Grateful for the Genealogical Adam and Eve and for everyone on this forum

My second topic, the first was called ‘Theistic Evolution or ID - thoughts from a simple mind’.
I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to all of you for all your quick and good responses in the first topic.

Since high school, when I learned about Evolution, I was ‘at war’ with it.
As a Christian, evangelism mostly meant to me trying to convince others that Evolution couldn’t be true.

Lately I was having quite some discussions with an atheist friend about Evolution.
I read a lot about Evolution, Evo-Devo, Intelligent Design, Young Earth Creationism, studies on Genesis and more.

Following the discussion on this forum, I realized that this personal ‘war on Evolution’ was leading me nowhere.
God probably doesn’t want every Christian to become a scientist in Molecular Biology before they can share the gospel.

I decided to buy the book (The Genealogical Adam and Eve).
When I received the book, I quickly showed it to my atheist friend.
To my surprise, our discussion turned 180 degrees.
Almost instantly we were discussing Jesus and why I believe there’s hope for all of us in His death and resurrection.

Now I just finished reading the book and I’m amazed that it covers not only scientific but also deep theological topics like original sin and the fall.
The suggestions Dr. Swamidass puts forward are excellent, the hypothesis on genealogical descent is convincing.

For the first time in my life it feels like I really have peace with Evolution. It doesn’t challenge my Christian faith any longer.

I previously ordered a paperback version of the book but I´m now going to order a hardcover.
Paperback versions really don’t tend to last very long.
I’ll give the paperback version as a birthday present to someone else.

So again many thanks, you all helped me learning new truths.
A special thanks to Dr. Swamidass, I hope his book finds many people who have trouble with reconciling Evolution and Genesis.

14 Likes

Good to know you found his book view-changing. I have not read it but I think I get the main thrust of GAE and it is certainly an interesting idea. Anyway, I just chimed in to say that a hypothesis is only convincing if it is supported by data, something GAE lacks on certain aspects. However, if one is willing to grant some things, it becomes a quite plausible hypothesis. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

3 Likes

GAE isn’t a hypothesis based on evidence. It’s just intended to show that the hypothetical existence of Adam and Eve is not contrary to the common descent of humans and other species and not contrary to the genetic and other evidence. And of course not contrary to evolution.

3 Likes

Certainly parts of it are based on evidence :slight_smile: , but certainly it also goes beyond the evidence without contradicting it.

2 Likes

Thanks for the kind words @Jelte .

I had that same realization :slight_smile:

Isn’t that beautiful? :slight_smile:

The science is also really fun, a great opportunity to for common ground and exchange.

So glad to hear it.

Thanks! Right now the hardback is out of print. If you do get your hands on one, keep in mind the erratum. All these errors were fixed in the paperback.

https://peacefulscience.org/pdf/genealogical-adam-eve-errata-jan2021.pdf

2 Likes

Well, not evidence exactly. Simulation using a potentially reasonable model of geography and migration rates.

2 Likes

That’s evidence, as is the evidence in DNA of interbreeding everywhere…etc.

We may have some disagreement about what evidence is, but I’m willing to call the simulation evidence in that it supports a claim. But evidence of interbreeding isn’t what GAE is based on, as it’s equally compatible with the existence or non-existence of a particular couple. The simulation at least eliminates an argument against GAE. But interbreeding does nothing for it.

Certainly none of the scientific evidence demonstrates any specific couple was the Adam and Eve of the Bible, if that’s what you mean. Nor does it demonstrate they were de novo created.

1 Like

That understates the situation considerably. There is no scientific evidence that anyone who could be described as “the Adam and Eve of the Bible” ever existed at all. What the GAE shows is that the claim that such a couple existed, though backed by no competent evidence at all, cannot be demonstrated to be false. In other words, it stands on an evidentiary footing equal to all the miracle claims of all of the religions.

4 Likes

Nor does it demonstrate that any such people ever existed. All it shows is that most of the people alive 6000 years ago who had any descendants are ancestral to everyone alive today.

2 Likes

Whatever the aims of GAE are, it is still a hypothesis which may be right or not. Evidence is what dictates which is the case. Of course, I am not asking for the entire set of evidence since GAE wasn’t developed to be used as a scientific hypothesis in toto, but a science-based one as much as possible.

Thanks for your comment.
A de novo creation of Adam and Eve and our common ancestry is supported by a written account (the Bible). From that perspective the hypothesis on genealogical decent is convincing.
All it requires is faith.

As for the book, I really recommend you read it.
Like they say ´the proof is in the pudding´.
You have to try it out in order to know whether it is good.

1 Like

The point that several are making is that it is not really a hypothesis, at least as hypotheses are generally used as tools in science.

3 Likes

It’s a Russell’s Teapot sort of hypothesis.

2 Likes

The Bible is not evidence for anything.

The hypothesis is not “convincing”, but it is plausible, provided we close to our eyes to certain things. Those things we close our eyes to (like a literal de novo creation of A&E) are what require “faith” to believe in.

It would definitely make a wonderful read and I might just get a copy soon. I comprehend its main gist though summaries written by the author and it is indeed a plausible one that largely agrees with scientific facts.

I know its not a standard scientific hypothesis and wasn’t meant to be treated as so, but its a hypothesis nonetheless and should only be found convincing when rigorously supported by evidence.

1 Like