We could also be certain that they were not the biblical Adam, who was created as an adult.
I’m not claiming that you’re necessarily wrong that Adam may be falsifiable in principle, just that your example doesn’t demonstrate this.
Is this probabalistic claim testable? My understand is that whilst genetic descent leaves evidence of its existence, genealogical descent may not, and in most cases will not. Does not centering the claim in genealogical rather than genetic descent render it unfalsifiable?
Yes, by simulation. The test is whether, given reasonable parameters, the outcome is found to be likely. You could doubt the model, but if you accept the model you ought to accept the result. Note again that this has nothing to do with accepting the existence of Adam. The simulation isn’t about any particular individual, and it certainly doesn’t feature his name or identity.
1 Like
Here is a quote from Faizal’s review, and it is the one section where both the GAE’s author and the GAEs reviewer could not get out of their own way to allow for a reasonable conclusion:
“One chapter discusses an important factor in the calculation of when the MRCA could have lived, namely the possibility of the existence of pockets of the human population that are isolated from the rest. A prominent example is the island of Tasmania.”
“If its inhabitants had had no contact with anyone from off the island for, say, 50,000 years, then that would put an absolute limit on how recently the MRCA could have lived. Swamidass goes thru a detailed and rigorous discussion of whether such isolation could have occurred, including whether it was possible that the island could have been visited by sailors from other areas, and how often this would have had to occur to move the date of the MRCA forward in time.”
[End of Quote]
Firstly, it would only take one time. Secondly, if Australia’s population poses no problem for the GAE model, then Tasmania [typo of New Zealand has been corrected] can also be resolved - - providentially, just a few generations later - - thru God arranging a storm tossed ship landing on a [Tasmanian] beach with at least one member of Adam’s pedigree surviving the trip.
I use the term “providential” because there is nothing necessarily miraculous about God whipping up a convenient storm.
No. Just that it is possible, in at least some instances, to falsify the claim that Person X who lived many thousands of years ago is our genealogical ancestor. This is different from some claims that cannot be falsified even in principle. e.g. that our universe was designed by a god whose existence may not be demonstrable and which must be taken on faith. There is no observation, as far as I can determine, that could falsify that claim.
It is the case that, under present circumstances, we cannot falsify the claim that Adam was our genealogical ancestor (if we accept the premise that there was a guy named Adam who was created out of dirt by God and all the rest of that story.)
1 Like
As usual, it is entirely unclear what point you think you are making. Regardless, I’ll just quote what I wrote after that passage so people have the full context.
But the beginning of the chapter immediately following this discussion includes the bald statement that “There is no evidence against the de novo creation of Adam”, by which he means the creation of Adam from dust by God. To me, that is a very bizarre statement to make. Of course, there is scientific evidence against this claim. That evidence is the simple observation that humans do not suddenly spring into existence from dust. Swamidass believes he can justify this claim because if God exists then such miracles are possible. But, if this is the case, then God could also have teleported a descendant of Adam and Eve to Tasmania to impregnate a woman there, and thereby ensure that all Tasmanians are also descendants of Adam and Eve. Swamidass does not entertain such possibilities because his model entails that no further miraculous interventions by God occur after the creation of Adam and Eve within the human lineage (other than the virgin birth of Jesus, of course.) While it is true that the Genesis story of Adam and Eve could be true without leaving any evidence in our genome, the same is true of the Greek myth of Zeus seducing and impregnating Leda by transforming himself into a swan, to pick just one example. That “science is silent” on a story is no strong reason to believe the story is true.
So the degree to which this book can be considered a success depends on how ambitious are its objectives. If Swamidass’s intended audience is chiefly those who share his position of accepting both evolution and the traditional Biblical account of Adam and Eve, then this book is likely to be valuable in providing a model by which these two beliefs can be reconciled. But statements in the book and elsewhere suggest he is interested in provoking a wider discussion, and there I am not sure how well he succeeds. Assuming I am typical of most who consider the story of Adam and Eve to be nothing more, nor less, than one of the seminal myths of Western culture, nothing in this book convinces me that the story should instead be considered an historic description of events that actually transpired. The absence of evidence in our genome is not a determining factor in my lack of belief in Adam and Eve.
