Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Adam And Eve

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Alright, so i mentioned before that i would make this topic in my last topic on the Theory of Evolution.

post #38

"As seen in this discussion, we can take implications drawn from one field of evolutionary study such as...paleontology, and we can effectively make accurate predictions in other independent fields using the theory such as comparative anatomy and genetics.

For example, using the theory of evolution, i should be able to predict the anatomical and genetic makeup of Adam, i should be able to tell roughly where Adam and Eve were located on earth and when they were located on earth based on mutation rates and and the analysis of Adam and Eves descendants. I should be able to determine what strata in the earth, their fossils, if they have them, would be located, and the strata in which all of their descendants are located. And, if i am not able to find these things, then the heory of evolution is in trouble.

We can figure these things out with every other living thing, and if evolution is indeed true in the case of Adam and Eve, we should be able to apply the theory to them too.

But what happens when we attempt to draw conclusions on scripture, using the combined efforts of the various independent studies? What do we find, what do we determine from it, and what does it really mean?

to be continued... "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, we have questions such as " what where and when" are Adam and Eve? (with respect to the Theory of Evolution)

What were Adam and Eve?

"Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was." Quran 3:59

"Abu Musa narrated that Muhammad said: "Allah created Adam from a handful of dust taken from different lands, so the children of Adam have been created according to the composition of the land. Therefore from mankind we have white, red, black and yellow ones; we have good and evil, ease and sorrow, and what comes in between them." (i know hes sunni, but it is what it is)~ Wiki

He is the first Male that has the morphology that we do, he is the first modern human also with the ability to think, as we do.

So now, applying Evolution. We know that evolution occurs in communities, yes indeviduals do mutate and alter morphology, but evolution itself only occurs by definition with communities of organisms which allow for the variation in their genes. With this said, Adam and Eve most reasonably would have existed in a community with other hominids (which did exist according to the fact that their fossils are still all over the place). If Adam and Eve were the only beings of their specific species, genetically, inbreeding would kill them off.

About inbreeding, all living things, depend upon genetic variation in order to survive. To demonstrate this, lets say for example, when the europeans invaded the aztec empire. great disease spread among the aztecs and killed many of them. Why? because the infection was able to attack people so long as they didnt have a particular mutation or variation within their immunity to protect them from that infection. The Europeans had the variation necessary for immunity, so they carried the diseased into the genepool of the aztect who didnt carry the immunity within their genes.

So if Adam and Eve inbreed, if there were no genetic variation, it would ruin their immunity and they and all their children would be whiped out like any other being (aztects, mayans, cheetahs, europeans and the black plague etc etc).

Ok, so what were Adam and Eve? We know they were modern humans, that lived around communities of other hominids, and they contained genetic variation. On top of that, we have previous concepts from the prior topic. Things like endogenous retroviruses, and phylogenetic trees that tell us what Adam was. Genetically, this being was not necessarily any sort of super human. He was most likely not a giant because there are no giant fossils of any living hominid including humans.

So Adam and Eve, just as we do today, if theyre truly our ancestors, most reasonably must have had genetic variation within their genes. So rationally, what we have are, the first advanced modern humans.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Where were Adam and Eve?

For this, id recommend everyone check this documentary out.

Essentially, DNA relatedness can can tell us the relatedness of all people on Earth. All males on earth share a specific piece of DNA in our Y chromosomes, thus allowing for development of phylogenetic trees. Phylogenetic trees created using modern human Y chromosomes show that peoples relatedness stems from other societies located in North East African societies. Also in the fossil record, ancient hominid fossils can be found in the same areas in which the related societies are found (also in North East Africa).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And the last question of "When" did Adam and Eve live?

Basically, in humans, we mutate at set rates. So if we have a phylogenetic tree, and sequenced human DNA, depending on the variation between humans, we can determine how many generations of mutations the societies have undergone.

