Adam, Eve and Nephilim bottleneck-The theistic solution

Most readers of TSZ are probably familiar with the ongoing debate about the supposed genomic evidence that makes it scientifically impossible that the human lineage could have ever passed through a population bottleneck of just two individuals, Adam and Eve, as per Abrahamic beliefs…

The population genetics assumption is that Adam and Eve could NOT have been the only two contributors to the human pool of genes. The supporters of evolution and experts in population genetics say that the evidence points to at least 10 000 individuals  and therefore the biblical description of the act of creation of a pair of two humans must be wrong and therefore the theory of evolution must be right… something like that…

Most of readers are probably familiar with population genetics pros and cons. I could contribute a few of my own, such as: What is the evidence that mutation rate observed in humans today equals the mutation rate (if any) of Adam and Eve after they sinned or after the bottleneck of Noah +7 people? It is obviously assumed… This is  a typical example how ideology drives so-called science or how it pollutes it. However, this is not the main point of my OP.

Is there any evidence, other than evolutionary assumptions of ape-human hybridization, that human lineage could have had some “outside genes” introduced to their gene pool?

I had been thinking about it for a while and the other day one of my sons asked me something about Greek Mythology and… it hit me like a bolt of lightning:  the stories of gods having sexual relations with humans…

The bible mentions the accounts of the sons of the true God who took up man form and had sexual relations of the daughters of men and produced a hybrid offspring called Nephilim…

Gen: 6:1-3

“ Now when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took as wives whomever they chose.“

Who were the sons of the true God? One doesn’t have to be a scholar to realize that they were the followers of Satan – fallen angels…

Who were the Nephilim? They were the products of the unnatural relations between angels using the ability to humanize their bodies…Nephilim were most likely stronger and bigger than the rest of the human populations, which made them prone to violence and abuse therefore their names Nephilim – those who case others to fall…

Since the fallen angels had no human ancestors, their humanization (quantum process?) required to take on a new, different than Adam and Eve’s set of genes… Their sexual relations with the daughters of men (earthly women) produced unusual offspring through which new genes have been inserted into the human population…

This fact can very well explain the supposed scientific gap in the explaining the bottleneck of at least 10 000 individuals who have carried genes that could not have come from Adam and Eve, but they could have come from the Nephilim whose ancestors were not a pair of 2 humans, but possibly more, many more than 10 000 fallen angels…

The theistic evolution supporters, like K. Miller, D.R. Venema, J. Swamidass and even some ID proponents who doubt of the creation account, like Anne Gauger, should have looked into this readily available theistic explanation…Instead, they chose to follow so-called science based of flawed assumptions…Next time, email my 15 year old son…

I dedicate this OP to my oldest son whose inquiring mind never fails to amaze me… Great work T.L.! 😉

31 Replies to “Adam, Eve and Nephilim bottleneck-The theistic solution”

  1. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    Well, this travesty would not be complete without the claim that those fallen angels also bred with chimps, since the problem with that two-bottleneck is the number of alleles shared between humans and chimps, which is more than would be possible if there was a two-individual human bottleneck.

    You can also claim that they also found that the female chimps were very attractive. They were called fallen angels for a reason.

    Dedicated to J-Mac who’s so proud of making fools out of his kids.

    P.S. I hope you realize that I’ll be very amused next time you call something in science a “just-so story.”

  2. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    Proof that any account, no matter how ludicrous, can be preserved in light of contradictory evidence if one inserts enough ad hoc claims.

    I look forward to your future posts about why we haven’t found Atlantis yet. (Maybe because something quantum was involved?)

  3. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    I would like to point out that there are many, many more details to this theistic explanation or solution of the supposed genetic bottleneck of humans issue…This OP is just a prelude… I didn’t really want to complicate things too much to get as many involved in the discussion as possible before Lizzy potentially pulls the plug and shuts down the TSZ. I believe that her commitment to this blog is minimal and she will probably not comeback… Her request to do the summaries probably proves my point…

    BTW: I didn’t really want to point fingers at the specific fallacies of the individuals mentioned by me in the OP but I did include both evolutionary creationist, as theistic evolutionists would like to be called now, and ID supporters… though I have mixed feelings about Ann Gauger, as her theological background is unclear in comparison to someone like Jonathan Wells, who openly claims to be a theologian… Had he written the 2 million year origin of Adam and Eve nonsense Ann Gauger has written recently, I ‘d have written my OP differently….

  4. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist:
    Proof that any account, no matter how ludicrous, can be preserved in light of contradictory evidence if one inserts enough ad hoc claims.

    I look forward to your future posts about why we haven’t found Atlantis yet. (Maybe because something quantum was involved?)

