swamidass
July 25, 2018, 9:19pm
20
I also want to reiterate @kkeathley cautious optimism about the Genealogical Adam. I believe he is on the Reasons to Believe board, right @AJRoberts ? Have you seen his comments here? Ken Keathley: Notes from Dabar and a Baptist's Hope
So I want to push back on this and get your response @kkeathley . I see the situation differently. Also, to fix the discussion, I’m going to reference the current RTB model (Engaging the Zoo of RTB Models ), which includes interbreeding between Sapiens (whom descend from Adam) Neanderthals, (whom do not descend from Adam).
First of all, let’s look at the similarities (that are relevant here).
They BOTH affirm the “humanity of those who left cave paintings and other artifacts.”
They BOTH assert there were “those outside the Garden.”
They BOTH affirm sole-progenitorship in a genealogical sense.
They BOTH agree we all include DNA that did not originate with Adam and Eve.
NEITHER are sole-genetic progenitor models, because both include “those outside the Garden,” and we all have DNA from them in addition to DNA originating from Adam.
Then the differences,
The RTB model gives up on the Biblical timeline, but a recent GA does not.
The RTB model explains the interbreeding between Adam’s offspring and others as bestiality, but the GA sees interbreeding as originally intended by God.
The RTB model has most of us with Adam and Eve’s DNA (because interbreeding was rare and they are ancient), but the GA has most of us without Adam and Eve’s DNA.
Of course there are more similarities and differences, but how exactly is GA facing any new challenges that aren’t already in the RTB model? It seems to me that it reduces the challenges all around, and deals with the issue of interbreeding head on, rather than as a footnote. The directness with the challenge of interbreeding, it seems to me, shouldn’t be seen as a disadvantage, but one of its merits.
The same question arises already in the RTB model, so it is not as if this is a trade off between the two approaches. Rather, it seems that this largely resolves several longstanding problems with the “antiquity of man,” but draws new emphases to the specific question of interbreeding with those outside the Garden, which has always been lurking in the shadows, but never taken a prominent role in conversations.
Do you agree with that @kkeathley , or am I missing something?
Yes, to his credit, Fuz acknowledges this in the 2nd edition of his Who Was Adam book. If I understand him correctly, at this point he argues (tentatively) that if they interbred then this was indeed bestiality. If that is so, then that raises questions about “humans” and “nonhumans” having the ability to interbreed. I get your point that, if this is the case, then the RTB model also has the problem of non-adamic “others”.
I am curious if Reasons to Believe is going to accept this among their stable of acceptable options. I hope you do, as at least one option among the many you are working on. It might be even be one of the preferred ones, especially if you can hash out plausible ways the larger population was created.
Of course, I want to look at your existing model too. There is no reason to limit ourselves to a single option. For that matter, a more ancient Adam should be on the table too.
If you guys could come to solid scientific grounding here, that would be a real game changer for the conversation.