Based on mutation rates, it can be said that a common ancestor of all living men, can be found to have existed roughly 60 thousand years ago. Which also correlates to the fossil record again. Which is perfect because it is recent enough that nobody needs to associate Adam with any sort of primitive ape. Likewise its early enough in time that he predates modern societies of humans.

Everything fits together like a nicely designed puzzle.

Aside from Adam, which the documentary above talks about, Eve can be tracked through mitochondrial DNA much like Adam can be tracked through the Y Chromosome. There is another documentary on "Mitochondrial Eve" i can bring up if anyone is interested.

Edited by iSilurian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salam

The Human Family Tree retraces the deepest branches of the human race to reveal we are all 99.9% genetically identical.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=history+channel+family+tree&oq=history+channel+family+tree&aq=f&aqi=g-v2g-b7&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=5609l9593l0l27l16l0l2l2l0l250l1547l2-7&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e21909ad211f6357&biw=1232&bih=620

Check out the link. Tell me what you think

One more question for you? Evolution can account for the physical formation of Humans but how do you explain the Mind? The choice of Submission? Thats the biggest diffence between Humans and Animals is the choice of Submission to Allah.

WS

Edited by asharp
Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

The Human Family Tree retraces the deepest branches of the human race to reveal we are all 99.9% genetically identical.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=history+channel+family+tree&oq=history+channel+family+tree&aq=f&aqi=g-v2g-b7&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=5609l9593l0l27l16l0l2l2l0l250l1547l2-7&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e21909ad211f6357&biw=1232&bih=620

Check out the link. Tell me what you think

Yes, thats true. Were very very closely related. The human genome is composed of billions of groupings of DNA, that we pass on generation to generation. And even though we do change things like skin color and maybe the shape of our bodies a tiny bit from one another, were still generally the same. All related.

One more question for you? Evolution can account for the physical formation of Humans but how do you explain the Mind? The choice of Submission? Thats the biggest diffence between Humans and Animals is the choice of Submission to Allah.

WS

I personally believe that our mind is a product of our advanced and efficient brain. Once we have our mind, then were capable of doing various religious things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Are you inferring that Adam and Eve (as) originated in North-East Africa, i.e. Egypt? The orthodox Islamic view is that Adam (as) lived in modern day Iraq (hence his resting place in Najaf). Ancient civilization was able to develop and thrive through the use of language and Surat al Baqarat states as follows:

"And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful. (31) They said: Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that which Thou hast taught us. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower, the Wise. (32) He said: O Adam! Inform them of their names, and when he had informed them of their names, He said: Did I not tell you that I know the secret of the heavens and the earth? And I know that which ye disclose and which ye hide. (33)"

Although there is evidence of pre-historic settlements around the Nile Delta, the critical point is that it is generally agreed that writing and cuneiform script originated in Sumer/ancient Mesopotamia c. 3-4 millenia BCE and that it appeared in Egypt later, probably by cultural diffusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you inferring that Adam and Eve (as) originated in North-East Africa, i.e. Egypt? The orthodox Islamic view is that Adam (as) lived in modern day Iraq (hence his resting place in Najaf). Ancient civilization was able to develop and thrive through the use of language and Surat al Baqarat states as follows:

No, not egypt in particular. check out the video i posted

Although there is evidence of pre-historic settlements around the Nile Delta, the critical point is that it is generally agreed that writing and cuneiform script originated in Sumer/ancient Mesopotamia c. 3-4 millenia BCE and that it appeared in Egypt later, probably by cultural diffusion.

were talking about 60 thousand years ago with Adam, not 6 thousand years ago, with people and literature.

Edited by iSilurian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/

Just something to add. With the neanderthal DNA sequencing, scientists have noticed that modern western european populations actually contain genes that cannot be found in modern African populations. These genes being those found in neanderthal DNA.

So, the article is stating that at some point in time, homo sapiens interbred with neanderthals after they had advanced up into polar regions about 50,000 years ago.

