# Is it "Deceptive" to say the GAE is "Consistent With" Evolution?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Adam, Science, Philosophy\
**Created:** [April 28, 2021, 7:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661 "2021-04-28T19:30:55Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chris\_doesdna2018](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/chris_doesdna2018/32/10927_2.png) [@chris\_doesdna2018](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/chris_doesdna2018)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 4:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/67 "2021-04-30T16:07:29Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> The above is true (under specific conditions) whether we plug in real numbers or not, but we can only know when we actually do the checking.

Yes–I believe we are in agreement.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 4:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/68 "2021-04-30T16:16:31Z")

</div>

> [@Is evolutionary science in conflict with Adam and Eve?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/194):
>
> > [@swamidass](#):
> >
> > My claim is that de novo creation of Adam and Eve can be consistent with science, and I’ve demonstrated this with evidence
> 
> You have demonstrated no such thing. There is just nothing in chemistry, physics or biology that supports such a process.

But “support” and “consistent with” are different things. By support we mean that there is positive scientific evidence, but consistency merely requires a lack of negative evidence. Especially in areas where evidence is hard to get at or has large error bars, that difference can be significant.

@swamidass repeatedly says in the book and on forums here, that his proposal is that the science doesn’t rule out a _de novo_ Adam & Eve who are ancestors of all people alive today. The two stories (_de novo_ Adam & Eve and common decent) can coexist within the same set of data/evidence we find ourselves with, and without conflict as long as interbreeding between Adam & Eves lineage and those outside the garden are “allowed”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 4:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/69 "2021-04-30T16:28:36Z")

</div>

> [@Is evolutionary science in conflict with Adam and Eve?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/193):
>
> > [@Is evolutionary science in conflict with Adam and Eve?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/193):
> >
> > One cannot prove or disprove 1+1 = 2 using empirical science.
> 
> Well of course you can’t, because you can’t prove anything using empirical science. You can, however, gather enough data to make it vanishingly unlikely that 1+1≠2. I just gathered some data myself: I put one sheet of paper and one sheet of paper together and then counted them; yep, there were two. Another data point favoring the hypothesis.

There is a category error here on multiple levels. 1+1=2 is unfalsifiable in multiple ways.

1. The inference that 1+1 equals 2 arises within a particular mathematical system that hinges unjustifiable axioms, and may or may not correspond with the system we are modeling. Those axioms are formally unfalsifiable within the mathematical system.

2. We can in fact identify several alternate experiments in which 1+1=1 (such as, adding two drops of water together produces drops), but these experiments do not falsify the mathematical fact that 1+1=2. Instead, they show that 1+1=2 is a poor model of the experimental system.

3. Your experiment demonstrates my point in another way. In an experiment system well matched to 1+1=2, you fail to falsify the claim attempts to falsify the claim 1+1=2. In fact, we cannot conceive of an experimental system well matched to 1+1=2 in which the experiment would demonstrate anything other than 1+1=2. This is so obvious you did not even actually do the experiment, but just asserted (correctly) what its outcome would be. That means 1+1=2 is _literally_ unfalsifiable by appropriate experiments. In fact it is unfalsifiable because it is true!

Yet is not a problem for scientific theories to rely on math, even though key components of math are _intrinsically_ unfalsifiable.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 4:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/70 "2021-04-30T16:36:13Z")

</div>

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> But “support” and “consistent with” are different things.

I see what you mean, but those are pretty much synonymous in the context of the discussion section of a scientific paper.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 4:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/71 "2021-04-30T16:39:06Z")

</div>

That is true in most contexts, but not all. In general “consistent with → supported” depends tightly on the expectation of positive evidence, which is not all ways the case.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 4:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/72 "2021-04-30T16:44:02Z")

</div>

Can you provide examples of that distinction from the primary scientific literature?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 5:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/73 "2021-04-30T17:17:54Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> The inference that 1+1 equals 2 arises within a particular mathematical system that hinges unjustifiable axioms, and may or may not correspond with the system we are modeling. Those axioms are formally unfalsifiable within the mathematical system.

That’s why I appeal to empirical results. The mathematical system has its origin in abstraction from the world. If there were no observation that one apple plus one apple equaled two apples, we wouldn’t even have that system.

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Instead, they show that 1+1=2 is a poor model of the experimental system.

But it’s a great model of apples. Not a problem.

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> That means 1+1=2 is _literally_ unfalsifiable by appropriate experiments. In fact it is unfalsifiable because it is true!

