Yes! I think you hit the nail on the head 
1 Like
Welcome, @Troendle! My personal story sounds very similar to yours, just moved back a couple of decades! There is a sizable number of professional biologists, but those of us that are primarily undergraduate educators (I teach at Houston Baptist University) are pretty sparse. It will be nice to have another genetics professor on board 
2 Likes
Perhaps new alleles. What ever the case, Adam and Eve are now genetic ghosts, unidentifiable in our DNA.
Thank you. I think you’re right. There appear to be some excellent scientists on here. But I also agree with you that the perspective of those who are in the classroom daily engaging students on these topics can be valuable to the discussion.
1 Like
Right, the addition of their genetic material would be undetectable if they were incorporated into the population. I suppose that if they were to successfully breed with existing humans God would “need” to create them with identical gene and chromosomal structure. I’m definitely not saying I disagree with the possibility that this is the case. I guess it feels a little roundabout to me though as a way to hold onto Adam and Eve as historical when it’s possible they were never meant to be interpreted that way. For me the jury on their historicity is still out.
1 Like
Well sure. Reject their reality of Scripture doesn’t teach it, but don’t say that something about science is pushing us there. 
Welcome Nicholas!
2 Likes
I don’t claim that science pushes us to deny a genealogical Adam, only a genetic one (which is never explicitly stated in Genesis, though it has become the common interpretation, and maybe that’s the problem). My current stance on historical Adam is informed by my rejection of genetic Adam, and questioning why God would specially create these two rather than any of the other possibilities. Definitely not saying that science alone is what’s pushing me there. Like I said, I agree that genealogical Adam is plausible, but even being plausible doesn’t mean we have any scientific evidence one way or the other on the matter.
4 Likes
That isn’t what “monophyletic” means. I don’t think that’s even what it means theologically, much less biologically.
Yes, though the new alleles are not necessary or useful, as they are not genetic ancestors of living humans, just genealogical ancestors.
I agree John, in order to be considered monophyletic Adam and Eve would have to share a common ancestor with the other human populations, which they would not do if they were the result of special creation.
As for the new alleles, that would be a possibility but not a necessity and they may or may not have any effects on the population if they did exist.
1 Like
This atheist tends to think that a separate physical creation of Adam and Eve isn’t necessary from a theological point of view. That sounds a bit materialistic. Ensoulment of an already existing single human couple seems like a better route, and has a bit more mystery to it. However, far be it from me to tell Christians what their theology should be.
6 Likes
Still doesn’t work, because it makes the rest of the population not human in some sense. Well, unless souls don’t do anything observable.
2 Likes
I don’t think the ensoulment idea is a good one there.
2 Likes
Like I said before, I haven’t really decided on the issue. My current theological position is that Adam and Eve represent humankind and that at some point along our evolutionary history God granted humankind a soul. Even Adams name in Hebrew can (though it isn’t always) be translated as human. That being said, I’m open to the idea of a genealogical Adam and Eve, but at this point I need a better reason to believe it than that it could happen (which I admit it is plausible). Since I do not hold to a literal interpretation of the rest of the Genesis account, I don’t feel the need to differentiate on the subject of Adam. If Adam is indeed historical, then I agree @swamidass 's genealogical model is most appropriate, I’m just not sure I believe he is historical.
3 Likes
Fair enough. I was just throwing it out there.
1 Like
How does that work? (I agree we are social animals - it’s the “more than just biological senses” that puzzles me.)
1 Like
Of course, any person who isn’t emotionally invested in the abrahamic religions can see the perfectly obvious way the Adam and Eve story was intended, a literal creation story, with Adam being created first but being bored and lonely, so God makes a wife for him. With that chain of events described we also know without even a shred of doubt that a man, a mere human man, made up the story.
1 Like