# Comments on Three Reviews at BioLogos
**URL:** https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10046
**Category:** Side Conversation
**Tags:** Comments
**Created:** [March 31, 2020, 6:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10046 "2020-03-31T18:34:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 7
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2020, 6:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10046/1 "2020-03-31T18:34:29Z")
> [@Three Reviews at BioLogos](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/three-reviews-at-biologos/9994/13):
>
> > a model of two _Homo sapiens_ as recent sole progenitors **can be consistent** with scientific evidence, depending what precisely we mean by sole progenitor.
Sure, and a bowl of soba noodles can be your grandmother depending on what precisely we mean by bowl of soba noodles. It’s your responsibility to communicate clearly, and any meaning of “sole progenitor” that doesn’t actually mean “sole” is a poor word choice. Similarly, and meaning of “human” that excludes some people that a reasonable person would consider human is another poor word choice.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2020, 6:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10046/2 "2020-03-31T18:37:39Z")
> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> It’s your responsibility to communicate clearly, and any meaning of “sole progenitor” that doesn’t actually mean “sole” is a poor word choice.
I agree. Sole-genealogical progenitorship, as you know, uses the term sole to mean sole. We’ve gone over this many times before @John_Harshman, and you understand the point. You just don’t hold this definition personally, and that is okay. So unless there is something new to add, let’s let this one be.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2020, 9:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10046/3 "2020-03-31T21:17:00Z")
> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Sole-genealogical progenitorship, as you know, uses the term sole to mean sole.
What I know is the opposite of that. Of course, what I know may be wrong. But Adam and Eve are not the sole genealogical progenitors of living humans in any reasonable sense. What you mean, if I recall, is that they are the sole sources of whatever it is that makes us “biblically human”, or whatever your term was. But “genealogical” is certainly not the word for whatever that is.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2020, 11:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10046/4 "2020-03-31T23:17:10Z")
In that meaning (AE and their descendents), Adam and Eve are the **sole** couple from whom all “humans” in all history descend.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2020, 11:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10046/5 "2020-03-31T23:44:19Z")
Yes. If you define “human” as “a descendant of Adam and Eve”, then all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. But is that a definition of “human” that anyone will agree with, or even understand if you don’t explain at length? And even there, they’d only be the sole couple for a small and early minority. They certainly aren’t the sole couple (of contemporary couples) from which all humans alive in 1 AD descend. Perhaps you should say that they’re the sole _human_ couple, again by definition.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2020, 12:00am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10046/6 "2020-04-01T00:00:19Z")
> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> But is that a definition of “human” that anyone will agree with, or even understand if you don’t explain at length?
Yes. That is considered the most common definition of human in Christian tradition.
And of course we would descent from other people outside the garden too, but they would not be ancestors of every other human (by this definition).
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2020, 12:04am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10046/7 "2020-04-01T00:04:38Z")
> [@swamidass](#):
>
> That is considered the most common definition of human in Christian tradition.
I don’t think that’s true. It’s not the definition; it’s the implication of genetic AE. If all people are solely descended from a single couple (and when I say “solely” here I actually mean solely), then being human has a one-to-one correspondence to being such a descendant. But that isn’t the definition.