That’s a misunderstanding of “falsifiable”, the sort of misunderstanding you yourself have decried on many occasions. If it were true that one apple plus one apple didn’t equal two apples, the simple experiment would show that. If true things were considered unfalsifiable, the idea of falsifiability would be useless. Now of course one rabbit plus one rabbit, under proper conditions, equals eight rabbits. But we know the conditions under which to expect that sort of thing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 5:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/74 "2021-04-30T17:28:30Z")

</div>

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> But “support” and “consistent with” are different things

Its a matter of plausibility here. For example, if I told you I walked on liquid water this morning, you would call me crazy (in your head probably). If you asked me for evidence to support my claim and I didn’t give any, but still claimed I did it, you won’t take me seriously because you know that a human walking on water unaided is inconsistent with what we know from density physics: you would know that my weight (acting downward) would overcome the surface tension of the liquid surface, making me sink in whatever body of water.

Similarly, if a shaman told you as a chemist that water has a mind of its own and that it can heal people of any sickness but only those it chooses, would you take him seriously? Obviously not, because water having curative potential for every sickness is highly implausible based on what we know about the physics and chemistry of water: the Shaman’s claim is inconsistent with science.

Science can’t rule out I walked on water, but its inconsistent with what we know from physics.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> The two stories ( _de novo_ Adam & Eve and common decent) can coexist within the same set of data/evidence we find ourselves with, and without conflict as long as interbreeding between Adam & Eves lineage and those outside the garden are “allowed”.

No one here contests this, but parts of GAE like _de novo_ creation of AE are inconsistent with what we know from modern biology.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 7:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/75 "2021-04-30T19:12:54Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> And it also appears you’ve misunderstood the [GAE](http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-adam-eve) argument. There certainly is positive evidence for components of the claim.

One _could_ interpret that to be misleading because the “components of the GAE” claims for which there is positive evidence are not _unique to_ the GAE hypothesis. Though I don’t think you’re being misleading, at the very least not on purpose.

In the arena of discriminating between hypotheses, saying there is positive evidence for _components of_ a claim only becomes relevant if those components are unique to, or significantly more likely on the hypothesis compared to it’s competitors. But the fact is that all the genetic evidence we currently have is just as likely on the hypothesis that there was no divinely created couple that interbred with an already existing primate population.

> [@chris\_doesdna2018](#):
>
> > [@swamidass](#):
> >
> > For example there is clear genetic evidence of interbreeding across the globe over the 15000 years.
> 
> Which is not evidence for an N = 2.

True, but the GAE isn’t a hypothesis that current human genetic diversity passed through a 2-person bottleneck, so your complaint here seems misplaced too.

It seems to me the main problem with the GAE hypothesis from a scientific perspective is that, if you didn’t have the Bible, there is no currently known genetic fact about extant human diversity that would compel anyone to think a human couple was created _de novo_ which then interbred with an already existing human population.  
I think even @Swamidass would agree that if the Bible simply didn’t mention Adam and Eve at all, or it didn’t exist, then he’d probably never have come up with the GAE hypothesis in the first place.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 7:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/76 "2021-04-30T19:14:52Z")

</div>

Yeah, perhaps I agree with this in total, and certainly for the most part. Thanks @Rumraket .

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 7:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/77 "2021-04-30T19:26:15Z")

</div>

> [@chris\_doesdna2018](#):
>
> > [@nwrickert](#):
> >
> > It never seemed that way to me.
> 
> Ambiguous is likely the better word.

I agree, and should have given more attention to this in the first place. I think that is good place to leave the conversation, on a solid point of common ground.

Thanks!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 10:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/78 "2021-04-30T22:19:35Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> > [@Jordan](#):
> >
> > The two stories ( _de novo_ Adam & Eve and common decent) can coexist within the same set of data/evidence we find ourselves with, and without conflict as long as interbreeding between Adam & Eves lineage and those outside the garden are “allowed”.
> 
> No one here contests this, but parts of [GAE](http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-adam-eve) like _de novo_ creation of AE are inconsistent with what we know from modern biology.

Hmm, how so?

It seems like it would only be inconsistent if the claim was that _de novo_ creation of Adam & Eve \> 6kya was observable via modern biology **or** that _de novo_ creation of people in general was common such that we should have either observational or genetic evidence.

Similar to the Resurrection, science is largely blind to one-off historical events that leave little-to no physical evidence. However, I can imagine scenarios involving _de novo_ creation of Adam & Eve that **are** inconsistent with modern biology, GAE is just not one of them as far as I can tell.