    I don’t look forward to your philosophical nonsense either… If philosophy, one day, produces a system of verifying its unfunded speculations, I might subscribe to it…Until then, I will deal with philosophers of science who call themselves evolutionary biologist…. 😉 I hope you understand …lol

  5. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    I wish I had seen this post by Ann Gauger before I’ve posted my OP…

    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/08/answering-joshua-swamidass-what-do-theistic-evolutionists-believe/

    It wouldn’t have changed my OP completely though…

  6. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    This is a typical example how ideology drives so-called science or how it pollutes it.

    Truer words were never written, though perhaps we may disagree on what “this” means.

  7. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    John Harshman: Truer words were never written, though perhaps we may disagree on what “this” means.

    I wasn’t referring to your birdie breast bone thingy, but the moment you have all the details ironed out, I’m ready to prove your theory…
    BTW: We don’t have funding for useless flights… I hope you understand…lol

  8. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: I wasn’t referring to your birdie breast bone thingy, but the moment you have all the details ironed out, I’m ready to prove your theory…
    BTW: We don’t have funding for useless flights… I hope you understand…lol

    Incoherent as usual. This is the biggest thing wrong with TSZ.

  9. timothya timothya
    Ignored
    says:

    Has angel DNA been sequenced? Do angel genomes contain ERVs? Inquiring 15-year-old minds wish to know.

  10. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    timothya:
    Has angel DNA been sequenced? Do angel genomes contain ERVs? Inquiring 15-year-old minds wish to know.

    Yes. It is called the ” the we don’t know where those genes come from”…
    But when you ask the same question about genes that miraculously appeared in the genome, they must have diverged…somehow…

  11. Neil Rickert
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: This OP is just a prelude

    Are you saying that the post was not intended as satire?

  12. timothya timothya
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Yes. It is called the ” the we don’t know where those genes come from”…
    But when you ask the same question about genes that miraculously appeared in the genome,they must have diverged…somehow…

    Does your “Yes” relate to the first question, the second question, or both? Or neither?

  13. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,

    Haloperidol. You’re welcome

  14. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    I don’t like the phrase abrahamic . i suspect thats just to include Jews and muslims. Yet they are not worthy in discussions of origins. its entirely a christian historical intellectual foundation and defended/attacked on that. also there was no democratic vote about changing words.
    anyways.
    its a error to see Genesis as teaching angels hooked up with earth chicks. Its historcially been seen as two segregated populations. those obeying god, not living in towns, whose sons noticed the girls of the towns. Something like those following Abel and those following cain. Nothing to do with angels.
    YOUR RIGHT to point out any claim of a bottleneck must start from Noah plus seven. That only 4500 years ago. Not even Adam.
    Then people , before/after the flood, were living hundreds of years. not only would this interfere woth population estimates but in the genetic health and composition of people.
    If people lived that long then their genes would be different then us today.
    once again its about extrapolation from the prtesent to a past that need not live under present rules.

  15. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert Byers,

    Haloperidol. A round for the house on me.

  16. graham2
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert Byers replies to J-Mac.
    It doesnt get any better than that.

  17. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Entropy: Well, this travesty would not be complete without the claim that those fallen angels also bred with chimps, since the problem with that two-bottleneck is the number of alleles shared between humans and chimps, which is more than would be possible if there was a two-individual human bottleneck.

    Good point!

    So human-chimp hybridization should be a piece of cake, shouldn’t?
    Unfortunately… it didn’t work for the Russians and apparently for the Nazis… Americans and the Chinese may have tried too… and God knows who else…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

    You can try it yourself… though I wouldn’t do it in public as the groups supporting animal rights are very powerful theses days…

    If I were you, I’d choose bonbons or even orangutans for hybridization rather than chimps as they appear closer related to humans than chimps… which makes your chimp/human belief very convincing, if you choose to believe one evolutionary theory over the other…. lol

    https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/bonobos-are-a-better-proxy-for-last-common-ancestor-with-humans-than-chimpanzees-/

    https://www.livescience.com/7780-hot-debate-chimps-orangutans.html

    This is my favourite quote about the truthfulness of “evolutionary science”:

    “…if the DNA evidence that many biologists use as evidence turned out not to accurately reveal evolutionary relationships, the work of many molecular biologists would be suspect.”

    Who can argue against the way this science is done when “the primary and the only truth” is and MUST be evolution?

  18. timothya timothya
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Good point!
    If I were you, I’d choose bonbons or even orangutans for hybridization rather than chimps as they appear closer related to humans than chimps… which makes your chimp/human belief very convincing, if you choose to believe one evolutionary theory over the other…. lol

    Sometimes autocorrections can be hilarious. Hybrid bonbons rock!

  19. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    timothya: Sometimes autocorrections can be hilarious. Hybrid bonbons rock!

    What makes you think that was autocorrect? It was J-Mac, you know.

  20. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    It looks like Dr. Swamidass was involved in the debate about the Nephilim…

    A Tentative Look at Nephilim

    https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-tentative-look-at-nephilim/1167

    Our own vjtorley may have started this conversation earlier but Dr. Swamidass wanted to make sure it doesn’t go too far in order not to interfere with his evolutionary assumptions…

    https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/nephilim-and-the-sons-of-god/303

    What’s new?

