It also gets messy as the first human (however we define them), apart from being born to a not-quite-human ape, might also have given birth to a not-quite-human ape.
No, in this instance at least there really isn’t a line. It’s not possible.
If there were such a line, that “first human” couldn’t have been born; because they’d have had to be born from a different species. And even if born, could not have reproduced: because there’d have been nobody from their own species to reproduce with.
You’d have to posit one single major mutation which could be claimed to make that line, and you’d then have to posit both that such a mutation was drastic enough to do so but not so drastic that the mutated fetus aborted or that the mutated child couldn’t or wouldn’t be raised successfully by the parents of the previous species. And then you’d have to posit that such a mutation happened at least twice, and close enough in both time and space that the creatures bearing it were able to successfully mate with each other.
But even then, you’d have two “first humans”, not one. And two’s not enough for a breeding population.
The existence of lines, blurry or otherwise, is due to a strong tendency in most humans to see lines; constructing them in our heads when it’s the only way to do so.
Good point.
Who else, after all, could they have mated with? – And even if we assume a dominant mutation (and also assume that this is a single-mutation sort of thing, which seems highly unlikely), some of the grandchildren wouldn’t have carried it.
I do not think so.
Donkeys can breed with horses. Tigers can breed with lions. Granted those offspring are infertile but are examples of distinct species that can (and do) produce offspring.
As we go back in time through humans as a species there needs to be a place where you will say this is a modern human and the one before is not. I grant that is arbitrary to some degree and different people will have different opinions on where that line is drawn (your “blurry lines”). But, somewhere, somewhen, some baby was born with the genetic traits we consider to be a modern human. Something that had not existed before.
I admit this whole thing can get pedantic.
While that is true, after enough divergence, sooner or later you get a species that can not interbreed with a prior species. We can’t interbreed with amoebas.
Genesis is not really a “book” per se. It is part of the Old Testament. Part of which is myth, part of which is legend, part is history, part is poetry part is prose.
This may seem like a nitpick, but it’s actually quite important: First of all, they’re most recent common ancestors, not earliest. The earliest common ancestor would be the first living thing on the planet.
Second, mt-Eve is not the most recent common female ancestor, nor is Y-Adam the most recent common male ancestor. Y-Adam had a mother, and so of course she’d be a common ancestor of all humanity, too, and much more recent than mt-Eve. What’s significant about those two individuals is that they’re the most recent along their respective same-sex lines. That is to say, if you take any human’s mother’s mother’s mother’s … mother, far enough back, you’ll eventually get to mt-Eve, and if you take any human’s father’s father’s father’s … father, eventually you’ll get to Y-Adam. If you allow lines that mix mothers and fathers, then you’ll find a common ancestor after a much shorter line.
And it’s no surprise that they’d have been at different times, because the patterns of reproduction are different for men and for women. It’s a lot easier for one man to have many sons than it is for one woman to have many daughters.
"But, somewhere, somewhen, some baby was born with the genetic traits we consider to be a modern human."
What is a genetic trait that exists in a modern human that does not exist in another species? Eyes? Brains? Ability to stand upright? All ‘modern human traits’ exist in various other species to some degree - some extremely similar, some wildly different.
If you had a line of pictures one taken every day - throughout a person’s life, it would show a clear progression through baby, young child, teenager, adult, old person. And everyone would agree on probably 90% of the pictures show one of those ‘types’. But you would not have been able to agree on exactly which day those types transformed from one to another. That’s evolution.
Don’t get to hung up on ‘species’ being an absolute. Species can and do interbeed for various reasons and sometimes these can result in what we classify as new ‘separate’ species. ‘Species’ is a term we use for classification of organisms into a particular group or groups - and it’s useful, and answers a lot of questions about those organisms 99.9% of the time.
But that 0.1% - that’s evolution.
I always thought there were to storys of creating man in Genesis.
The 6th day God created all the animals and also man and woman. something like “In his image, male and female created He them …”
Then the 7th day, the day he rested, the Sabbath. And it was good.
The next part of Genesis describes God making The first human Adam, made of earth and God giving Adam the breath of life. Later, he sees that Adam needs a helper, takes his rib and creates Eve as a “helpmeet”.
I always just assumed that is where the other people came from, the first round. But, again, I was 6 years old when i was taught this.
Yes, in Chapter 1, jehovallah creates man and woman “in his own image”, together, side by side; these persons are unnamed. Then, in Chapter 2, he creates Adam “from the dust of the Earth” and then creates Eve from parts of Adam.
Reconciling the difference between these two chapters requires one to assume that Genesis was compiled from different sources, which is born out by the differing narrative styles thoughout.