It seems like a better way to say what I think you’re saying is to say that because there is no positive scientific evidence for the _de novo_ creation of Adam & Eve, any such belief must come from evidence outside of science. That seems reasonable and I would agree.

@swamidass did a really good and thoughtful job of creating a clear hypothesis, but I’m not sure people are actually reading it sometimes. It’s worthwhile engaging with the entire hypothesis, with a suspension of disbelief, in order to understand what he is and isn’t saying. What I like about it is that it isn’t an empty “there’s no way you can prove me wrong 😛” assertion. Sure, it’s theologically grounded, but it pretty straightforwardly says “these are the things we know from science and we’re taking them as truthful evidence about the world, let’s see what happens to our hypothesis in light of that”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2021, 1:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/79 "2021-05-01T13:05:51Z")

</div>

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> Hmm, how so?

This is basic biology for crying out loud. All new lifeforms today emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction, be it sexual or asexual. Nothing is made _de novo_, so if someone tells me a human couple came into existence _de novo_, right off the bat I know that’s wholly inconsistent or implausible under modern biology.

Similarly, if a homeopath told you that his ultradiluted solution is capable of curing cancer, while presenting testimonies of those who seemingly recovered from using his solution, you wouldn’t consider his claim consistent with chemistry, because concentration matters and the concentration of whatever active substance that might be in his ultradiluted solution would be too little to induce any therapeutic effect.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> It seems like it would only be inconsistent if the claim was that _de novo_ creation of Adam & Eve \> 6kya was observable via modern biology **or** that _de novo_ creation of people in general was common such that we should have either observational or genetic evidence.

Its not inconsistent for either reasons, but that which I stated above.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> Similar to the Resurrection, science is largely blind to one-off historical events that leave little-to no physical evidence

But on science, events like a resurrection, walking on water, restoring sight with baked mud, _de novo_ creation are extremely implausible because they defy the laws of nature as discovered by science. They are inconsistent with established science.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> However, I can imagine scenarios involving _de novo_ creation of Adam & Eve that **are** inconsistent with modern biology, [GAE](http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-adam-eve) is just not one of them as far as I can tell.

Again, this is not about GAE but the _de novo_ creation of AE alone. That’s the part of GAE that’s inconsistent with modern biology. The mixing of AE descendants with POGs is unfalsifiable but is consistent with modern science, but the _de novo_ creation event itself isn’t.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> It seems like a better way to say what I think you’re saying is to say that because there is no positive scientific evidence for the _de novo_ creation of Adam & Eve, any such belief must come from evidence outside of science

There is no evidence for a _de novo_ creation anywhere. The Genesis story of a literal _de novo_ creation of AE is one big pile of assertions. The absence of _de novo_ creation in all of biology makes a the idea of a literal AE according to Genesis or GAE specious or highly imaginative.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> @swamidass did a really good and thoughtful job of creating a clear hypothesis,

Absolutely.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> Sure, it’s theologically grounded, but it pretty straightforwardly says “these are the things we know from science and we’re taking them as truthful evidence about the world, let’s see what happens to our hypothesis in light of that”.

The mixing of lineages is something Joshua knew and took from science, but the _de novo_ creation of AE isn’t. Let’s not get it twisted.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2021, 3:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/80 "2021-05-01T15:14:59Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> All new lifeforms today emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction, be it sexual or asexual. Nothing is made _de novo_ , so if someone tells me a human couple came into existence _de novo_ , right off the bat I know that’s wholly inconsistent or implausible under modern biology.

Inconsistent and implausible are different. As you say, “lifeforms today emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction”. So for lifeforms to emerge another way you would need an argument like:

1. biology tells us lifeforms today emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction
2. a couple of lifeforms did not emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction
3. the couple could not have emerged from the processes described by biology

That is argument, as far as I can see, is _consistent_ with modern biology and _de novo_ “special creation” of a couple. If someone tells you a human couple just “poofed” into existence, biology tells you it would _have_ to be _de novo_ (a break in the causal chain, “supernatural”, etc.) because biology tells you that’s not how lifeforms emerge.

Now, “implausible”, I totally agree. What are the chances that 2 people just “poofed” into existence? There is no scientific evidence that supports that, as far as I’m aware. Life comes from life, dead people stay dead. These are very good and trustworthy beliefs. But for a good chunk of the human population there is a belief that sometimes impossible things happen because there are realities beyond the empirical. It doesn’t mean that it’s inconsistent with science, it’s just outside of it.

