Descendants of Adam and Eve

[Ruben]

God created Adam and Eve, they had sons and daughters who had relationships with each other. We must interpret that humanity is the result of incestuous relationships? 

[mikbone]

7 hours ago, Ruben said:

God created Adam and Eve, they had sons and daughters who had relationships with each other. We must interpret that humanity is the result of incestuous relationships? 

Start doing your genealogy.  You gonna find all kinds of interesting skeletons in the closet.

Presumably, The genetic code of Adam and Eve were perfect, without mutation.  One of the problems with incest is the expression of recessive alleles of genetic mutations.  Not an issue.

Do some research on genetic bottlenecks.  Cheetahs are interesting. We think they had a bottleneck last ice age.  Their species is so similar that they have 0.1 -4% of the genetic diversity found in most other species.  They can donate and receive organs from each other without fear of rejection.

 

Edited December 19, 2024 by mikbone

[Carborendum]

26 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Their species is so similar that they have 0.1 -4% of the genetic diversity found in most other species.  They can donate and receive organs from each other without fear of rejection.

I didn't think that was a factor.  I was told that genetically identical twins would also reject organs donations from each other.

[Carborendum]

7 hours ago, Ruben said:

God created Adam and Eve, they had sons and daughters who had relationships with each other. We must interpret that humanity is the result of incestuous relationships? 

It is possible.  And if so, I'd agree with @mikbone.  Studies have shown that if a single pair of humans survived a worldwide holocaust, they could repopulate the planet.  The genetic diversity problem is not 100% with every child (thanks to meiosis).  Assuming that these parents were not siblings (maybe, maybe not) their children would all be healthy.  If they had even two male and two female offspring, those children would be double cousins (practically siblings, genetically).  But again, because of meiosis, the parents are not complete genetic replicas. 

With each successive generation, they have much less chance of passing on genetic defects.  So, their success rate would be greater than that of their parents.

But I have an alternative explanation.  Remember that the story of Adam and Eve was "based on" a true story.  But it was altered to convey an allegory -- a very powerful one.  So, other things were literally happening at the time which do not show up in the narrative so we can focus on the allegory.

NOTE: This is simply a personal theory.  It is NOT doctrinal.  But it makes sense to me.  And I, personally, don't believe it violates any established doctrine.

In the literal world, primates evolved into proto-human species.  But their spirits were not Children of God.  They were animals.  At some point, they evolved enough to be appropriate vessels to house intelligent spirits (in the gospel sense).  The first male and female spirits (who found each other) were our first parents.  We know them as Adam and Eve.  But who knows what their actual given names were.  But a rose by any other name...

At this point, there could be other human bodies that were appropriate for intelligent spirits from other lines of the proto-human species.  After only three or four generations, there is enough genetic diversity that we don't really worry about that anymore.

Edited December 19, 2024 by Carborendum

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I didn't think that was a factor.  I was told that genetically identical twins would also reject organs donations from each other.

Im an identical twin.  Usually identical twins can donate organs to each other without immunosuppression.  There are weird cases of protein markers and some twins are fraternal.

They have done skin grafts from Cheetah to Cheetah.  They take without problem.

[Carborendum]

24 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Im an identical twin.  Usually identical twins can donate organs to each other without immunosuppression.  There are weird cases of protein markers and some twins are fraternal.

They have done skin grafts from Cheetah to Cheetah.  They take without problem.

Background: My SIL needed a kidney transplant.  I had known about rejection, but did not know the details.  I asked the husband if there was any way to test for tissues that were similar enough that the recipient may not need immunosuppresants.  He then responded that even identical twins experience organ rejection.

I will admit that this particular BIL is not necessarily the person who gets things straight a lot of the time.  But that is what he told me.

I hadn't looked into it since then.  You're the first person to tell me otherwise.  Interesting.  But you have to admit that skin is quite different than a kidney.

Edited December 19, 2024 by Carborendum

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Ruben said:

God created Adam and Eve, they had sons and daughters who had relationships with each other. We must interpret that humanity is the result of incestuous relationships? 

What are the implications if we are? And can you determine when incest first became a matter of morality and criminality?

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, Ruben said:

God created Adam and Eve, they had sons and daughters who had relationships with each other. We must interpret that humanity is the result of incestuous relationships? 

I mean . . . if one accepts human evolution, unless one believes that (after billions of years) two full humans evolved within a couple of decades of each other and miraculously managed to find each other and procreate, then one is interpreting that humanity is the result of bestial relationships (and even then, not ruling out incest for the first couple of generations of “full humans”, either).

The more interesting question to me isn’t “why does our doctrine tell us that humanity arose from incest?”.  The question is “why did God feel we needed to be warned so powerfully against incest, when anciently it apparently played such a major role in the human story”?

Edited December 19, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

6 hours ago, Ruben said:

We must interpret that humanity is the result of incestuous relationships? 

