I loved that quote!

But I think that I do know what you mean, Samian.

I once went to a talk by a well-known expert in biology/genetics and asked him a question that had been long on my mind. Why is it was that, while we are genetically closer to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are to gorillas, we are indeed so different from both while they - at least to me - seem quite similar to each other?

I can see that there are similarities between us and chimps, but the differences seem huge: do they want to explore outer space? Do they ask 'does God exist? Do they want to go to university? Could you even imagine chimps being involved in a discussion like this? No, and the same goes for gorillas, orang-utans, etc, etc. Yet we are more closely related to chimps, than chimps are to gorillas. It makes no logical sense.

Anyway, I asked the expert - hoping for enlightenment, and he said 'Go and ask the chimps!'. Great!

By the way, the notion was first put into my head by a suggestion that when we and the chimps lived a more comparable lifestyle, aliens (Gods / God) did something to our human brains to make us different - ie to make us in the image of 'God'. (Yes, I have read a lot of weird and wonderful stuff!)

And yet it seems that they did.

If you believe the Bible, then it was Adam & Eve.

Otherwise, experts think that a few people, from a family group which walked out of Africa several thousand years ago, have since populated the entire earth.

See:
'The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa' by Stephen Oppenheimer.
'The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey' by Spencer Wells.
'Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins' by Steve Olson.
'The Seven Daughters of Eve' by Bryan Sykes.

I enjoyed reading them very much.

Samiam - OK I think we separate on thoughts here. We DO have proof that mankind began in Africa and then spread out across the world - you can prove that with DNA tracing. You can see where each branching occurred. The reason that people change in color is pretty obvious - people with darker skin tend to survive better in hotter places, people with lighter skin tend to survive better in other places. Look at giraffes. Why do they have long necks? Because those with short necks died of starvation.

As far as evolution, I don't think you understand what a very long time *is*. We're not talking a few thousand years, which is all we can trace real civilization back. It was 20 MILLION years ago that this change began to take place. Homo Erectus was 1.8 MILLION years ago. Million is a really, really large number. And again, civilization has only been around for a few THOUSAND years. We are tiny babies in any real, evolutionary sense.

Read here -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

but as far as seeing *tiny* changes in evolution, you can see that if you want! That happens in *hundreds* of years. The classic example are the moths of England.

Read here -

http://www.eco-online.qld.edu.au/novascotia/whatsbio/genetic.html

that is a much-studied situation.

I've just found some articles that disagree with the 'African Eve' model. I don't know what official response to them has been, but thought I'd note the articles here - people can look at them and see what they think. I personally was fairly convinced by the 'African Eve' theory. “Human Ancestors Went Out Of Africa And Then Came Back: Researchers Propose Controversial New Model For Evolution Of Humans And Apes SUNY-Albany biologist Caro-Beth Stewart and NYU anthropologist Todd R. Disotell have proposed a controversial new model for the evolution of apes and humans, …. [They] argue that the ancestor of humans and the living African apes evolved in Eurasia, not Africa. Source: New York University. Date: 1998-08-07 URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/08/980807105043.htm “ *************************** “New Fossil Study Rejects "Eve Theory" And Supports Diverse Ancestry Of Modern Humans ANN ARBOR --- The ancestors of modern humans came from many different regions of the world, not just a single area, according to a University of Michigan study published in the .. (Jan. 12) issue of Science. The study, by U-M anthropologist Milford H. Wolpoff and colleagues, is one of just a few to base its controversial conclusion about the origin of the human species on a comparison of actual human fossils .... "Ancient humans shared genes and behaviors across wide regions of the world, and were not rendered extinct by one 'lucky group' that later evolved into us," says Wolpoff, a professor of anthropology at the U-M ... "The fossils clearly show that more than one ancient group survived and thrived." Source: University Of Michigan. Date: 2001-01-12 URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010111194453.htm “ ******************************* “Scientists Look To Europe As Evolutionary Seat University of Toronto anthropologist David Begun and his European colleagues are re-writing the book on the history of great apes and humans, arguing that most of their evolutionary development took place in Eurasia, not Africa. Source: University Of Toronto. Date: 2002-02-19 URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020219075535.htm “ ****************************************** “Humans Emerged "Out Of Africa" Again And Again St. Louis, March 6, 2002,— Analyses of recently derived human genetic trees by Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D, of Washington University in St Louis, show that there were at least two major waves of human migration out of Africa. DNA evidence suggests also that these wanderers bred with the people they encountered, rather than replaced them, ... Source: Washington University In St. Louis. Date: 2002-03-08 URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020307074956.htm “ ******************************************** “Did Early Humans Mate With The Locals? Human Genome Data Cast Doubt On "Replacement Theory" Of Human Evolution A new analysis of human genetic history deals a blow to the theory that early people moved out of Africa and completely replaced local populations elsewhere in the world. The findings suggest there was at least limited interbreeding between our African ancestors and the residents of areas where they settled. "The new data seem to suggest that early human pioneers moving out of Africa starting 80,000 years ago did not completely replace local populations in the rest of the world," says Henry Harpending, a University of Utah anthropology professor and co-author of the new study. Source: University Of Utah. Date: 2002-12-26 URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021226071610.htm “ ****************************************

Those are all from 2002 - surely someone would have written about it more recently, if it had been proved to be true?