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> > [@Jordan](#):
> >
> > Similar to the Resurrection, science is largely blind to one-off historical events that leave little-to no physical evidence
> 
> But on science, events like a resurrection, walking on water, restoring sight with baked mud, _de novo_ creation are extremely implausible because they defy the laws of nature as discovered by science. They are inconsistent with established science.

I totally get where you’re coming from, I just think it’s useful to be a bit more careful with “inconsistent”. If I say “all sweaters are red” and somebody else says “all pants are blue”, those statements are _not_ inconsistent, they may both be true at the same time without violating any logic.

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> There is no evidence for a _de novo_ creation anywhere. The Genesis story of a literal _de novo_ creation of AE is one big pile of assertions. The absence of _de novo_ creation in all of biology makes a the idea of a literal AE according to Genesis or [GAE](http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-adam-eve) specious or highly imaginative

But it’s only “specious or high imaginative” if either:

1. you think _de novo_ creation should use ordinary biological means (can’t see why it would, that kinda defeats the purpose), or
2. you don’t have reasons to believe the “big pile of assertions”.

I don’t think anyone is claiming that the Genesis story of Adam & Eve stands on its own internal evidence. If you just cut Genesis 2&3 out and handed it to people who’d never seen the Bible they would probably say “nice story, got dark at the end though”. At a minimum it seems like belief in A&E requires belief in God and that the Bible has a significant level of authority or truthfulness, in which case the evidence comes from trying to understand what it says about how things came to be. Your argument seems to be with that, not _de novo_ creation and biology.

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> > [@Jordan](#):
> >
> > Sure, it’s theologically grounded, but it pretty straightforwardly says “these are the things we know from science and we’re taking them as truthful evidence about the world, let’s see what happens to our hypothesis in light of that”.
> 
> The mixing of lineages is something Joshua knew and took from science, but the _de novo_ creation of AE isn’t. Let’s not get it twisted.

I didn’t mean to even imply that @swamidass got the idea for _de novo_ creation of AE from science, that would be silly. That’s my bad if it was unclear.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2021, 4:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/81 "2021-05-01T16:19:42Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> it is equally not consistent with science because nothing in our current scientific understanding of the world supports _de novo_ creation of two human beings.

That is what _de novo creation_ means. Using the term is forthrightly granting that the creation is outside the bounds of scientific understanding. Given that, what is the point of objecting that particular element of the claim is outside the bounds of scientific understanding? That is already conceded.

Of course, if your worldview is that nature is closed, then any miracle is inconsistent with that outlook. But that is a different matter.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2021, 8:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/82 "2021-05-01T20:34:55Z")

</div>

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> Inconsistent and implausible are different. As you say, “lifeforms today emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction”. So for lifeforms to emerge another way you would need an argument like:

Inconsistent and implausible mean different things, I apologize if my comments seemed to imply otherwise. I was just trying to push the point that a _de novo_ creation of AE is both.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> So for lifeforms to emerge another way you would need an argument like:
> 
> 1. biology tells us lifeforms today emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction
> 2. a couple of lifeforms did not emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction
> 3. the couple could not have emerged from the processes described by biology

Yes. This is exactly what I meant by _de novo_ creation being inconsistent with what we know from modern biology making it extremely implausible as well.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> That is argument, as far as I can see, is _consistent_ with modern biology and _de novo_ “special creation” of a couple

This seems confused. The argument clearly showed why a _de novo_ creation is not consistent with modern biology. New organisms today don’t just poof into existence, they come from parental organisms through recognized reproductive mechanisms and this applies to all humans now or 200kya, so if someone proposes some humans came into being came into being _de novo_ that’s inconsistent with the way biology as we know it works.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> It doesn’t mean that it’s inconsistent with science, it’s just outside of it.

Humans don’t poof into existence, they arise from preexisting humans. Anyone making a claim to the contrary, without supporting evidence, is making a claim inconsistent with and implausible under modern biology.

Similar, ultradiluted solutions are essentially placebos: because the concentration of whatever active substance is claimed to be within it would be extremely small (if not nonexistent) to effect a physiological response. Anyone who claims otherwise is making a claim inconsistent with and implausible under chemistry.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> I totally get where you’re coming from, I just think it’s useful to be a bit more careful with “inconsistent”. If I say “all sweaters are red” and somebody else says “all pants are blue”, those statements are _not_ inconsistent, they may both be true at the same time without violating any logic.