  21. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac:
    It looks like Dr. Swamidass was involved in the debate about theNephilim…

    A Tentative Look at Nephilim

    https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-tentative-look-at-nephilim/1167

    Our own vjtorley may have started this conversation earlier but Dr. Swamidass wanted to make sure it doesn’t go too far in order not to interfere with his evolutionary assumptions…

    VJ:
    “I might add that St. Thomas Aquinas was of the same view (S.T. I, q. 51, art. 3, reply to obj. 6). In fact, he even quotes from St. Augustine on the subject. Thus Augustine and Aquinas are both in agreement that this passage says nothing about “persons who biologically did not descend from Adam”

    What your support for this view beyond Greek mythology “The bible mentions the accounts of the sons of the true God who took up man form and had sexual relations of the daughters of men and produced a hybrid offspring called Nephilim…”

    God had sons who took up human form to seduce the ladies so sometime in the future scientists would be mistaken? Why go to all this deception, an omnipotent God just needs to will it?

    Come on, how about less insults and a bit more substance. Flesh your theory out.

  22. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: VJ:
    “I might add that St. Thomas Aquinas was of the same view (S.T. I, q. 51, art. 3, reply to obj. 6). In fact, he even quotes from St. Augustine on the subject. Thus Augustine and Aquinas are both in agreement that this passage says nothing about “persons who biologically did not descend from Adam”

    What your support for this view beyond Greek mythology “The bible mentions the accounts of the sons of the true God who took up man form and had sexual relations of the daughters of men and produced a hybrid offspring called Nephilim…”

    God had sons who took up human form to seduce the ladies so sometime in the future scientists would be mistaken? Why go to all this deception, an omnipotent God just needs to will it?

    Come on, how about less insults and a bit more substance. Flesh your theory out.

    Are you implying I have agreed with vjtorley or anyone else at PS on the Nephilim thingy?

  23. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac:

    Here’s a proposition: trying to reconcile random sentences in Genesis with science or, more broadly speaking, with reality tends to result in nonsense. Discuss.

  24. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    John Harshman: Here’s a proposition: trying to reconcile random sentences in Genesis with science or, more broadly speaking, with reality tends to result in nonsense. Discuss.

    Give me one, only one reason, why I shouldn’t place you on ignore? My kids demand it. Why should I believe you?

  25. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    John Harshman: What makes you think that was autocorrect? It was J-Mac, you know.

    Point mutation…your life creator and saviour… lol

  26. John Harshman John Harshman
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Give me one, only one reason, why I shouldn’tplace you on ignore? My kids demand it. Why should I believe you?

    Don’t really care. And I’m not sure I believe anything you say, even that you have kids.

  27. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    John Harshman: Don’t really care. And I’m not sure I believe anything you say, even that you have kids.

    Fair enough…now you may try to understand about how I feel about your beliefs…

  28. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Did you hear that kids? Rumrocket is being profound…He doesn’t believe in anything unless he can see it , with the exception of evolution…
    Can you believe it?

  29. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    John Harshman: Here’s a proposition: trying to reconcile random sentences in Genesis with science or, more broadly speaking, with reality tends to result in nonsense. Discuss.

    One can build a perfectly respectable self-enclosed system by starting off with a few basic incorrect assumptions and adding ad hoc assumptions every time the system conflicts with reality.

    It reminds me of a line from Borges. He says somewhere that when he wants to be moved by the power of human imagination and ingenuity, he doesn’t listen to symphonies or look at architecture — he reads metaphysics.

  30. Neil Rickert
    Ignored
    says:

    Moved a post to guano.

  31. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac:
    So human-chimp hybridization should be a piece of cake, shouldn’t?

    I don’t know and I don’t care. You’re the one imagining magical fallen angels breeding with humans. If that makes them able to give interspecies fertility, or not, depends on what magical powers you decide to imagine them to have.

    I was just offering you a “solution” to the actual allele problem, since you didn’t “solve” it, probably because you don’t understand what the problem is, and I suspect you didn’t understand it after I explained it either. Here it goes again:

    The problem is that humans and chimps share many more alleles that they could if there was a two-person bottleneck.

    ETA: Alleles are different versions of a gene. Given that, two persons can hold a maximum of four alleles, two per person, since we have two sets of chromosomes each. A maximum of three if those genes are in the X chromosome, and one if the genes are in the Y chromosome. That means that we could not share more than four alleles for some gene with chimps, no more than three for other genes, and no more than one for some fewer genes. Well, for some genes we do share more alleles with chimps than possible from a two-person bottleneck.

    Your imaginary fallen angels would bring new alleles to humans, but not alleles in common with chimps, unless they bred with chimps as well. Another possible “solution” is to imagine that the angels then turned into chimps, if you like that idea. Since this is a just-so story, you can add / change whatever nonsense you wish.

    All that nonsense in honor of your kids, of course.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.