? What happened to it? Simply this: Somewhere between now and then, they had female descendants who had only sons (or no children). When this happened, the passing on of their mtDNA halted."

Like I said...(and I don't have a Yoda Meme to drive this home) tracing back a single gene to a single person, does nothing to support that person as being the single origin of our species. Only the origin of that gene. So, while this dna tracing is indeed an interesting topic and discussion, it actually plays little to no role in supporting the claim of "The Fall".

P.S. I never once accused you of being a Christian. I value response from both sides, so long as they are well thought out and valid. You made the statement, so I did direct my responses to you. You laid out points, and I addressed (or attempted to) them, and expanded on them. Nothing more. I think I assumed you were not a Christian by your posting "for the sake of debate".

Edit: Intersting note from a pbs article at mtDNA.

There are many variables that can affect the mutation rate of mtDNA, including even the possibility that mtDNA is not always inherited strictly through maternal lines. In fact, recent studies show that paternal mtDNA can on rare occasions enter an egg during fertilization and alter the maternal mtDNA through recombination. Such recombination would drastically affect the mutation rate and throw off date estimates.

Not surprisingly, there is currently a heated debate over the value of "mitochondrial Eve"—especially between history-hunting geneticists and some fossil-finding paleoanthropologists. According to these anthropologists, even if we could accurately gauge the age of the ancestor, that knowledge is meaningless because all she really is is the woman whose mtDNA did not die out due to random lineage extinctions. Furthermore, her status as the most recent common ancestor doesn't mean that she and her contemporaries were any different from their ancestors. (Remember, she and all of her contemporaries had their own mitochondrial Eve.)

Perhaps the most valuable finding regarding the "most recent common ancestor" is that she probably lived in Africa—a finding that supports the most popular theories about the worldwide spread of hominids.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ya'll are crazy! Don't you know that the Annunaki introduced genetic mutations into Australopithecus stock to create a slave race of Humans. :-)

[FiveSpotCharlie]

That's why my middle name is LV-426!

[dyresand]

Ya'll are crazy! Don't you know that the Annunaki introduced genetic mutations into Australopithecus stock to create a slave race of Humans. :-)

Learn evolution and the migration of people

[ManMachine]

You ..are playing devils advocate

Obviously.

[Ravenshire]

If it bothers you that much then quit reading.

GC

(emphasis is mine)

Actually, I was hoping you'd start.