But the most important thing to remember about it is that it was never meant to be taken literally. This is quite obvious from the structure of the poetry/prose, and it was largely not a significant issue until about the fifteenth century, when movable type started the proliferation of bibles. Before they were common, most people had to rely on that guy who had read it (could read it) to tell them what to believe.
The Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel story are pure allegory. The fruit of the tree represents humans’ discovery of moral principles, and the Cain/Abel conflict represents the transition from hunter-gatherers to agriculture. There is no science to prove or debunk in the bible because it was not meant as a scientific-type text ITFP.
Is it?
I had a vague notion that Cain and Abel had sisters. A quick search found the bit below. It seems like they meant it all to be taken literally. If you asked a Rabbi would he tell you it was allegory?
Ancient exegetes, such as the Midrash and the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan , tell that the motive involved a desire for the most beautiful woman. According to Midrashic tradition, Cain and Abel each had twin sisters; each was to marry the other’s. The Midrash states that Abel’s promised wife, Aclima, was more beautiful than Awan, Cain’s promised wife. And so, after Cain would not consent to this arrangement, Adam suggested seeking God’s blessing by means of a sacrifice. Whoever God blessed would marry Aclima. When God openly rejected Cain’s sacrifice, Cain slew his brother in a fit of jealousy and anger.[38][39] Rabbinical exegetes have discussed whether Cain’s incestuous relationship with his sister was in violation of halakha . SOURCE
IOW, later readers found the guts of the story missing and then filled in the holes purely out of their imagination. Today we call that fan fiction.
And not very good, either. When I click on SOURCE I find this sentence:
Various early commentators have said that Cain and Abel have sisters, usually twin sisters. According to Rabbi Joshua ben Karha as quoted in Genesis Rabbah, “Only two entered the bed, and seven left it: Cain and his twin sister, Abel and his two twin sisters.”
You’re seriously going to source your religious tradition on someone who can’t do basic arithmetic?
No. I am no expert.
But there seems plenty written about this. No doubt you can find endless interpretations.
In Muslim tradition, Cain was born with a twin sister who was named Aclima, and Abel with a twin sister named Jumella. Adam wished Cain to marry Abel’s twin sister, and Abel to marry Cain’s. Cain would not consent to this arrangement, and Adam proposed to refer the question to God by means of a sacrifice. God rejected Cain’s sacrifice to signify his disapproval of his marriage with Aclima, his twin sister, and Cain slew his brother in a fit of jealousy.[1][2][3]
SOURCE
Fairly recently, though. Biblical literalism is not really an old, or really that wide-spread a belief. It really only goes back to the 1800s, IIRC, and then it’s usually only practiced among certain fundamentalist Protestant sects.
Yes, that’s exactly the point of fan fiction.
The original writers were not expecting readers to look at the holes in the script, but to glean the moral teachings they were provided. Only with time and sophistication did later readers realize that questions could be asked, and therefore they needed to provide answers. The Jewish tradition famously created a body of work so convoluted that study of its nuances and intricacies could be accepted as a lifelong mission.
The literalist movements that Guin refers to were a reaction to questioning, putting sheer faith and acceptance at the core of belief. They’re two sides of the same coin, generated by the same paucity of information.
I’m curious why you think this equals “fan fiction?”
If you talked to a Rabbi or Priest or Imam would they agree with you that this was all just fan fic?
Isn’t it their job to disagree? Upton Sinclair — “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
As I just pointed out, even deeply religious believers interpret the words in wildly different ways. They can’t expect - even though they often do - that other deeply religious believers would hold the same interpretations. Less deeply religious believers understand the words as allegory and moral teachings. People who do not at all believe see them as fables, myths, and legends.
Since we do not live in a theocracy, we’re all free to make our own statements. As someone who studies storytelling, I see the remarkable parallels to modern-day fan fiction. As they say on the Internet, do your own research.
I think the disconnect here is between dogma and logic.
I’m with you on the logic.
I think the dogma has it otherwise.
Those are not the only choices, as I keep pointing out.
I’m tempted to say my karma ran over your dogma but that’s trite. So I’ll just say you’re making a category error.
Throwing another wrench in this discussion. Looking at old and even some modern art, both Adam and Eve are depicted with bellybuttons. Why would they have bellybuttons if they were created from mud and rib? Never made sense to me, but it seems most if not all artists thought they did. That would be more indicative of evolution, wouldn’t it? I guess, if you believe in some supernatural sky-being, it doesn’t have to make sense.
I do not see how.
The OP is discussing the book of Genesis from the bible.
While we can argue whether it makes sense or not we need to debate it on those terms. As in, what does the bible or other historical text say about it?
Indeed, if there is a category error here it is you who have made it.