Its relative to the topic because it raises the question of what exactly are the origins of modern people? Based on this research, it can be seen that not all modern people share the exact same lineage, and it raises questions about the intricacy of archaic hominid evolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

I found your theory intriguiung, iSilurian. It would be excellent if you could turn it into a fully-fledged article or a series of articles which explains the consequences of such a theory on religion and theology. Perhaps theology would be able to better accommodate scientific findings and acquire a new sort of Logic by which to examine and interpret religious statements about the world.

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

You said in other topics:

Scientifically, the whole concept of Adam itself, is...no offense to those who believe the story of Adam and Eve, but the story of Adam and Eve in the literal sense, we're about certain is not true.

Can you describe your understanding of "literal sense" of Adam and how it is conflict with your understanding of Evolution. Btw, this is interesting topic :)

Edited by Zufa
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

were talking about 60 thousand years ago with Adam, not 6 thousand years ago, with people and literature.

A very interesting topic, iSilurian.

What I have not quite understood (ignorant of the subject and too little time to check it out) is why Mitochondrial Eve is not a contemporary of Adam.

Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago, most likely in East Africa,

It appears that they lived thousands of years apart.

Is there an explanation for this?

*

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said in other topics:

Can you describe your understanding of "literal sense" of Adam and how it is conflict with your understanding of Evolution. Btw, this is interesting topic :)

When i say "literal", i general say it in the context of a young earth, christian literalistic interpretation. The whole 1900's idea of a man and a women not being birthed from others, but rather being created as is, together in a blissful world along side the tree of life.

Which isnt to say that Adam and Eve could not be said to have existed in other forms (as part of the overall ascent of hominids from ancient mammals).

In these times, even most christians do not believe such things (though some do).

A very interesting topic, iSilurian.

What I have not quite understood (ignorant of the subject and too little time to check it out) is why Mitochondrial Eve is not a contemporary of Adam.

Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago, most likely in East Africa,

It appears that they lived thousands of years apart.

Is there an explanation for this?

*

Well, if you think about it, for example, in the video...

Well, first let me just say that ive made this topic a fair amount of time ago (6 months or so) so my line of thought may come off as different as it were when i first made the topic.

Anyway, in the video, it speaks of Genghis Khan for example. GK had many children and many people who live today hold his genes. However, he didnt have children with just one women. He is a father to many many people, but there is no specific women who is the mother of us all, at that specific time.

So, our male and female ancestors dont necessarily need to come at the same time because there were plenty of other people to have children with.

And this actually goes back to Zufas post about what is meant by a "literal" sense. Often some christian groups will believe Adam and Eve were one man and one women living at the same time before any other humans. But that simply contradicts what we know in science, and so rarely would we find a scientist who says they would believe the story of 2 people alone in the world before all others. And again, thats not to say Adam and Eve couldnt be said to have existed in other ways.

And, there are a handful of ways that we know they weren't just 2 people alone before any other people together at one time, i could clarify if you would like.

In the mean time, everyone should look at my other topic

http://www.shiachat....y-of-evolution/

Edited by iSilurian
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

I found your theory intriguiung, iSilurian. It would be excellent if you could turn it into a fully-fledged article or a series of articles which explains the consequences of such a theory on religion and theology. Perhaps theology would be able to better accommodate scientific findings and acquire a new sort of Logic by which to examine and interpret religious statements about the world.

(wasalam)

Ah, i dunno. I wouldnt mind, but i would need a bit more free time. Maybe in time. This topic along with the evolution one i made over my summer break so i had a lot of free time to dabble.

