Comments on Genealogical Adam was Not Unique

Continuing the discussion from Hypothesis: Genealogical Adam Was Not Unique:

This thread is for comments on this interesting thought experiment by @Faizal_Ali.

Christianity is a monotheistic religion which believes there is only one God who is creator of all living beings.
Your first assumption that there is a supernatural creator other than God is an assumption that Christianity is false…
So if you start from an assumption that the Christian religion is false… what’s so great about reaching a conclusion that it is so?

Might as well save space and say Christianity is false instead of engaging in all this story telling.

No, the supernatural creator is not identified. It could be anyone, including the Christian god.

So you disagree with storytelling in order to support a position on religion? I wonder if @swamidass agrees with you.

But, from you silence on the question, I take it you see no scientific evidence against my hypothesis. Correct?

1 Like

In which case, you would be this God’s prophet? Afterall you are the one bringing this new revelation from Yahweh.
How are you going to convince people of your “prophethood”?

I disagree with the lack of logical coherence to your story telling. You assume a fact and then go on to prove your assumption based on your assumption… it’s circular logic.

So you seem to think my attempt to use science to support a theological position fails and is, in fact, a bit silly. I don’t want to put words into your mouth, but would you agree that it an accurate summary of your position?

Before trying to justify a “theological” position with science, you first need to have a theological position.
You don’t have a theological position. If you are claiming Yahweh creates 18% of the human population de Novo… you need a theological justification for said claim. This should be based on.

a) Biblical authority - i.e, you should be able to show the bible teaches something of this sort.

Even with genealogical Adam, the main challenge is not scientific. The challenge to show that it’s an idea that can supported by what the Bible teaches.

Edit: And if you are making the claim on your own authority, then you need to show from where you have received this authority.

1 Like

You seem to have a very poor understanding of theology. The Bible is not the only source of theological claims. There are many, many other theological schools of thought other than Christianity.

The theological position I am defending here is that Christianity is false, and I have shown how current scientific evidence is consistent with this claim. Science does not contradict the position that 18% of the population is not subject to “original sin” and therefore is not in need of salvation by Jesus Christ.

I again ask: What is the scientific evidence against my claim?


Sure… but you are trying to make a Christian theological claim on the Christian concept of original sin.

And I am pointing out to you that your first claim (A God other than Yahweh creating human beings de Novo) already assumes a falsification of Christianity.

You are not proving anything other than your initial assumption. And your initial assumption is a claim that is made on your authority alone.

Your claim is the same as starting a new religion with its initial tenet being that “Christianity is wrong”… this is not something that is proved, it’s something that is assumed.

You claim is a theological one. That Some God created 18% of human beings de-Novo so that 18% of the population are created de-Novo at any point of time.

Science doesn’t have anything to say on this subject. It has to be evaluated as a theology…

Even I can think of scientific issues… like what paternity test would look like for a de-novo zygote…

Since a father or mother is not required… women would have to concieve supernaturally…

All undetectable…

@Ashwin_s I can defend myself on this one. Thanks.

1 Like

You misunderstood… not defending you… just irritated with bad theology.

Let’s assume you are one of the 82% of the population that was not created de novo.

The supernatural creator creates a person who, if he had been born to your parents, would have been your brother.

How would we determine which of you was created de novo by looking at your genomes?

You do not seem to understand what “de novo creation” means. It does not require conception, at least not as I understand it. @swamidass understands this topic better than I, since it is largely his invention, so hopefully he can clarify.

By the fact that said Twin does not exist, I would know that said Twin was not created.

This is what @swamidass was saying by the way.

Anyway, I leave this to you guys…
Let me just summarise that the story is weak on a theological level, and a logical level in terms of the argument against Christianity.

Leaving the scientific issues to @swamidass.

Sorry, I edited my original post to be a sibling rather than a twin.

Anyway, your attempted response is incoherent. In the scenario I am proposing the “sibling” was created, so saying it wasn’t created is a nonsensical response.

Think it through… if someone can be proven to be my sibling on a genetic level… and he was created. It would be possible to easily prove that my parents did not concieve him, that my mother did not give birth to him etc.
So this 18% would be detectable.

Anyway, I suggest you continue on the GAE aspect with @swamidass.
Have fun… it’s always fun to think of possible errors in novel proposals like GAE.

If my argument is a weak one, that’s not necessarily a problem for me. My aim is not to necessarily to provide a strong argument, but one that is no weaker than @swamidass’s argument regarding “Geneological Adam.” So if you are demonstrating my argument to be weak, you are doing half of my work for me. So thanks!

1 Like

But your argument is weaker than his argument. It fails on countless points of contact with the real world, while his has no such points.


I don’t see how that is the case. Why would a supernatural being capable of human beings de novo be unable to do so in such a manner that we would not notice it? As I suggested in the companion thread to this discussion, the being may have created these humans in embryonic form then implanted them in women’s uteruses. I admit, I did not at first consider this possibility, but this discussion has convinced me this is the most plausible scenario. I cannot see how, in such a situation, we would be able to discern that 18% of our fellow humans were not, in fact, the descendants of any ancestors.

I have also learned thru this discussion that @swamidass is working on a book about GAE. This is a great inspiration to me, and I think I might also write about the major discovery that I have just announced here. And you all were the first to hear about it!