If you want to, I guess nobody can stop you.  And you don't need scripture or religion to be in this boat.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-all-more-closely-related-than-we-commonly-think/

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

If you want to, I guess nobody can stop you.  And you don't need scripture or religion to be in this boat.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-all-more-closely-related-than-we-commonly-think/

One human family. 

[Carborendum]

39 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

If you want to, I guess nobody can stop you.  And you don't need scripture or religion to be in this boat.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-all-more-closely-related-than-we-commonly-think/

To even think that I'd be related to an albatross!! harumph!!

[Vort]

9 hours ago, Ruben said:

God created Adam and Eve, they had sons and daughters who had relationships with each other. We must interpret that humanity is the result of incestuous relationships? 

Is incest per se evil? I think not. It's just defined as sexual relations between "close relatives". I don't understand why this idea would even possibly be considered objectionable.

In addition, Adam and Eve were the first man and first woman, where we are defining "man" and "woman" as, essentially, Adam and Eve and their progeny. We are all children of Adam and Eve, meaning they show up in everyone's ancestry. But (non-doctrinally, same caveats as Carb gave) that does not mean that Adam and Eve were the first Homo sapiens to walk the earth, or that they were the only Homo sapiens on the planet.

The scriptures make a big deal about So-and-so being a literal descendant of Noah. Whu...? How is that a distinguishing characteristic, if everyone died in the Flood except for Noah and his family? And more to the point: If someone was not a lineal descendant of Noah, who were his ancestors?

I understand that many Saints in the past and even today harbor suspicion and doubt (or outright rejection) of what they consider to be the dangerously false idea of organic evolution. I will just point out that, if we accept a wider interpretation than the so-called literal interpretation of Genesis (which is nothing of the sort), then Adam and Eve and the garden in Eden can be fitted very nicely with the precepts and literality of organic evolution of human beings. Some are threatened by this idea, and that's fine.

The leaders of God's kingdom have not seen fit to instruct everyone to accept organic evolution, or any other scientific theory or model that I can think of, so at this point it's pretty clearly not an overtly spiritual issue. But when we get into weird discussions like "Adam's and Eve's children must have intermarried, brother and sister! Ewwwww!", I think it's time to take a step back and clear our heads.

[Maverick]

On 12/19/2024 at 3:14 AM, Ruben said:

God created Adam and Eve, they had sons and daughters who had relationships with each other. We must interpret that humanity is the result of incestuous relationships? 

Yes, this is correct. And even today all people who marry are marrying their brothers and sisters. As Brigham Young taught in the October 1854 General Conference:

Quote

Adam and Eve begot the first mortal bodies on this earth, and from that commencement every spirit that was ever begotten in eternity for this earth will enter bodies thus prepared for them here, until the winding up scene, and that will not be until the last of these spirits enters an earthly tabernacle. Then I reckon that the children of Adam and Eve married each other; this is speaking to the point. I believe in sisters marrying brothers, and brothers having their sisters for wives. Why? because we cannot do otherwise. There are none others for me to marry but my sisters... Our spirits are all brothers and sisters, and so are our bodies

Brigham Young Papers, Ms d 1234 ff marked: Addresses-1854, July - Oct.

 

[Maverick]

On 12/19/2024 at 12:40 PM, Vort said:

I understand that many Saints in the past and even today harbor suspicion and doubt (or outright rejection) of what they consider to be the dangerously false idea of organic evolution.

You can count me as one of the Saints who outright rejects organic evolution from a single celled organism billions of years ago as the origin of human life upon this earth. 

On 12/19/2024 at 12:40 PM, Vort said:

Some are threatened by this idea, and that's fine.

It's not that I'm threatened by this idea, it's that it directly contradicts the scriptures and teachings of the prophets.

Edited December 20, 2024 by Maverick

[Traveler]

On 12/20/2024 at 12:28 PM, Maverick said:

You can count me as one of the Saints who outright rejects organic evolution from a single celled organism billions of years ago as the origin of human life upon this earth. 

It's not that I'm threatened by this idea, it's that it directly contradicts the scriptures and teachings of the prophets.

We all interpret scripture according to our particular paradigm of what such ought to mean.   I have often pondered the meaning of G-d as our spiritual Father in Heaven.  This parallels the concept of earthly parents (father and mother) as co-creators with G-d of human children.   We are also taught that Eve is the “mother’ of all living.

I personally have no problem with the idea that G-d’s DNA is the means by which ever living thing that lives or has ever lived on this planet has come to experience life.  In essence, that life as we know it is a genetic manipulation of G-d’s own DNA – which is in essence a type and kind of organic evolution.

 

The Traveler

[DurangoUT01]

On 12/19/2024 at 3:14 AM, Ruben said:

God created Adam and Eve, they had sons and daughters who had relationships with each other. We must interpret that humanity is the result of incestuous relationships? 

Is it possible that Adam and Eve / the garden of Eden is more allegorical than historical?  If so, pretty much all of the difficult questions go away.