Creamy Tart wrote:Please don't tell me that I should look more in depth on it, you seem like a jealous 12 year old when you do it. Maybe you should use different phrases like "I dont agree with what you are saying". What I can't beleive is anyone could seriously think the species Homo Sapien could spawn from 2 fully evolved Homo Sapiens. Where did the two homo sapiens come from? Isn't it a bit odd that the most complex life form just appeared?
I think Sandman makes a somewhat interesting point. What if man started out as a more genetically "pure" (for want of a better term) form of what we are now. I would postulate that Adam and Eve are examples of early homo-sapien. Every species has to start somewhere, there has to be a first. Some people just choose to refer symbolically to the origin of man and woman as Adam and Eve.
If you read the book of Genesis, you get the idea that man was the end product of a ridiculously long process. Obviously, man did not magically appear. It is just that the story of creation uses "Adam and Eve" as the examples of the origin of man.
Yeah, and the use of a story to convey a more complex model I am all for. However I know of people that actually beleive the bible as an encyclopedia. That was what I was trying to say. As with most cultures, relgious or cultural stories are "dumbed down" versions of more complex happenings so better to pass on the knowledge of a people.
The symbolic referenec of Adam and Eve (or more so eve) is quite true. If you read into historical genetisicts, many beleive we all share a common "mother" that bares genes we all share.
Out of interest has anyone else studied genetics?
For further reading... the extremist view of creationism I am against is along the following lines: http://www.metro.co.uk/travel/article.h ... _page_id=5



