# Comments on Three Reviews at BioLogos
**URL:** https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076
**Category:** Side Conversation
**Tags:** Comments
**Created:** [April 5, 2020, 1:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076 "2020-04-05T13:26:55Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2020, 1:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/1 "2020-04-05T13:26:55Z")
> [@Three Reviews at BioLogos](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/three-reviews-at-biologos/9994/17):
>
> To give a sci-fi genetic comparison: in a laboratory accident Dr Yevrag acquires the mutation that makes him telepathic and telekinetic, and that gene gradually becomes fixed in the population through his offspring. He is the “sole progenitor” of _Homo telepathicus_ , if that characteristic becomes the marker of a totally new kind of life for the human race.
The genetic comparison is problematic. That’s not how new species arise, what you describe is merely the fixation of a new mutation in a population that remains _Homo sapiens_, and Dr. Yevrag is only the sole progenitor of that particular mutation. Your analogy shows that “sole progenitor” is a bad term to use.
---
### Author:  [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2020, 2:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/2 "2020-04-05T14:39:21Z")
> [@Three Reviews at BioLogos](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/three-reviews-at-biologos/9994/16):
>
> [GAE](http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-adam-eve) stands in contrast to sole- **genetic** progenitor models, but it is a sole- **genealogical** progenitor model. It stands in contrast with genetic **monogenesis** models, but it is a **genealogical** monogenesis model.
@swamidass
I like your clarification except for the use of the term “sole-genealogical progenitor”.
Since a population can have more than one pair of genealogical progenitors, it would seem that your attempt to wedge “sole” into the phrase only works for one type of model: the ones where all possible descendants come from only ONE parent, or from only ONE mated pair.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2020, 2:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/3 "2020-04-05T14:52:40Z")
There is no second use of the term. Just one, and that Isn’t what it means.
---
### Author:  [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2020, 5:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/4 "2020-04-05T17:21:49Z")
@swamidass
Right… the word “second” was a typo. I have corrected that post.
However, using the word “sole” is going to contribute to conversational confusions!
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2020, 6:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/5 "2020-04-05T18:07:49Z")
Apparently “sole” is theologically important, for some reason that isn’t clear to me, and it must be retained even though it’s confusing.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2020, 7:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/6 "2020-04-05T19:14:38Z")
You guys are mistaking lack of clarity for a difference of definitions. The definition is clear. There, also, are multiple definitions. The repetitiveness of this is getting tiresome.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2020, 8:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/7 "2020-04-05T20:27:58Z")
Could it be that the repetitiveness is indicative of a problem of communication inherent in the term? Several people have admitted to confusion. Could you perhaps clearly state the multiple definitions again, as I may have missed the ones you are referring to?
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2020, 10:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/8 "2020-04-05T22:14:25Z")
This is the standard definition: 1. All “humans” (by a particular definition) descend from AE. 2. Anyone who does not descend from them is not “human” In this scenario, Adam and Eve occupy the unique position of being the first in their lineage.
And almost entirely across the board, this does not rule out AE’s lineage interbreeding with other lineages.
We also have discussed other definitions elsewhere: [Three Stories on Adam](http://peacefulscience.org/three-stories-on-adam/)
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2020, 12:18am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/9 "2020-04-06T00:18:21Z")
But that isn’t what “sole” means. All humans are not solely descended from AE; what’s solely descended from AE is the quality of “humanness”, whatever that is. One is human by virtue of having AE among one’s ancestors. AE are thus the sole progenitors of humanness, but they aren’t the sole progenitors of humans, either genetically or genealogically. “Sole” is the problem. The terminology doesn’t mean what it says.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2020, 12:24am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/10 "2020-04-06T00:24:19Z")
“Sole” means that it is soley AE from whom humans _must_ descend.
You are meaning “sole” that they are the only _ancestors_ in the earliest generation. However, if we mean the only people in their lineage in the earliest generation, that also works too.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2020, 12:30am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/11 "2020-04-06T00:30:38Z")
> [@swamidass](#):
>
> You are meaning “sole” that they are the only _ancestors_ in the earliest generation.
