I was delighted to see The Genealogical Adam and Eve got a plug on InspiringPhilosophy.
Right off in the first few seconds of the reference, the speaker conflated āa most recent common ancestorā with āthe most recent common ancestorā. So heās managed to completely misunderstand the point of the GAE analysis.
Do you believe there was only one point in the GAE analysis? If so what do you believe that point was? Personally I see quite a few points:
- First and foremost in my mind is the point that Genealogical Ancestry is āThe Overlooked Scienceā, and we need to break out of the anachronistic mindset of seeing ancestry only from a genetic sense since āA question about ādescentā can be a question about genealogies, and genealogical questions should be answered with genealogical science.ā
- Another is āThere are many couples, pairs of universal genealogical ancestors, each individually from whom we all descend. These ancestors stretch from our distant past to very recently in our history.ā
- āFurthermore, the term āhumanā is imprecise when referring to those in the distant past. Certainly, all Homo sapiens alive right now are human. In the ancient past, however, the term is ambiguous in both science and theology.ā
- Genetic isolation does not demonstrate genealogic isolation.
- āMesopotamia is a location we might expect universal ancestors to arise quickly.ā
and so on. So the video is citing GAE and many other sources to support the point the video is making. Did you seriously expect a detailed summary of every point of GAE in āthe first few seconds of the referenceā?
Produce a full quote. Itās a good opportunity to clarify.
Something like 120,000 views. Thatās a lot of peopleā¦
No, but I do know that the one sentence Iām talking about incorporated a fundamental misunderstanding that canāt easily be papered over: the difference between genealogical and genetic ancestors. There could conceivably, no matter how unlikely, be a single pair of genetic ancestors, ātheā ancestors, but there canāt be a single pair of genealogical ancestors. Further, this misunderstanding is necessary to the speakerās use of GAE as evidence.
No, but I donāt expect a fundamental misunderstanding.
I could be getting this absolutely wrong, but my understanding is just the opposite. Due to genetic recombination it is nearly impossible for there to be a single genetic ancestral pair for our entire genomes, but it is entirely possible, or even inevitable, for everyone to share a single genealogic ancestral pair. In fact, it is statistically inevitable that there will be a common genealogic ancestral pair whose DNA is not found in any of their descendants.
Nearly, but the remote possibility is a bottleneck of 2 individuals. And thatās what the video is talking about.
No, impossible unless that pair is the bottleneck of 2 mentioned above, in which case genealogical and genetic ancestors are the same. Otherwise there will be ancestors of everyone, but many of them, in fact a large proportion of the population of that time, not just a single pair. Note that your quote refers to individuals, plural. Any one of those would be an ancestor but not the ancestor.
He is certainly not meaning a bottleneck.
You really have to stop with the one-sentence replies that explain nothing.
He is trying to describe a GAE like my book, not like WLCās position. Thatās what he is trying to do.
So he just misspoke? I donāt see how the standard GAE would support his position on the flood.
He thinks the flood was local, but hyperbolically recounted in Genesis. Perhaps he misspoke, Iām not sure.
Check out the interview I did with him and Cameron Bertuzzi.
Iām failing to see how GAE supports any flood scenario, whether local or worldwide or something in between.
I donāt understand your point John. I just watched the minute where the time stamp is set and all he is saying is that for that local region itās possible to have only a few individuals that were ancestors of all in that region only a few thousand years ago. What difference is it going to make if they are genetic or genealogical?
Apparently neither one of you understands the GAE proposition. Itās not just āa fewā who are genealogical ancestors of āall in the regionā; itās nearly every person who had children. It has nothing to do with a bottleneck.
I agree thatās the scientific side. If heās defending the Bible, heās saying itās possible that only a few people could be ancestors of us all. Thatās really the emphasis of the book.
Do you think it is a good idea to defend the Bible with demonstrably false claims?
Then why is he using GAE to defend that position? It makes no sense.
He might of unclearly stated the GAE. I know him. Iāll invite him to clarify.
His brief mention uses the GAE to support the idea that everyone in the Middle East following the Flood was descended solely from Shem, Ham, and Japheth (and presumably their wives too).