My dear Peter, if God had a beginning, then He wouldn't be God would He!

Lisa,
your common sense and insight are truly remarkable! Many well educated and highly intelligent scholars have figured out that micro-evolution in which natural selection occurs yielding a specific trait that is beneficial (albeit for an undetermined time period)to the organism e.g. the peppered moth can actually occur rather rapidly! This does not happen through mutation of genes or the origin of a new species, but merely the fact that the peppered moths weren't eaten at the same rate as the white ones! We manipulate a myriad of plants and animals the same way. Is a dachshund more like a weazel or a Great Dane? Dachshunds and Great Danes are both dogs that have been manipulated to produce specific traits - no mutation of genes, no macro-evolution, but merely minor trait changes within the given gene possibilities.

The deeper questions seems to be how does a moth turn into another species - say, a fly. This is more commonly referred to as macro-evolution and is generally thought to fly in the face of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. In other words, instead of 20 Million years, probability says that it is mathematically impossible for a genetic mutation to become so benneficial that a new species develops and breeds. The whole situation sounds romantic but highly unlikely - it would take billions x billions x billions of
years just to get an ameoba! Can we teach as fact that the amoeba became a spongue which became a clam which became a fish which became a salamander which became a lizard which became a bird or squirrel or dog or cow? Wisdom and humility dictate that we temper our prejudices with an open mind and a willingness to examine the evidence and openly debate our analyses and conclusions.

Thank-you for your time in considering this alternative view of nature, there are many extremely educated folks in this world that are not heard from due to prejudice. The power grab is still on, and it's not just in politics and religion, this also occurs in the scientific community as well - it seems to be in the very core of our human nature.

Hi,
Great site Lisa. A comment about the whole Eve is a bad girl for not doing what God told her to, and that snake is just as bad for tempting her. What exactly did he tempt her with? I studied the whole eating from the tree thing at uni and this is what i came up with(please excuse the lack of references but i dont have a bible on me).
The tree was the tree of knowledge, if Eve ate the fruit she would be wise, I remember something written about her eating the fruit to be wise. By doing so she is not taking Gods word as law but willing to experience things for herself and make up her own mind. The snake as the devil? Maybe this little guy isnt so bad, I can see a paralle to this website and everybody who doesn't blindly accept anothers word as the truth. Some said on this site about the point of life is to know our nature and to do that we need to know all parts of it, if we wandered around in paradise how would we know it if we didnt know the the lack of paradise. Isnt it funny how we call not knowing something "being in the dark" but the "devil" (and i use that term loosely) is also called dark or the darkness and one who doesnt follow the religious codes is cast as a devil?
Perhaps the death God reffered to was the death of innocence? Nothing more.

This is all part of the plan. Adam and Eve HAD to be tempted, to gain knowlege of good and evil, so they could become mortal and have children and all of us could be here. Eve's temptation may have taken hundreds of years, but no children could be born in the Garden. Because they sinned, God provided the Saviour for all of us.

But I do NOT believe in Original Sin, that is nonsense. We are all acountable for our OWN sins, not Adam's or our parent's or anyone elses.

Strictly my opinion- based on my experiences
I take the Bible story as an alegory of sorts- not literal truth. When we find God it is so much a "coming home" that it must be what we are born for- but we're NOT born in touch with God- so somewhere, somehow we must have gotten disconnected. So I believe it is true ina spiritual sense.

As far as the story blaming woman, in the person of Eve, who disobeyed first, presumably because she wanted this knowledge, well the story WAS written down by men. In my experience women would be more likely to love God and obey, and the man would have been much more likely to be "seduced by the dark side" and want the power/knowledge.
I could then see Eve sighing and shaking her head and taking a bite too, because somebody has to be there to take care of Adam.

I don't think its coincidence (don't believe in coincidences anyway) that it was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"- isn't this knowledge in large part what sets us apart from animals? Animals may do horrific things but we don't talk about them as evil or immoral, they just do what they do. People, on the other hand, know the difference (barring mental illness).

Sorry- I kind of rambled- that kind of day.