I would like to recommend the evolution topic to everyone though. It provides, in my opinion more valuable information to the discussion than this topic. Once we establish the theory of evolution itself, understanding human origins becomes far easier. It also becomes far easier to explain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Further to Zufa's question, I should like to know what you mean by "we're about certain". I too have seen you do this in other threads. "About certain" would seem to imply you are speaking of probability. You cannot be speaking broadly relative to alternatives - as presently there are not any. Perhaps you have some criteria, or know of another's that you prefer, by which you assess the probability of a particular hypothesis on it's own? Do share. Or do you mean it is mathematically probable, mathematically "about certain"? If so - how have you come to this conclusion? Probability calculus? And what value do you assign to "about certain"? 3/4? Higher? And again, how have you come to the conclusion that your particular explanation is of that value? What raises it's probability to that value? What is it that you believe makes something probable? And this theory in particular "about certain"?

I do not think that most proponents of biological evolution have thought this through. I think that what you mean by "we're about certain" is - "we pretty firmly believe this is so."

Edited by Servidor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to Zufa's question, I should like to know what you mean by "we're about certain". I too have seen you do this in other threads. "About certain" would seem to imply you are speaking of probability. You cannot be speaking broadly relative to alternatives - as presently there are not any. Perhaps you have some criteria, or know of another's that you prefer, by which you assess the probability of a particular hypothesis on it's own? Do share. Or do you mean it is mathematically probable, mathematically "about certain"? If so - how have you come to this conclusion? Probability calculus? And what value do you assign to "about certain"? 3/4? Higher? And again, how have you come to the conclusion that your particular explanation is of that value? What raises it's probability to that value? What is it that you believe makes something probable? And this theory in particular "about certain"?

I do not think that most proponents of biological evolution have thought this through. I think that what you mean by "we're about certain" is - "we pretty firmly believe this is so."

"about certain" is my nice way of saying that we are certain, i say that we're about certain because i dont want to hurt anyones feelings if they actually do believe it.

Over time what I've noticed is that, if i am too assertive with certain concepts, sometimes it offends people. So i try to be a little softer on the words i use. If you're softer on your words, then it opens the doors for further discussion. Once further discussion occurs, then it really doesn't matter how i word it, they will understand. But if i get up in their face right off the bat and say "You're an idiot!", then normally the discussion doesn't go far.

Thanks for taking notice of how i dance around things.

And if you're looking for a probability on how "about certain" we are, id say about 99.99%, a percentage I'm sure you've heard many times.

But realistically speaking, everyone already understands this. There are very few people who actually believe that a man had his rib pulled out of him and that it transformed into a women. So its ok to expose me for this concept.

Edited by iSilurian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

ISilurian,

Nice topic.

Do we know how the earlier homonoids disappeared (extinct)? Is seems strange not to know what happened to the 200,000 year old eve and her children?

Why do scientists keep on insisting that we are somehow related to those "ancient human" who lived anywhere between a few hundred thousands to a million years ago? How do we reconcile with our understanding about human civilization that is not even older than 12,000 years.

his rib pulled out of him and that it transformed into a women

Where and how did this belief originate from?

Edited by Zareen
Link to post
Share on other sites

ISilurian,

Nice topic.

ty

Do we know how the earlier homonoids disappeared (extinct)? Is seems strange not to know what happened to the 200,000 year old eve and her children?

Well, Eve would not have dissapeared, she would have simply passed away, and we today would be her descendents. Her bones would be lost in the ever so vast, and deep, earth beneath our feet somewhere like the dinosaurs and all other living things before us. Species go extinct, individuals simply pass away. 200 thousand years ago there were many hominids, and we have many bones. bones of thousands of hominids that existed at this time. So nobody can really say "that skeleton is eve!" because its a hominid just like all the other ones so how would you know? you wouldnt.

Human lineage, in regards to fossils is determined by, though not exclusively, the physical traits of those fossils. If i go digging in my backyard and i find 2 skeletons. One skeleton looks like me, and the other skeleton looks like a dragon. Then i can say "ok, this skeleton is related to me more closely than the dragon. The human skeleton is most likely related to me, because im a human too, while the dragon is not.