3 Likes
From reading the relevant chapter of Joshua’s book, these simulations assumed no hard barriers to interbreeding, so they cannot test this assumption.
Joshua then goes on to attempt to demonstrate that there weren’t any barriers, but this attempt is necessarily piecemeal. Whilst some of the attempt is factual (e.g. an influx from India into mainland Australia approximately 4,000 years ago), much of it is rhetorical (e.g. mainland Australia to Tasmania), and includes some startling rhetorical leaps (e.g. from immigration via boats through the Aleutian Islands, to the entirety of the Americas).
I would not regard the results of this attempt as compelling, but neither can I state with any certainty that such a barrier existed.
I will however clear up some points that have come up elsewhere in this thread:
-
New Zealand was uninhabited in 1AD, so any “member of Adam’s pedigree” who found themselves “landing on a New Zealand beach” would find themselves very lonely.
-
Prior to the Colonial era, and particularly in Ancient times, ships, let alone ocean-going ships, were an extreme rarity. Outside the major civilisations of Eurasia, most navigation would have been limited to canoes or similar smaller vessels.
-
Due to problems with language barriers, cultural differences, and difficulties surviving in an unfamiliar environment, it is likely that most interbreeding would have involved participants either (i) from a nearby established population, or (ii) a transplanted population, rather than a single, “storm tossed” individual.
1 Like
Especially since there were no people in New Zealand until after 1200 AD. And why is there nothing miraculous about God creating a storm? How else would a supernatural being act in the world?
What is “the Adam Pedigree”, and how does GAE favor it, especially “providentially speaking”?
1 Like
Why are you equivocating between Tasmania and Australia?
1 Like
For those interested in learning the difference, this is Bass Strait:
That’s a lot to go through just to get one’s campervan over there in the summer, as so many mainland Aussies do.
Yes, I incorrectly confused Tasmania with New Zealand. The first humans arrive in New Zealand so late the arruvals are already fully “Adamized”! I have corrected my error in my prior posting.
As for your question: “… why is there nothing miraculous about God creating a storm?”
John, I have long adopted the view frequently assumed here on PS.org that God can interact in 2 ways with the Universe:
A] Miraculously/Supernaturally with a “poof” event; and
B] Naturally/Providentially with a long chain of cause-and-effect events that conceivably stretch back to
- the beginning of the Universe, or
- to the beginning of the Earth, or
- to ideally at least to before the rise of human civilization.
“Your mileage will vary.”
The “Adam Pedigree” is the Adam lineage that in the GAE God providentially arranged to become one of the universal ancestors of all humanity before the birth of Jesus.
In a prior posting I explain the meaning I use for “providential”. God can “poof” a rain storm out of nowhere… but he can also use nature’s laws of evaporation and condensation too!
I don’t see how these are fundamentally different. What is the distinction between God intervening directly in the present to cause an event, and God intervening directly some time in the past (even as early as the beginning of the universe) to cause an event in the present? It’s even harder to distinguish on a classical theist, non-temporal view of God.
But is there really a difference between A and B? Isn’t whatever starts the chain of causation in B still necessarily a miracle? (I also suspect that quantum randomness makes this long-distance approach impossible.)
1 Like
I still don’t think you understand GAE. No providence is necessary. As long as Adam has children, the result is nearly inevitable. (Tasmania aside.)
It isn’t clear what it means to use nature’s laws. I question whether you fully understand what you’re claiming, but you can show me wrong by presenting a clear and coherent explanation.
1 Like
This one is the only unique one… one that Behe might endorse as well. It is equivalent to his pool shot where god sets up a very long (and providential) chain of events.
The other event strings have god starting new strings of events based on a a new “poof” event (or set of poof events).
That’s predictably nonresponsive. @Faizal_Ali does not mention Australia, only Tasmania.
So again, why are you equivocating between Tasmania and Australia?
1 Like