GAE says AEs descendants interbred with POGs. That’s consistent with modern evolutionary science. GAE says AE were formed _de novo_. That’s inconsistent with biology.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> I don’t think anyone is claiming that the Genesis story of Adam & Eve stands on its own internal evidence.

I didn’t claim anyone is saying such. All I am saying is that the _de novo_ creation of AE doesn’t fit with what we know about how humans come into existence.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> At a minimum it seems like belief in A&E requires belief in God and that the Bible has a significant level of authority or truthfulness, in which case the evidence comes from trying to understand what it says about how things came to be. Your argument seems to be with that, not _de novo_ creation and biology.

You are misreading me at this point. All I have been driving at is that some parts of GAE like the _de novo_ creation are inconsistent with science.

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> That is what _de novo creation_ means. Using the term is forthrightly granting that the creation is outside the bounds of scientific understanding.

That means its inconsistent with the our understanding of how new human beings come into existence.

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> Given that, what is the point of objecting that particular element of the claim is outside the bounds of scientific understanding? That is already conceded.

Joshua has been saying GAE is consistent with evolutionary science, but that is partly false because one or more of its components don’t fit with established science.

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> Of course, if your worldview is that nature is closed, then any miracle is inconsistent with that outlook.

This has nothing to do with my worldview. Claims about walking on water or healing blindness with saliva-baked mud are simply inconsistent with we know from science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2021, 8:46pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/83 "2021-05-01T20:46:43Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> > [@Jordan](#):
> >
> > Inconsistent and implausible are different. As you say, “lifeforms today emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction”. So for lifeforms to emerge another way you would need an argument like:
> 
> Inconsistent and implausible mean different things, I apologize if my comments seemed to imply otherwise. I was just trying to push the point that a _de novo_ creation of AE is both.

It has been explained to you several times why you are wrong.

@chris_doesdna2018 , to his credit, already agrees that “inconsistent” is ambiguous in my usage, not deceptive, and that I also have clarified the ambiguity. @Rumraket (an atheist) has also explained in answer that I endorsed, as has @jordan.

There is nothing inconsistent between de novo creation and evolution. You have failed to produce an inconsistency or conflict between the two. Of course, that statement does not mean the data some how indicates de novo creation took place. It is a statement about the absence of negative genetic evidence, not the presence of positive scientific evidence.

Implausibility is in the eye of the beholder, and we can agree that De novo creation is implausible to you. To others, it is plausible. In this case, repeating that you think it is implausible is vacuous.

At this point, I don’t see reason to give platform to your PRATT that is, at best, marginally related to the topic.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2021, 9:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/84 "2021-05-01T21:05:37Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> > [@Jordan](#):
> >
> > So for lifeforms to emerge another way you would need an argument like:
> > 
> > > 1. biology tells us lifeforms today emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction
> > > 2. a couple of lifeforms did not emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction
> > > 3. the couple could not have emerged from the processes described by biology
> 
> Yes. This is exactly what I meant by _de novo_ creation being inconsistent with what we know from modern biology making it extremely implausible as well.

I think we’re mostly speaking past each other here. We can look at those same 3 statements and I see them as being consistent (because the _de novo_ claim is specifically that A&E did **not** come into existence through normal biological means) and you see them as being inconsistent (because life only comes into existence through normal biological means). I would imagine we can use other words or more fleshed out explanations (as @swamidass has done in his book) to make it very clear that the _de novo_ creation of A&E in GAE is is outside the view of science, and as such, doesn’t logically contradict what science says about the way the world works.

Certainly science could have something to say about how unusual or improbable a _de novo_ creation would be (i.e. plausibility). But science doesn’t actually say _all_ lifeforms emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction, otherwise abiogenesis research would be crackpot pseudoscience. Science also can’t make universal claims (_all_ anything) because of course we haven’t observed nor can we observe everything. We can affirm common descent but we really can’t say that science proves or “knows” that _all_ living organisms share a common ancestor because we don’t have a record of every organism. The best we can do is look at the genetic and fossil evidence we have and say “we don’t observe exceptions to common decent” or, not to make the confusion worse, “all the observed data is consistent with common decent”.

