This is really interesting at 6500 years ago the peopling of Galilee were a mix of local Levant and Iranian and Turkish fair skinned blue-eyed people. And then they were replaced. Note this is from Reich’s lab. Much more to come. These results puts constraints on GA and GE in this time period and location. Especially with the Canaanites shown to be present day Lebanese. A lot of Biblical inaccuracies to fix.
1 Like
Very interesting. Though I’m not sure the inaccuracies or constraints you are seeing. Can you explain? Maybe @Alice_Linsley might help.
1 Like
Yes, Alice is the expert. What I see are a very difficult genomic and genealogical path between a GA and GE at 6500 years ago to an Abraham to a Noah to a Moses to a David to a Jesus with all the admixing and population replacement going on in the region for thousands of years. Alice can definitely help fit these new results with the anthropology and the Biblical writings.
Well that makes it easier to make sense of Adam, but may complicate the story for Isreal. Remember admixing helps Genealogical ancestry spread quicker and farther. That story, however, seems to be non-interacting with this data. It seems it was later that Isreal was established.
Also, I’m not sure anyone here is insisting on a Genealogical Adam 6000 years ago anyways. For most people taking a literal reading any time less than 15000 is just fine.
Not really when whole populations in a specific area get replaced by another migrating in population. GA and GE need to have a line through Abraham and David to Jesus AND to everybody. That is a tight constraint with population replacement by migration going on all over the world.
Less than 15,000 year ago put GA in the Caucuses, Iran or India to have much chance at being in the Genealogy of everybody.
If you read the article and look at the data, you’ll see that there was interbreeding. The concept of “replaced” is somewhat mythical. A lot of people moved into the area, and they mixed with the local population. That is what the evidence shows in this case.
Back that far there are GA everywhere across the globe. It is not restricted to any area.
1 Like
I read the actual paper as it was open access. Yes, replacement is over time so it is not like a complete wipeout of the first people. More like an overrunning over time. So maybe your GA and GE can sneek in there. 
1 Like
Like I said before, any sort of large scale movements like this reduce the time to GA. All of David Reich’s work is just making a recent GA more and more likely according to the data. Remember, one has to demonstrate total genealogical isolation for thousands of years to disprove a GA. However, as I understand it, there is not one place we have looked without seeing evidence of interbreeding. Interbreeding need not even leave genetic evidence, but we have yet to have shown any population definitively genetically isolated to date. The data is just increasing our confidence.
1 Like
I reluctantly agree that your GA does get more and more likely as more interbreeding evidence comes in.
But can I use that same arguments for my Neanderthal GA?
1 Like
Um yes, but you are mixing categories when you say that you are 1.5% Neanderthal. We all are genealogically descendents of Neanderthals whether or not we are genetically descendents.
1 Like
Agree. Even Sub-Saharan Africans are too. I getting to understand the science of genealogy more. You are going to have a much easier time with me concerning GA than the YECs, ID, TE and OEC folks.
1 Like
Ambiguous grammar…
Meaning you are fine with GA but oppose ID/YEC/TE? Or that you are fine with GA, but ID/YEC/TE will oppose it?
By the way, please keep posting David Reich’s papers. I need to keep up to date on his work.
It is getting late. Sorry. I am fine with GA but ID/YEC/TE folks will be a harder sell.
He is now industrialized ancient genome extraction and analysis. Results are going to come out faster and faster with more and more ancient genomes. And the analysis part is going to reveal more and more about the ancient people and contradict the previous studies as more resolution is provided. It is like the refinement of the Cosmic Background Radiation from Penzias to Cobe, to WAMP to Planck. The detail gets finer and finer over both time and location.
1 Like
I’m not sure I understand @Patrick 's concerns.
The pre-adam population (that God makes thru evolution) fits in just fine here or anywhere the fossil and geological evidence suggests.
The single MAJOR adjustment needed on the Special Creation side is that if a creationist supports the Dual Creation approach – AND INSISTS THE FLOOD IS GLOBAL – then the timeline needs to be adjusted so a global flood happens BEFORE the first dynasty of Egypt.
There is no believable way to put a global flood in the middle of the first dynasties. The LXX, I’m told (@anon46279830 was that from you?) organizes the genealogies so that Adam/Eve are created earlier… and so a global flood happens earlier too.
1 Like
It depends what we mean by global flood. There was a global flood when the oceans rose by 400 ft. However, this flood did not rise above all mountains. Point taken though that there is no evidence of a global flood that covers all mountains on Earth.
1 Like
That “the waters covered all the high mountains” is a phenomenological description from a certain point of view (the human author’s) makes this questionable as to claims of “global totality.” How would any human author be able to verify such a statement, short of, say, writing from the International Space Station? Context is key when interpreting the flood story.
1 Like
I agree entirely. A plain reading of Scripture does not teach a global flood. They had no concept of a globe, and globe does not even appear in the text.
1 Like
It does teach an extensive, phenomenologically “total” (horizon to horizon?) flood, and there are good geologically-attested candidate events for such an occurrence.
2 Likes