So, when we find populations of fossils. X population may look a lot like us, so we can say, ok these humans are part of our lineage. While other hominids may not be like us, and we just rank them and slap them on a phylogenetic tree.

Now, of course there is more to this. DNA can be extracted from certain fossils, the field of paleogeography can map out migration patterns of hominids throughout history, And, there are many ways of understanding our past, using viruses and embryology, stratigraphic successions...i mean, all sorts of stuff. Its not just about the bones being similar, its about much more. Check out my evolution topic if youre interested in what "more" there is.

http://www.shiachat....y-of-evolution/

anyway...heres a question for you. Do you know what happened to your great great great grandfather? I dont, and he died not too long ago. 200,000 years ago is much older, so i cant imagine anyone would know too much about eve aside from what her bones looked like and what her dna may have looked like. In the video posted above, anthropologists made a morphologic reconstruction of what Adam probably looked like. Thats pretty much as close as we can get for now.

Why do scientists keep on insisting that we are somehow related to those "ancient human" who lived anywhere between a few hundred thousands to a million years ago? How do we reconcile with our understanding about human civilization that is not even older than 12,000 years.

Well, first, u should check this out http://www.shiachat....y-of-evolution/

Hypothetically, lets say for the sake of discussion, that evolution is true. Now, if we look at human fossils, one of the main things anthropologists look at, is the cranial capacity, which is basically just a ratio of brain size to skull size. Alright, so if you see that human fossils, over time, slowly develop bigger and bigger brains, then you can kind of guess as to why our civilization appears so young. Think about it. What would it mean if a million years ago we had smaller less efficient brains? And if we evolved greater minds, how would we realize it? What would be our understanding of ourselves now that we could think?

A chimpanzee can live life, but cant record its own history. But lets say those chimpanzees eventually develop language. Now all of a sudden they can start recording. They wont know about their origins because they simply couldnt know. You can ask any animal aside from humans now, where did you come from? And they wont know, but we know because we can see it now. It took us a long time to find it, but now we have.

And, its not just about skull capacity, again there are more details. Human fossils overtime used to walk on 4 legs, but over time changed to walk on 2. Our jaws changed in a way which now allow us to use our tongue to speak in a certain way. Our necks now allow for our heads to point forward (monkeys cant look forward like we can, i think the bone is called the...foramen magnum). Our teeth, heck we dont even use our wisdom teeth anymore, they come in and now our jaws are too small to hold them. Our jaws have shrank over time. The size of our canine teeth have shrank. The fur on our bodies receded, and i could go on and on. Why is exercise good for us? Because our bodies are designed for hunting animals the old school way with a spear. Why do we have so many back issues when we get old? Because our backs arent perfectly evolved to stand upright.

And, its important to recognize that the fossils are ordered. 4 million years ago are primitive apes. 3 million less primitive, 2 million less, 500,000 years ago almost looks like us, 200,000 years ago looks even more like us, 15,000 looks even more like us. 12,000 years ago identical to us. And as their bodies physically change over time, so do their tools, so do their societies and how they live. And now we are here now. Where did those hominids go? Well, we are them. their genes are still within us, their bones all over the earth, buried. just like dinosaurs. dinosaurs are much older and are in older and deeper rocks.

http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2009/06/social-competition-may-be-reason-for.html

so not only eventually can i say "yes we have come from those fossils", but i can also use this knowledge to better understand our existence.

so how do we reconcile with a human civilization that is less than 12,000 years old? Well, it actually makes sense that we appear so young. If we had evolved, how else would it appear? When youre a baby and you grow older, you dont realize you were a baby until youre old enough to think about it. And even then, if you were asked where you came from, if you hadnt had your mother around, you wouldnt know. Nobody remembers their birth. So what would you do? what would you say? You wouldnt say "i was born from my mother" because you wouldnt know what a mother was. So what would you say? Perhaps you would say that a man sprang into existence in full form, and he pulled a rib from his body which turned into a women, and that women was where you came from (christianity). Maybe you would say that you hatched from a golden egg (hinduism), maybe you would say a bird with black wings gave birth to that egg (greek), maybe you would say that when the sun first rose on earth, you were born from the sea (egyption).

