A New Type of Progenitorship?

Those terms are awkward and confusing. Plus easy to confuse with your model. I think the problem is with your use of the term sole as exclusive of interbreeding. If you think of ancestry as a tree with one trunk and a few grafts, everything draws is identity from the trunk.
I am the vine and you are the branches.

Not at all. My model is called Sole-Genealogical Progenitor, but NOT Sole Genetic Progenitor.
Adam and Eve are likely to be genetic ghosts.
Monogenesis AND interbreeding.
Others are same kind.

RTB #2 would be Almost Sole-Genetic Progenitor.
Adam and Eve are NOT genetic ghosts.
Monogenesis AND interbreeding.
Others are different kind.

Your 2mya model would be Sole-Genetic Progenitor.
Adam and Eve are NOT genetic ghosts.
Monogenesis, and NO interbreeding.
Others are different kind.

It is more likely to be confused with your model than mine. Keep in mind, however, that you appear to be relying on genealogical ancestry if you say this:

If that’s the case, we are talking about genealogical transmission of “human”. That is what you are saying, not me. That is also my point. As soon as you allow for interbreeding, the moves you have to make at that point, demonstrate that Genealogical Adam models are consistent with traditional theology.

Is it possible to see Genesis 1:26 as God determining that now is the time to inculcate “His image” fully into pre-human hominids? Regardless of when we locate that action? And that He carries it out in verse 27 and ff.?
The “adamah” (plural) of verse 26 could as easily and accurately be translated, “groundlings.”

I understand that you are discussing the RTB #2 model, not your own. But how do you make sense of why God makes Adam and Eve with capability of interbreeding with others? It would be easy to “design” fertility out, so why did God leave it in?

I’m not twitched about the best term, but I guess the theological problem isn’t new for those who hold that the sons of God in Gen 6 were fallen angels, and their offspring the “mighty men of old”. They seem to have been regarded as men, rather than demons.


Some of these definitions create two classes of human beings. I hope you are not saying that one class was created in the image of God and the other class wasn’t. Also I really don’t mind being in the class of humans who weren’t created in the image of God because now you can’t pin any original sin against us as we didn’t know God and there was no Fall for us. I am good with this and demand that my genealogical Adam is part of humanity that wasn’t created in the image of God and doesn’t have original sin and didn’t experienced a Fall.


@Agauger (and @swamidass )

Dr. Gauger, for your analogy to work, you would have to remove genetic material from a Neanderthal and surgically install it in a germ cell of one of your Adam descendants. THAT is a graft onto the trunk.

This would be quite different from Neanderthal and Adamite reproducing the old-fashioned way!
For once there is mating “old school” … rather than genetic transplants … as soon as mating happens… the graft is no longer relevant!

The neanderthal line is now a part of the trunk that gets a root… and there’s no way around it.

Thanks for pointing out the problem so clearly, @Patrick. There really is a better model of understanding the text.

1 Like

I’d call it something like the “imago Dei-created humanity before Adam and Eve arrive” view.

@Patrick, I think you have been misinformed. If you agree that Genesis 1 is about the evolved population of Pre-Adam humans… they were definitely created (by means of evolution) with the image of God.

Genesis 9 is God giving Noah the Noachide laws, and he explains that because God’s image is in what is left of humanity, anyone who kills a human shall be put to death. So Genesis 9 covers the Adam-crowd described in Genesis 2. Both sets of creation of God’s image.

From everything I have seen and studied, I conclude that the entire Genesis is fiction, allegorical ancient literature.

Good red team response. Don’t believe you, though. : )

1 Like


If you asked me if the first part of the movie Mary Poppins was about a nanny who flew to a family riding under an open umbrella…

… and I said … NO… Mary Poppins isn’t real… would you think that was a helpful response?

Now go back and read YOUR response to a simple question I asked.

I did. I know how humans evolved and migrated over the past million years. It is pretty solid science. Given these facts. the Genesis creation story must be a myth. Nothing else works. Sorry.

Right. And there’s no such thing as the Mary Poppins movie… because it ain’t real.
Keep it up Patrick… maybe I’ll have the deciding vote some day…

Why would you want to “vote” on what Patrick says, as though you could decide his reality for him? What if he’s playing with you? What if he actually means what he says? What if reality is not actually “up for a vote?”
What if I stop posing hypotheticals? : )
If Patrick is truly a student of literature, the word “myth” could be high praise, indeed. For him, anyway.

deciding vote on what?
Are you going to take a vote on which myth is true? Go ahead, as the vote doesn’t impact the science. Truth is truth, and myth is myth, whatever the results of your vote is.

1 Like

I was taught by Catholic nuns in the 1960’s that Genesis was an allegory - a teaching story for children to teach them about God. At no time were we told that the stories in Genesis actually took place. I am pretty sure that is the position of the Catholic Church for about 500 years? Why is it so important to your faith that the Adam character in an ancient story for children is really an historical figure? Is there more important things to work on in this world? Cure for Cancer? Helping the children at the border in child interment camps? Is an historical Adam really that important that you couldn’t continue living with your beliefs under the acceptance that Adam just might be just a character in an allegory beamed into the mind of an ancient writer by your God?

1 Like

What is your theory as to why God would beam this particular “children’s story” into the mind of an ancient writer? How is it intended to inform its readers?
From the Wikipedia entry for “myth.”
“Although the term may be used to mean a ‘false story’ in colloquial speech, myth is commonly used by folklorists and academics in other relevant fields, such as anthropology. Use of the term by scholars has no implication whether the narrative may be understood as true or otherwise.”
Did you misspeak, or are you not a true student of literature?
Sorry to hear you were misinformed by nuns as a child. Nothing worse than futility masking as faith, in my view.
No, the allegorical view is not the official or monolithic position of the Catholic church.