It should be clear that I have and will continue to defend the plausibility of this model, unless we uncover clear evidence against it.
On another thread, we were discussing a recent genealogical Adam, and @Agauger put forward an argument I’ve heard over and over again leveled against her position.
Many people see no reason in Scripture or science to think your model is true. That is, to the point, exactly Venema’s argument against you. Scripture certainly does not teach an ancient Adam Homo Erectus, with different biology than us. Nor does it give us positive evidence for a bottleneck 2 mya (though it might be consistent with the evidence). Pushing Adam this far back seems like adding an “epicycle” to a failing theory (I’ve been told). How would you respond to this criticism? @vjtorley and @Agauger.
The same goes for these objection:
Of course, I think these objections are nonsense, and I have my own rebuttal. It is fairly entertaining to see you using the same objections against a Genealogical Adam.
Of course, the only reason we care about an Adam and Eve is because we care about what Scripture and theology say. So, because science cannot tell us the answer here, we are going to be strongly guided by our reading of Scripture. You can and should see Scripture as you see fit, but be cautious about leveling critiques of other peoples position that are literally identical to the critiques against your position.