I dont know what you would say, but clearly people say many things to explain what they dont know. Even without knowledge they preach as if they know and people listen and follow.

think about it.

Where and how did this belief originate from?

good question. Where did hinduism originate from? animism? greek gods? egyption gods? stories of jesus turning water into wine? global floods? the mormon faith with a man reading out of a top-hat? Scientology? Where do these ideas come from?

There is no evidence for truth in any of these, but there is evidence for one thing. People make stories up, all the time. Even in todays time people say things without knowledge. People go around preaching that Jesus is God, but they dont really know that. They just say it. Hindus speak of Gods with the heads of elephants, but they dont really know if that God exists. People dont truly have knowledge of what they say, but they say it anyway.

So perhaps instead of asking me why these people say these things, perhaps you should ask them, why they say the things they do. And ultimately you should ask them, if they know its true, or do they simply believe its true because they heard it.

And heres another thing for you. About the question earlier, if you didnt have your mother and someone asked you where you came from. Lets say you claimed that you came from the earth. ok now, anyone who hears that is going to repeat it. Just like people repeat that Jesus is God. ok, so once the story is out and everyone repeats it, thats it. The story is released into society and nobody knows where it came from, and nobody truly knows if its true or not, but they believe it anyway. This is how existance would be, if we evolved. If we evolved from a lesser being without knowledge, we would not know where we came from. Just as a person wouldnt remember their own birth, humans would not remember Eve. But, we could make up stories, and maybe, just maybe, some of those stories may actually somewhat resemble reality. And the more we learn about our existance, the more stories we can throw in the trash (animism, greek and egyption myths).

know what i mean?

Edited by iSilurian
Link to post
Share on other sites

No dude Brahma is the one who is supposed to have hatched from a golden egg, with the remainder pieces forming the universe.

yes thats true, not important for the discussion but yes :P. Do you know if, well, what their story is for human origins by chance? did they come from the universe which came from the shell pieces or?

Edited by iSilurian
Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is the traditional view is Manu was the progenitor of mankind and he was the son of God.

Sorry i'll contribute more to the discussion another time, you have some interesting points to make (yes I've read them >_>).

haha, thanks for reading them, honestly, i wouldnt read my own posts :P. Granted i think they are valuable and each statement means so much to me, but i know they can be long sometimes. ty.

Thats the good thing about being able to type on topics you enjoy. In the span of 5 minutes u can type a page of info lol.

Edited by iSilurian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Advanced Member

Hello all

I was wondering to myself as to how the Adam and Eve narrative reconciled to the best scientific explanations according to Shia Islam and I came upon this thread, so I'm bumping it in the hope of an answer.

It would appear that the story of Adam and Eve is, at very best, in tension with what modern science has discovered as iSilurian has pointed out. For example, genetic studies show that that human beings are related to every other organism on Earth and there was never a period when there were simply 2 humans on the planet (the estimates for population bottleneck range from 2,000 to 10,000 humans living on Earth). Also mitochondrial Eve lived several tens of millennia before Y-chromosomal Adam, so we can safely rule out that we all descended from a single breeding pair a long time ago.

In the face of this apparent contradiction, it seems that there are 4 options:

1. say that modern science has got this wrong

2. say that the Adam and Eve story is not intended literally and should be interpreted as an allegory

3. attempt a reconciliation between the two accounts

and for completeness:

4. 1 & 2 together.

Now, having spent some time on this forum, I'd say that most thinking muslims would be loath to choose options 1,2 and 4 (I may be wrong here), so we have to look at option 3.

So what is the explanation here? If God did create Adam and Eve separately, then:

  • why is it that this does not appear in our genetic records?
  • why did He choose to make it look to the uninitiated exactly as if human beings evolved like everything else?

