I agree with this but only because you have demonstrated very little knowledge.
No. A hypothesis is not an assumption. That would be circular. It is rather a proposition we attempt to falsify with evidence. In this case we cannot. In fact, our best science tells us that Adam and Eve, if they existed, were likely to be universal ancestors.
This is poor reasoning on so many levels it hard to know where to start. We are talking about Adam and Eve, and a purported account of their lineage. Perhaps they aren’t real, but certainly not for this reason.
By the same logic I could argue that my great-great grandfather most likely did not have any children, because most males in history do not have children. Except, well, he did.
Besides, that study on Y chromosomes is woefully out of date, with a conclusion that is not consistent with our best knowledge. That number is highly suspect. It seems instead there was a narrow time period from about 8000 to 6000 years ago that the ratio of males to females was 1 to 17. That accounts for the data much better. Adam and Eve before that time would be unaffected by that dip, and we can even hypothesize they were the cause of it.
Can you show the numbers on that? From the study I have cited, it would appear that, at the absolute least, about 25% of the population has died without leaving any genealogical descendents. Intuitively, then, it would appear to me that the odds of Adam’s lineage dying out entirely is not trivial and it could not be taken as a given by God that it would not happen. As I said, at the very least, he would have to keep track of the lines of descent and intervene if and when necessary. Under GAE, we have no idea how often this might have been done. It might even have involved “de novo” pregnancies for 18% of the population at points!
I think you’re using the wrong initial conditions. Adam supposedly had a wife and multiple children. That’s got to be taken into account when you try to figure the probabilities.
I would agree with that much; the probability of his lineage surviving was not initially 1. But it would approach 1 closely within a few generations.
Adam and Eve can be seen as intended to bring God’s plan to the pre-Adam people.
Genealogical simulations, even ones using very conservative migration assumptions show that within 2 or 3 thousand years, all humanity can be descended from Adam’s offspring.
And if God “designed” for a few key shipwrecks, it wouldnt even be up to chance.
So by the time of the birth of Jesus, Adam/Eve would be at the “federal pinnacle” of human genealogy (though not the sole mated pair).
I wonder, if all of Adam’s grandchildren were going to die of diphtheria or cholera or simple starvation or something, whether God would have performed a miracle to save their lives. Probably, eh?
Because one of the questions I have is whether it is difficult and valid to add unscientific but unfalsifiable propositions to scientific ideas in order to prop up a worldview. I think a GAE-type model could be created to comport with any possible worldview imaginable, and so I do not see what value there is in using GAE to convert people to @swamidass worldview, when people could just keep their worldview and instead make up their own propositions.
First off it is an improper hypothesis that will never be a scientific conclusion.
We precisely formulated it.
We rigorously studied if this would be expected to leave evidence. The answer is “no evidence would be left”
We catalogued and addressed all known philosophical objections, showing that they did not apply to this scenario (category error) or reduced to the absurd.
We conclude that there is no evidence for or against the de novo creation of Adam and Eve within a larger evolved population.
It all comes down to how we understand Scripture. Do we trust it? Does it teach de novo creation of Adam? If “yes and yes,” one might reasonably affirm de novo creation. Otherwise we wouldn’t. Science is silent, and all comes down to our view of Scripture.
It is about the same as the Virgin Birth, from a scientific point of view.
So what is the difference between being created de novo as an embryo and not created de novo? What would we see differently in the process?
I doubt that young earth creationists are the main audience for the GAE. The model might appeal to any group which wants to affirm orthodox, evangelical theology and mainstream science. I would imagine there’s a lot of overlap with the people who are Biologos’ main audience.
Have you been following the discussions? It is likely that one significant factor which leads to people rejecting science and being a YEC is the issue of Adam and Eve. Certainly it’s an issue for many OECs. Few of the major players in the evangelical scene hold to a 6 kya universe as essential for evangelical theology, but several of them (such as Tim Keller) do think that A&E are important. Of course, not all YECs will be convinced, but some might.
If someone is committed to the idea of a 6000 y/o universe, GAE offers them nothing. As for OEC’s, I can only express my skepticism that GAE will provide much incentive for them to come over to the good guys’ side. Meanwhile, it legitimizes the practice of making up any old thing to prop up one’s religious preconceptions, which only makes it easier to rationalize all forms of creationism.