Bonnette's Wild Showdown with Biblical Genesis

Conversation Side Conversation
1

Typo: I misspelled the writer’s name… I’ll fix it up soon… here is the link and correct spelling!

https://strangenotions.com/the-scientific-possibility-of-adam-and-eve/

By Dr. Dennis Bonnette

Dennis Bonnette’s July 2018 article on Adam and Eve as SOLE common ancestor to all humanity included this particular analysis:

" The most recent research indicates that the best likelihood for there being two first parents for the human race is prior to half a million years ago."

“This finding comports significantly with my own speculation stated at the beginning of this article, namely, that, based on intellect-evincing artifacts, the probable time for the first true human beings—Adam and Eve—would be some three-quarters of a million years ago.”

"This philosophical inference that the makers of such artifacts must be true human beings means that they would be proper candidates for being identical with the possible “first hominin mating pair” discussed in the previous section."

And yes, as Swamidass points out, given their ancient time frame, this would make them “the common ancestor of Homo sapiens , Denisovans , and Neanderthals .”

What are we to make of this tumult of themes and scenarios?

What I see is a puzzle of motivations. Is the author actually attempting to replace a fixation on the idea Special Creation of an historical Adam and Eve with a LESSER FIXATION on the importance of a SINGLE FOUNDING COUPLE?

Why do I even suggest this?:

1] the author keeps urging the reader to look well beyond the half-million year Mark for a common ancestral couple;

2] he seems more interested in making the Adam and Eve a hybrid of multiple hominid lineages… IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY the claim of SOLE ancestry;

3] And finally, the author appears to cloak his analysis in a way that minimizes the concern or discussion regarding Special Creation in order to focus on the possibility of a sole ancestral couple somehow emerging through Evolution alone.

Wow… that’s a lot of work and brain-storming - - just to avoid Special Creation!

Don’t get me wrong: I’m a Unitarian Universalist who is quite convinced by the physical evidence that humans were (for the most part) created by God via God-guided Evolution!

But the reason I post on PeacefulScience.Org is my belief that a Dual-Creation Scenario - - where God makes an historical Adam & Eve by Special Creation AFTER first creating a founding population of humans by means of evolution - - is the scenario that does the best job of fitting both the physical evidence of Evolution and the Biblical requirement for a recent Universal Common Ancestor!

Bennette seems less than convinced… and that includes any Reliance on the time frame of Genesis 2 and beyond.

How do I mean this?:

A] He makes no attempt to explain his abandoning of a 6000 year time frame… or even a 10,000 year scenario. He flees Genesis altogether… in order to preserve just one thing: SOLE ANCESTRY of SOME KIND of hominid couple;

B] He makes no attempt to explain how ANY hybrid couple could have enough intrinsic genetic diversity, SIMULTANEOUSLY, in dozens of genetically controlled phenotypes with hundreds if not thousands of alleles in the present population!

C] Or… is it in fact a REVERSE strategy? Does Bennette so strongly favor Special Creation that he wants to entangle the reader with his speculations BEFORE confessing that it still needs to rely on non-Evolutionary de novo Adam and Eve?

Since I cannot really tell yet what the writer really thinks is possible… it seems quite misguided to abandon a recent timeframe (within the last 10,000 years) AND the patriarchal account seemingly absent of any surviving human hybridization AND perhaps eliminating Special Creation altogether - - just to fixate on SOLE ANCESTRY for some kind of Adam and Eve!

The @swamidass scenarios on Genealogical Adam/Eve seem to look even better in view of the compromises Bennette seems to be making!

Adam and Eve are demonstrably Homo sapiens (less than 40,000 years ago), image bearers created by God by Special Creation, AND STILL qualifying as [A] Universal Ancestral Couple… just not THE one couple!

2

The @Alice_Linsley model fits with the anthropological artifacts, the ancient genomes, and the culture knowledge and practices of the time/location and the genre of writers at the time/location the Bible was written. The Linsley model needs no special creation and no miracles, and is the simplest explanation for all the evidence we have so far. Her model is testable and falsifiable. As new ancient genomes are analyzed and new cultural artifact are found, the model can be substantiated, expanded upon, modified, or falsified. In theory, the location and time period where the couple lived and be determined with precision. The genomes of the small group of people can be analyzed and compared with other people in the area at the time. Also it could be determined who the ancestors of Adam and Eve were and where they came from. Her model is expressed as follows:

@Alice_Linsley “Biblical Adam and Eve were fully human though not the first people on Earth. They are the first parents of the lineages that become known as Hebrew priests, rulers, prophets, and of Jesus Messiah. The historical Adam is the founder of the lines of ruler-priests who were known in the ancient world as 'Apiru or Habiru (Hebrew). This places Adam in relatively recent history. Genesis is not so much about human origins as it is about the origin of the Messianic Faith.”

3

I agree completely!

1 Like
4

Post a link to quoted article.

1 Like
5

Here is the link:

By Dr. Dennis Bonnette

2 Likes
6

I think we have covered this before…

Do you remember?

1 Like