These are very important questions - surely someone here must have some answers...?

In peace,

Gulliver

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Christians also believe in Adam and Eve. This is what one Christian thinks: Science, Theology and Monogenesis http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/kemp-monogenism.pdf

Thank you for posting this.

It appears that the author of the article is suggesting that God took two pre-existing hominids and gave them the gift of intellect. In essence, Adam and Eve were the "chosen couple".

This would suggest:

- unless you really torture the poor word 'human', Adam and Eve were not the only 2 humans on Earth

- they were not created separately (this part is allegorical)

- most strangely of all, God deliberately chose to do things in such a way as to leave it looking to future generations (i.e. us) as if He didn't do anything at all.

I'm not sure that many muslims would agree with this paper and its implicit conclusions. Have any Islamic alim addressed this matter?

in peace,

Gulliver

Link to post
Share on other sites

The stories of Adam and Eve, The Great Flood, Virgin Birth etc etc are metaphors and are not to be taken literally. The Bible, The Quran, The Torah, The Vedas and others are not science books or real estate plats. I believe people who accept them as such as selling them way short of the knowledge and glory they hold and bestow on The Creator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

- unless you really torture the poor word 'human', Adam and Eve were not the only 2 humans on Earth

That depends on which definition of human you're using. Classically, having a rational soul was a necessary part of being human. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_animal

The author grants that there were other 'biological humans' but not theological humans.

- they were not created separately (this part is allegorical)

True. Only their soul/form was created separately according the paper.

- most strangely of all, God deliberately chose to do things in such a way as to leave it looking to future generations (i.e. us) as if He didn't do anything at all.

This is based on the premise that whenever God does something it has to be obvious that He did it. I dont see any reason to believe this. It could be argued - although Im not saying that I accept this - that from an aesthetic point of view it is better to have biological humans evolve like everything else and be the crowning glory of evolution, rather than create them from scratch as the exception to the rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Thank you .InshaAllah. for the time you've taken to address this.

That depends on which definition of human you're using. Classically, having a rational soul was a necessary part of being human. http://en.wikipedia....Rational_animal

The author grants that there were other 'biological humans' but not theological humans.

Yes, this is one way to reconcile the two accounts, but I bet most muslims would be somewhat shocked to discover that Adam and Eve were never the only two biological humans on Earth.

This is based on the premise that whenever God does something it has to be obvious that He did it. I dont see any reason to believe this. It could be argued - although Im not saying that I accept this - that from an aesthetic point of view it is better to have biological humans evolve like everything else and be the crowning glory of evolution, rather than create them from scratch as the exception to the rule.

Its rather based on the premise that in this instance, it seems God went out of His way to make it look as though he'd tampered very little. Having taken pains to include the story of Adam and Eve in His scriptures, it doesn't quite sit right with me that he would then try to make it look as if he hadn't done anything. Granted, this isn't an actual argument and your idea of aesthetic grounds may well be another possibility - I don't think we have any way of resolving this one way or another.

In summary (and I know you don't necessarily agree with the author of the article), it would seem that there may be a few bullets to bite which, in my experience, many muslims would find surprising, at the very least:

  • Adam & Eve were never the only two biological human beings on Earth
  • Our genetic ancestry does not come from solely from Adam and Eve
  • God chose to make the (physical) evidence that He created Adam and Eve separately deliberately opaque

I would ask other muslims here if they would agree with the above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

  • Adam & Eve were never the only two biological human beings on Earth
  • Our genetic ancestry does not come from solely from Adam and Eve

We have narrations that say there were human-like beings at the time of Adam and Eve - 'Nas Nas'. Im not sure what the exact translation would be. I have heard from a friend that the late Sheikh alWa'eli believed that Adam's and Eve's children mated with them (rather than with each other, or any other being).

