@moderators will govern this thread more tightly so we can keep it brief and to the point with any specific questions raised by scientists about this article. Some of WLC’s usage of terms (e.g. “genetic diversity”) will be somewhat confusion, and also it is possible that there is trans-species variation of more than 4 lineages. His basic summary, nonetheless, seems correct, though targeted at a lay audience.
It seems to incorporate what one might call the “first speaker of French” fallacy, having new species arise by saltation, simultaneously in two individuals of opposite sex. Assuming that there is some discrete moment at which the human species begins does violate everything we know about speciation. (Unless you’re referring to “textual humanity”, which Craig clearly is not.)
We’ve talked about that. Craig is wrong. You can reject the evidence, but you can’t claim it doesn’t exist.
We’ve talked about that too. I don’t believe the convergence required is anything like the sort in that paper you cited.
Technically true. But it would require a major miracle, nearly as large as de novo creation of the couple. Nobody is that heterozygous. No two individuals are that mutually heterozygous. I don’t see the point of postulating that miracle to save you from a different one.
I want to explore this. What level of heterozyocity do you think this implies? Can you produce some calculations or evidence for an AE at 0.5 Mya or 1 Mya?
I’m not sure what the heterozygocity required would be any different than what we observe in humans today. Recall that many variants would enter the population by mutations after Adam and Eve.
Craig is hypothesizing that both A&E were heterozygous at every polymorphic site, from what I can tell. Or he’s claiming that you said that. What did you actually say?
He is imperfectly summarizing my argument. I think it is absurd to think AE were heterozygous at every site, but nothing in the evidence demands this. Nothing in his model demands this either.
Moreover, he is meaning this in opposition to the idea that AE are homozygous clones of own another. That would be a miracle.
Perhaps that’s what he meant to say, though what he actually said seems clear enough. He’s using original heterozygosity to explain current allelic diversity. Ah, well, the heterozygosity isn’t the main thing wrong with his scenario.
I don’t think that there is any evidence for an A&E at any age, in the sense of a couple who are the sole ancestors. Nor is there any evidence for them when you consider only genetic ancestors. We do expect that at each small region of the genome there will be an Adam or an Eve, at some age about 1 mya, but there is no reason to expect those to be the same people for every region of the genome.
And consistency with religious doctrines is not evidence in this inference.
Oh I agree with this. Isn’t that clear? I personally don’t think the human population was just a single couple 700 kya, and I did not find any evidence to support it.
That is something different. If there was a single couple bottleneck we would not expect MRCA of autosomes at that bottleneck. MRCA for many parts of the autosome could have been much more ancient than the bottleneck.
It is a subtle point, but it’s important for this question.
I agree. Never said it was. The question is different. Is there evidence against this doctrine when considered across a large range of auxillary hypotheses?
The bottleneck, whose presence is not indicated by any genetic evidence, though perhaps demanded by theological considerations, has to be very short for that to be true.
I accept what science tells about the genetic challenge to Adam and Eve. The Abrahamic religion especially Christians should harmonize reality and the revelation of the Bible about mankind and its origin. It says in Genesis 1:26-27 " And Elohim said, let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; xxxx. 27 And Elohim created the man in His Own image; xxx. He created them male and female. This was the sixth day[of creation]. God rested on the seventh day from all His work. It is clear that on the sixth day God created mankind and(Gen.2:28) blessed them to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the land, and subdue it. In Genesis 2:7 “Elohim formed the man from the dust of the ground xxx and the man became a living soul.” God put this man, He called Adam, in the garden of Eden. Later, from the ribs of Adam Eve was created to become his wife. They had children Cain and Abel. Cain after killing Abel went out from the presence of YHWH and settled in the land of Noh, east of Eden, and have his wife. The above verses shows that before Adam and Eve were created there were already people populating the earth by generations that is why Cain was able to have a wife in a land called Noh. Perhaps the bible does not need to tell that God created mankind in different races and put them in all corners of the world that is why there are black people in that part of the world now called Africa, charteuse Indians in North America and other ethnic people in Latin America, Asia, and other continents. This is what I believed based on the Bible and science.
But “race” is a very modern concept and these *races" probably has little to do with ancient what ancient people may have looked like because there had been so much mixing. And the current scientific consensus is showing that all humans migrated out of Africa. Just thought it would be helpful to know this part of your comment doesn’t make sense according to science as far as I can tell. I’m not sure why no one else pointed it out yet and me, the YEC, is. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong or misunderstood you.
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong or misunderstood you.