Yes… but what is the THING you think I must mean?
There are maybe a dozen “firsts” in a broad discussion of agriculture… which one somebody thinks is the most important may not be what someone else thinks is important.
Certainly the full range of agricultural “firsts” are all more relevant than metal working, pottery making, or language development.
We are done with this fixation .
It doesn’t matter. Whatever it is, I’m asking you (4th time) for the biblical evidence that he was the first to do that. Whatever that is.
The Tasmanians were recontacted circa 1800. Are you saying that there has been a common ancestor of all humanity since 1800? If so, how are they ancestral to the North Sentinelese and the isolated Brazilian tribes?
No. What I am saying is that before recontacting the Tasmanians the latest common ancestor was much older. The estimates I’ve seen is that the latest genealogical common ancestor was a few thousand years ago. With the Tasmanians out of contact for 10,000 years, before recontact the latest common ancestor would be nearer the 15,000 year mark. (I would expect that the post-Columbian migrations have shortened the timescale for populations that were previously in more indirect contact.)
Ok, I’m confused. How can adding the Tasmanians make to most recent common ancestor more recent?
All living Native Tasmanians now have recent European ancestry.
Before recontact the latest genealogical common ancestor of Europeans and Tasmanians (and everybody else) was maybe 15,000 years ago. The last genealogical ancestor of all Tasmanians might have been a few hundred years ago, and the last genealogical ancestor of everyone else a few thousand. After recontact and the introduction and spread of more recent European genealogical ancestry into the Native Tasmanian population they are now descended from the latter, making the latest common ancestor of all humanity more recent than previously.
Why don’t you cease your Jane Wilkinson impersonation and admit you don’t have the faintest clue what I’m referring to? It’s obvious to anyone who does know that you’re oblivious, hubristic, bad at guessing and incapable of Googling.
Aha! I think I’ve got it. All the non-European descended Tasmanians were wiped out, so we no longer need to worry about their ancestry. Right?
I’m not sure what this has to do with GAE, though - unless you’re suggesting that the native Tasmanians were the last peoples not descended from Adam and Eve. If language was a distinguishing mark of A/E descent, the Tasmanians had it, so that’d need resolving.
P.S. welcome to PS.
They don’t have to have been “wiped out” - only for European ancestry to have spread throughout their population. For a different example, excluding some members of some recent immigrant groups, everybody in Western Europe (including England) is thought to be descended from Charlesmagne. That doesn’t mean that non-French descended English were wiped out - just that descent from Charlesmagne percolated though the English population.
If you want a young date for the GAE (such as the traditional 6,000 years) then pre-contact Tasmanians are a problem. My immediate problem with the GAE hypothesis that it separates humans into (in Catholic parlance) “true humans” and others. I believe that proponents think that the ethical/theological issues don’t matter if the dichotomy is safely in the distant past. (I disagree.) But the pre-contact Tasmanians are not safely in the distant past, unless you accept an older date for the GAE. My understanding is that our host addresses the issue by postulating that anthropologists are wrong in their consensus that the Tasmanians were out of contact - that instead somebody crossed the Bass Strait sometime in the last thousand or say years and became an ancestor of the Native Tasmanians (or maybe a Polynesian was shipwrecked in a similar time period).
My position is that a genetic Adam and Eve has ethical problems, related to the doctrine of original sin, but that a genealogical Adam and Eve has additional problems resulting from the restriction in the scope of humanity. It resolves the conflict with science at a moral cost. I don’t see that as a win for Christians.
Please don’t expect me to guess at what you mean. Nothing good is accomplished by my providing YOUR AUDIENCE with my googled guesses.
ANY discussion about “races” (especially if they are said to be LESS intelligent) has zero connection with GAE scenarios.
No doubt many of us are eager to see how you expect to introduce anything along these lines that makes even the least of sense.
I didn’t and don’t expect you to guess what I meant. I was actually surprised at your response, not least because I was replying to @John_Harshman who I was sure would know what I meant.
I generally expect people to respond appropriately if they do know what I mean, and to ask for clarification if they don’t know and are unsuccessful at finding out. But some people are just too full of hubris for the latter, and that set apparently includes you.
I disagree. Those who are so overconfident that they mistakenly think they can make meaningful responses to comments they clearly don’t understand provide two good things:
See, for example, Eddie’s hilarious and completely unjustificable assumption that “Nicholas Angel” was an insurance agent.
Or this:
There is no discussion about “races”, my mention of “races” was not in the context of the GAE, and the “races” I meant are not the ones you think they are.
As I said, I don’t expect you to guess at what I mean - but you seem intent on doing it anyway, and you’re doing it really badly.
What I wrote makes perfect sense in the context it was written: in response to @John_Harshman’s mention of D&D.
I think you are turning the discussion into a chopped up mish-mash.
Early and meaningful contact with the territories Tasmania, or Siberia, or with any place on Earth is already presumed by our YEC audiences .
GAE scenarios modify this pre-existing presumption by simply recognizing how easy it would be for God to arrange a few wandering members of the ever-expanding Adam lineage to arrive (intentionally or otherwise) a single time between the de novo creation of Adam/Eve (prior to 10,000 ya), but before multiple generations prior to the birth of Jesus.
There is no need to suppose any deeper time frame, or having any special connection to any human group one might label under a racial category.
@roy,
If you edit your posting (or future ones) to indicate your correspondent, it will save all of us a lot of time.
I looked, and it’s already there. Little widget in the upper right. But I will admit that my first thought was about sequence alignment. Then again, I’m Chaotic Neutral.
The forum software does that automatically. If you want to avoid wasting time, try writing “I don’t understand” rather then pretending otherwise.
Even the software couldn’t tell who you were talking to…
The Bible doesn’t describe anyone farming before Adam.
You can play all your logic games with this you like, but the target audience doesn’t respond to logic.
Nor, it seems, do you. The bible doesn’t describe anyone at all before Adam. If that’s the whole of your evidence, I’d say that there is none that even a YEC would credit.
Can it be that you’re unfamiliar with the little “reply” sign that’s in the upper right corner of any reply lacking a direct quote?
Here. Can you see that? little arrow with a picture? Says “gbrooks9”?
Go ahead, ask a YEC who farmed before Adam…