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have narrations that say there were human-like beings at the time of Adam and Eve - 'Nas Nas'. Im not sure what the exact translation would be. I have heard from a friend that the late Sheikh alWa'eli believed that Adam's and Eve's children mated with them (rather than with each other, or any other being).

I know the person mentioned this too. Adam and Eve existed at seperate times. So the whole concept of a single time in which they existed, is sketchy.

Either way though, i have read a few things for various explanations. Including one hadith stating how the sons of Adam and Eve mated with hoori. Im a skeptic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Adam and Eve existed at seperate times.

You're thinking of mitochondrial Eve vs Y-chromosomal Adam. But this is irrelevant if you make the distinction the author of the paper I posted makes.

This is assuming that the science behind this is accurate, and Im not in a positiion to assess this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're thinking of mitochondrial Eve vs Y-chromosomal Adam. But this is irrelevant if you make the distinction the author of the paper I posted makes.

This is assuming that the science behind this is accurate, and Im not in a positiion to assess this.

sure

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I agree with "satyaban". It seems more logical to consider some of religious stories as metaphor or better say myths. Consider the fact that Adam and Eve story is told as an explanation for the creation of man by God. So if you consider yourself a man of God, this story can and should apply to you anytime. It means that falling from heaven does no necessarily mean falling from sky to earth, it rather means falling from a higher spiritual condition to a lower one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...

Someone brought up Adam and Eve in the Ahlul Bayt forum, reminded me of this topic here. The OP of the other topic had asked

"I was wondering how did adam and eve's children have children if they were the only ones?".

It is a good question.

Someone, I think it may have been La Nat, brought up the issues with genetic bottle necking. Which is just one issue of many with the idea. Also though, the question of how two people could have such genetic variation to lead into the variation we have today...the two would have to have super evolved. Which doesn't really make any sense.

It is, confirmed that Adam and Eve, could not be the only two people on earth in the beginning. Nor could they be our only ancestors.

Well, unless of course we assume it was a miracle and that Adam and Eve were simply created with the appearance, as if they weren't the only two people.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Here's another discussion we had

and another one

Someone, I think it may have been La Nat, brought up the issues with genetic bottle necking. Which is just one issue of many with the idea. Also though, the question of how two people could have such genetic variation to lead into the variation we have today...the two would have to have super evolved. Which doesn't really make any sense.

It is, confirmed that Adam and Eve, could not be the only two people on earth in the beginning. Nor could they be our only ancestors.

Well, unless of course we assume it was a miracle and that Adam and Eve were simply created with the appearance, as if they weren't the only two people.

Based on some of the Islamic writings, Adam and Eve were super-evolved. I remember reading about a hadith that stated that the first couple had genetic variation for every race and tribes on earth.

Not sure if this is possible or impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ GYPSY, it is quiet possible...

@ BELIAL, well Adam and Eve were da only 2 people in beginning of the world as Allah says in Holy Quran that He created all human beings from one Man and one Woman and then divided in races and nations fr distinction.

Edited by Batool M. Rizvi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another discussion we had http://www.shiachat....9-adam-and-eve/

and another one http://www.shiachat....e-adam-and-eve/

Based on some of the Islamic writings, Adam and Eve were super-evolved. I remember reading about a hadith that stated that the first couple had genetic variation for every race and tribes on earth.

Not sure if this is possible or impossible.

Oh? thats interesting. May I see these writings?

And Yes, I dont think that would be possible. If it were, they would not be human.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites

The stories of Adam and Eve, The Great Flood, Virgin Birth etc etc are metaphors and are not to be taken literally. The Bible, The Quran, The Torah, The Vedas and others are not science books or real estate plats. I believe people who accept them as such as selling them way short of the knowledge and glory they hold and bestow on The Creator.

please google scientific miracles in the Quran

Adam and eve = first humans

we are , in my view, symbolically their 'children'

God creates nations and tribes ,

and vwalah.

I MIGHT BE WRONG THOUGH.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...