Talk:Adam

Origin and Discovery

The last line ("It is heavily implied that the experiment produced the being that became known as Kaworu Nagisa.") jumps to a conclusions, based on 2I being shown as Kaworu's birthday. That could just be symbolic of Kaworu containing Adam's soul, it doesn't necessarily mean that Kaworu was created on that day. Maybe they kept the soul on ice for a while, for example. Anyway, if people think the birthday link is strong enough, I'm happy for my edit to be reverted.--Nomis1242 11:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't jump to conclusions at all; it's just incomplete. The "heavily implied" is referring to stuff I was planning to add to a T&A page at some point, which would take people through the stuff at the beginning of episode 21' (an implied "insemination of Adam by human DNA"). Could add a brief explanation in footnote form pending further detail. I would like a revert, myself. --Reichu 15:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Reverted. I'm looking forward to the T&A page discussing how the human DNA created Kaworu on that day (I thought it just caused Adam to go into meltdown and Kaworu's creation could have been totally separate, possibly at some later stage).--Nomis1242 10:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Second Impact

I checked the CI page and can't find any reference to Adam's core being destroyed in 2I. Does anyone know where the reference comes from? --Nomis1242 11:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It says that Adam's soul flew off somewhere, and, since the soul is in the core, it wouldn't be able to "fly off" unless the core was destroyed. Presumably. --Reichu 15:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. --Nomis1242 10:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Male/Female Duality

Don't Seeds of Life transcend normal sexual definitions? I think the "he/she" issue is just because humans commonly assign a gender to all living creatures. So this section is reading too much into it. I'd just say "The method of reproduction for a Seed of Life is unknown, therefore it cannot be determined whether Adam is male or female (or both or neither). The name "Adam" does not necessarily imply that this angel is male. Kaworu refers to Adam as "mother", but how similar this relationship is to the human version of "mother" is unknown." Thoughts? --Nomis1242 11:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The section isn't meant to be about biology -- I thought the wording made that pretty clear -- just symbolic/thematic allusions and that kind of crap. They're right there in front of the audience, and the article seemed incomplete without pointing them out. It's not like I'm using the Wiki to speculate about what's up Adam's skirt. --Reichu 14:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I realise this is pandering to the dummies out there (myself included!) but how about adding a sentence like, "As an alternative lifeform, it is also possible that the human concepts of gender can not be applied to Adam"? --Nomis1242 10:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Biology

I eliminated the stuff about "this and this happens once Adam becomes an embryo..." because it doesn't belong in a "biology" section. Also, "tetrapod" because the embryo distinctly has four limbs, which not all vertebrates do. Then again, I really suck at embryology and I'm not sure "how far back" in the Animalia tree the embryonic stage Adam resembles actually goes. Maybe I should have played it safe and just said nothing. :laughs nervously for two minutes: --Reichu 20:31, 30 December 2007 (PST)

The current version you just wrote up is perfect. --V 15:42, 1 January 2008 (PST)

What was wrong with...

..."Adam's fate following Lilith's physical death is unknown."? --Reichu 12:21, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

"Defeated by..."

We don't need this field for Seeds. Neither Adam nor Lilith were really "defeated" by anybody. --Reichu 05:04, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

I guess you're right on that; I'll have to tinker around to do that thing to "hide" a field not used...--V 11:23, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Project E / Adam Project

Someone should probably look into the exact deal with these things, since I keep on forgetting and it would be important when discussing the post-2I stuff. Do they even actually use the embryo for stuff? I mean, there wasn't anything stopping them from starting Evas BEFORE they'd be faced with the inconvenience of Adam blowing sky-high and hoping there would be something left for them to fish out of the Antarctic waters somehow or other. --Reichu 05:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

...um, I get the impression that the genetic samples they took were from the actual embryo of Adam. Technically, yeah I guess they could have used cell samples and stuff, but they had the actual embryo itself....you do make the point that we're not sure if the embryo was itself needed to be, you know, alive as it was for cell samples. I mean it probably was what they used. I'll touch upon this later. --V 11:25, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, now that I think about it, Ritsuko does seem to imply a sort of chronology when she babbles in #23. Though it doesn't make any particular sense why they wouldn't have just taken samples BEFORE Adam went kablooey. (lol NGE) But, yeah, some stuff on that Adam Project / Project E mess = Win. Though I don't think you in particular need to spend time doing the research on that; you're a busy guy. --Reichu 12:23, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Dictionary of Angels

Has Anno been through all this? Even if all the Angels were just there to appear exotic, he's been doing a ton of research. There's a whole lot of surprisingly interesting junk from the dictionary of Angels: 1. Adam is called the bright Angel in the Book of Adam and Eve. 2. He reached from the Earth to the "Firmament"- in other words, all the way from Earth to the boundaries of Heaven. Our Adam does this when her wings spread during 2I. 3. Adam is associated with the sixth Sephiroth, Tiphereth, or "Beauty". Adam may not be particularly beautiful, but Kaworu, her human form, is a beautiful boy. 4. The Talmud records that Adam was created as androgynous in the nature of God, who in turn was androgynous. (Although an androgynous creature would classify as a mother, right?) 5. And of course, the ten Sephiroth are used as a representation of the primordial man, Adam Kadmon, in whose image the first human Adam was made.

Does any of this stuff classify as worth being put on the page?--UrsusArctos 18:27, 14 December 2007 (PST)

One more- In the book of Enoch (Considered heretical), Adam is considered to be the second Angel, which ties in nicely with Rebuild, where Lilith, not Adam, is the first. --UrsusArctos 18:37, 14 December 2007 (PST)

What "Dictionary of Angels" are you referring to? Yes, much of the Angel info they got is specifically from the apocryphal Book of Enoch. --V 18:51, 14 December 2007 (PST)

http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Angels-Including-Fallen/dp/002907052X

This book is supposed to be a compilation of everything known about Angels. It also shows up on a google books preview, which is from where I saw the entry on Adam. --UrsusArctos 04:37, 15 December 2007 (PST)

I have the Dead Tree Edition of this book. It's sitting about 12cm away from my left hand... Such a wonderful book, it is. Gustav Davidson is insane.

Relevant esoteric reference whatevers is fine, but I was attempting to avoid that until we sorted out the whole citations thing. Though we'd inevitably end up using DoA so much we could just list it as a site-wide resource (like so many NGE-specific resources) and be done with it... --Reichu 03:00, 16 December 2007 (PST)

As Reichu commands. So long as this Dictionary has good info coming from the Book of Enoch, all's right with the world. Try to sort out the citation stuff though. Yes, it is all worth putting on the page UrsusArctos.--V 09:29, 16 December 2007 (PST)

Writing on Embryonic Adam's case

""Who is you He is living Why?", and some Kanji under the label "Caution". -- yes it is there: http://www.evacommentary.org/op/OP_C049_big.jpg but its kind of written in sloppy script. Need to make sure what's printed there. A good catch, worth looking over in more detail. --V 23:55, 28 December 2007 (PST)

I remember the days when I just went along with Hexon's (?) suggestion that is was, "whoisman heiscrying why?" Oh, that made me think so many wonderful thoughts.

I had something on-topic to say, but I forget what it was... --Reichu 20:53, 30 December 2007 (PST)