I’m fine with leaving an “agree to disagree” on the nuances of inconsistency (because I really do understand what you’re saying) but to the title of the topic, I certainly don’t see GAE as deceptive.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\
**Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 2:47am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/85 "2021-05-02T02:47:34Z")

</div>

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> I think we’re mostly speaking past each other here. We can look at those same 3 statements and I see them as being consistent (because the _de novo_ claim is specifically that A&E did **not** come into existence through normal biological means) and you see them as being inconsistent (because life only comes into existence through normal biological means).

Nothing in that argument makes a _de novo_ creation of AE appear consistent with established biology on the formation of new humans.

Science says all new humans beings are produced via several mechanisms that we observe today and none of those mechanisms include _de novo_ formation. If you claim a _de novo_ creation happened, that claim is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how new humans come to be.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> I would imagine we can use other words or more fleshed out explanations (as @swamidass has done in his book) to make it very clear that the _de novo_ creation of A&E in [GAE](http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-adam-eve) is is outside the view of science, and as such, doesn’t logically contradict what science says about the way the world works.

Science says all new humans today are derived from preexisting human parents. GAE says that a group of humans which mixed with POGs had parents not born from other humans, but arose _de novo_. That clashes with our understanding of human reproductive science.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> But science doesn’t actually say _all_ lifeforms emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction, otherwise abiogenesis research would be crackpot pseudoscience.

I carefully qualified that statement with a word that’s missing in your comment above. See my words:

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> All new lifeforms **today** emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction, be it sexual or asexual.

There were no humans at the origin of life. We arose quite recently, after sexual reproduction was long established. Thus, according to modern biology human offspring will always emerge from human parents. A _de novo_ creation of humans doesn’t fit the bill.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> Science also can’t make universal claims ( _all_ anything) because of course we haven’t observed nor can we observe everything.

Well thanks to DNA evidence, we know ALL humans beings today are the products of sexual reproduction ever since our species arose from our last common ancestor. That’s why Joshua had to make it necessary for POGs to interbreed with AEs descendants.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> We can affirm common descent but we really can’t say that science proves or “knows” that _all_ living organisms share a common ancestor because we don’t have a record of every organism.

All available data suggests all extant lifeforms are descended from a common ancestor, the infamous LUCA. This claim of yours clashes with that data.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> I’m fine with leaving an “agree to disagree” on the nuances of inconsistency (because I really do understand what you’re saying) but to the title of the topic, I certainly don’t see [GAE](http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-adam-eve) as deceptive.

GAE is certainly not intentionally deceptive: Joshua goes to great lengths to clarify what he means in articles about GAE. However, when he says GAE is consistent with biological evolution, that is partly (unintentionally) misleading. Lineages mix during evolution, so that part of GAE is consistent with evolutionary science. Biological evolution requires reproduction, which could be sexual or asexual, both of which require parents and progeny: a _de novo_ AE upsets this requirement, making that part inconsistent with evolutionary science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\
**Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 3:28am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661/86 "2021-05-02T03:28:32Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> > [@Jordan](#):
> >
> > Science also can’t make universal claims ( _all_ anything) because of course we haven’t observed nor can we observe everything.
> 
> Well thanks to DNA evidence, we know ALL humans beings today are the products of sexual reproduction ever since our species arose from our last common ancestor. That’s why Joshua had to make it necessary for POGs to interbreed with AEs descendants.

Actually, no, we don’t _know_ that. For one, we do not have the DNA of every person alive and their parents. What we _can_ say is that we have not observed an exception to the rule “ALL humans beings today are the products of sexual reproduction”. Additionally, we also know that most of our deep ancestors are genetic ghosts, they contribute **zero** genetic information to us. We simply cannot “see” their existence genetically, and therefore science cannot say a one-off _de novo_ created human couple is positively ruled out. What I think it can say with good confidence, is that _de novo_ creation would have to be extremely rare because we don’t see any evidence for them genetically or from observation.

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> > [@Jordan](#):
> >
> > We can affirm common descent but we really can’t say that science proves or “knows” that _all_ living organisms share a common ancestor because we don’t have a record of every organism.
> 
> All available data suggests all extant lifeforms are descended from a common ancestor, the infamous LUCA. This claim of yours clashes with that data.

But I don’t think a LUCA rules out other genetic or genealogical contributions. If I were descended from a _de novo_ created human who interbred with the rest of the human population and whose genetic material is not found in my genome (very likely if they lived more than a few thousand years ago) and you were descended solely through common ancestry … we would _both_ look like we had descended from LUCA. There is no way for genetics to distinguish the two scenarios.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661.md?page=3)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-it-deceptive-to-say-the-gae-is-consistent-with-evolution/13661.md?page=5)