What does “earliest generation” mean? I suppose it means the generation in which AE lived.
> [@swamidass](#):
>
> However, if we mean the only people in their lineage in the earliest generation, that also works too.
I don’t know what that means. Isn’t any couple the only people in their lineage in the earliest generation? By definition, a lineage starts with one couple. But there are other equivalent lineages starting at the same time, and they all merge. Again, they are the sole progenitors of “textual humanness”, but they are not the sole progenitors of anything else, including even textual humans.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2020, 12:40am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/12 "2020-04-06T00:40:22Z")
> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@swamidass](#):
> >
> > You are meaning “sole” that they are the only _ancestors_ in the earliest generation.
>
> What does “earliest generation” mean? I suppose it means the generation in which AE lived.
Yes.
I used that terminology, because your’s isn’t precise enough. We do not all _only_ or _solely_ descend from Adam and Eve (even if there are people outside the garden!). For example, I also descend from my father and mother. Adam and Eve are not unique ancestors of mine. Of course, there are more than just AE that are universal ancestors of all of us too!
@Puck_Mendelssohn explained sole-progenitor by your definition far more precisely in his review:
> [@Puck Reviews the Genealogical Adam and Eve](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/puck-reviews-the-genealogical-adam-and-eve/9596/1):
>
> a factual scenario where Adam and Eve are the only humans, created in a world where there never have been any humans at all, a few thousand years ago, and are not merely among our ancestors but, at that level of our family tree, our only ancestors.
> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Again, they are the sole progenitors of “textual humanness”, but they are not the sole progenitors of anything else, including even textual humans.
Well that is self contradictory. They are the sole couple that gives rise to textual humanness, the sole couple from whom we must descend to be in that group. In that sense, they are our sole progenitors.
---
### Author:  [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2020, 2:13am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/13 "2020-04-06T02:13:22Z")
> [@swamidass](#):
>
> “Sole” means that it is soley AE from whom humans _must_ descend.
@swamidass
I think you would do better to avoid the collision of definitions.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2020, 2:25am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/14 "2020-04-06T02:25:14Z")
It isn’t a collision.
Just about everyone who uses “sole-progenitor” allows for interbreeding. Think that through.
---
### Author:  [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2020, 3:09am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/15 "2020-04-06T03:09:21Z")
> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Just about everyone who uses “sole-progenitor” allows for interbreeding. Think that through.
@swamidass
But don’t you mean how non-theistic anthropologists view interbreeding?
Young Earth Creationists don’t deal with these issues at all…
**Joshua, perhaps you could spotlight how OLD EARTH CREATIONISTS use the term “Sole” to make your point more understandable?**
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2020, 3:12am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/16 "2020-04-06T03:12:41Z")
> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> But don’t you mean how non-theistic anthropologists view interbreeding?
>
> Young Earth Creationists don’t deal with these issues at all…
YEC’s allow for interbreeding with Nephilim. OEC’s allow for interbreeding too, even Ann Gauger does. Nothing in “sole-progenitor” rules interbreeding out.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2020, 1:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/17 "2020-04-06T13:48:11Z")
> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Just about everyone who uses “sole-progenitor” allows for interbreeding. Think that through.
Then it’s a poor term, since it doesn’t mean what the words imply. The Queen of England derives her divine right by descent from William the Bastard, but nobody says he’s the sole progenitor of the House of Windsor.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2020, 2:13pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/18 "2020-04-06T14:13:20Z")
It is a term that is poorly contemplated. That is why it’s important to clarify what it means.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2020, 2:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/19 "2020-04-06T14:16:45Z")
So the sole progenitor is a person (or two people) from whom one derives some important quality, in this case “textual humanness”. The first person with blue eyes is the sole progenitor of blue-eyed people. Alexander Graham Bell is the sole progenitor of people who have telephones. And so on.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [April 6, 2020, 3:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076/20 "2020-04-06T15:01:26Z")
Yes, that is almost verbatim what I have stated for two years.
[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-three-reviews-at-biologos/10076.md?page=2)