Yes–I believe we are in agreement.
1 Like
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”.
4 Likes
There is a category error here on multiple levels. 1+1=2 is unfalsifiable in multiple ways.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
1 Like
I see what you mean, but those are pretty much synonymous in the context of the discussion section of a scientific paper.
1 Like
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.
Can you provide examples of that distinction from the primary scientific literature?
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.
But it’s a great model of apples. Not a problem.
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.
3 Likes
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.
No one here contests this, but parts of GAE like de novo creation of AE are inconsistent with what we know from modern biology.
1 Like
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.
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.
2 Likes
Yeah, perhaps I agree with this in total, and certainly for the most part. Thanks @Rumraket .
1 Like
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!
1 Like
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”.
5 Likes
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.
Its not inconsistent for either reasons, but that which I stated above.
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.
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.
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.
Absolutely.
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.
1 Like
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:
- biology tells us lifeforms today emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction
- a couple of lifeforms did not emerge from preexisting lifeforms via some form of reproduction
- 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.
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.
But it’s only “specious or high imaginative” if either:
- you think de novo creation should use ordinary biological means (can’t see why it would, that kinda defeats the purpose), or
- 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.
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.
2 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That means its inconsistent with the our understanding of how new human beings come into existence.
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.
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.
1 Like
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.
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.
3 Likes
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.
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.
I carefully qualified that statement with a word that’s missing in your comment above. See my words:
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.
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.
All available data suggests all extant lifeforms are descended from a common ancestor, the infamous LUCA. This claim of yours clashes with that data.
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.
1 Like
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.
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.
3 Likes