My point is that they’re all likely. There are lots of genealogical ancestors. It’s not an exclusive position.
2 Likes
My bad, sorry.
No one is pretending about anything and the theological questions the GAE has raised have and are being actively discussed. We even have threads on some of those issues. Its all in the open.
A young genetic A&E is extremely problematic, not a GAE.
AFAIK, its interpretations of the text that could be at odds with the science. Sure, a completely literal view of the entire Genesis story terribly conflicts with science, but I don’t think that’s Dr Swamidass’s position. I don’t know his response to this point of yours, but he may have addressed it in his book.
Not true. AFAIK, no atheist or agnostic commenter has done this. In addition, no one really knows Josh’s beliefs on the GAE as he had kept that to himself, so I don’t know what I “FIRST have to accept”.
Yes, but if you want a flavor that lets you have a literal A&E and LUCA as actual ancestors, then the GAE has got you covered.
2 Likes
The whole thing is just simply about pedigree collapse. Is it not?
One particular couple being the genealogical ancestor to everyone alive today is of course far less likely than ANY OTHER couple being our genealogical ancestor. Add on top of that this one specific couple being magically popped into existence and the whole thing sounds not only less likely but less scientific.
1 Like
Sure. But the pedigree doesn’t collapse to one couple. It collapses to most of the couples alive at the time. I don’t know how many times this can be said: GAE doesn’t postulate a single pair of genealogical ancestors. It postulates an entire population of genealogical ancestors. If you were alive 6000 years ago there’s a high probability that you are ancestral to the entire current population.
It’s the magical poofing that’s not scientific. The genealogical analysis is perfectly scientific.
4 Likes
So according to Josh there’s no Adam and Eve at all but am enormous population of Adams and Eves.
That’s not what I’ve gathered from him at all. I was way off.
1 Like
No. You persist in getting out of this conversation all sorts of things that nobody puts in. Adam and Eve (in the scenario) are individual people who are among the genealogical ancestors (there are many) of the entire current population. (Actually, it’s the world population at 1 AD or thereabouts.) Simulations show that, if there were two such people in 6000 AD, that would likely be the case. It would likely be the case for everyone alive at the time. A&E are not special in that regard.
2 Likes
So let’s see. Everyone in this population were our genealogical ancestors, except those outside the garden (we don’t know what or where that is) who only joined our genealogical ancestry when breeding with one special created couple in that population. And with that you can’t scientifically say the Genesis story isn’t literally true except for all the bits about the earth being created in six days, plants and animals popping into existence from nothing, and all human languages appearing magically at the same time at Babel. Other than all that science can’t say Genesis isn’t literally true so literalist minded Christians can rest easy.
I would say that this idea is …
- needlessly complex and generates unnecessary discussions say about who were the people outside the garden, were they people in the same sense we are people, etc
- it’s really rather pointless as it’s not going to satisfy the typical Biblical creationist who is critical of evolution because they are not going to be swayed by any argument where Adam and Eve were not the first and initially lone humans in existence.
- it only focuses on this narrow bit in Genesis and ignores the fact that the whole broader context in which Adam and Eve are embedded is one where the Bible describes creation of the earth, life, human cultures and languages, etc, all of which are decidedly rejected by science when taken literally
- it seems theologically unnecessary for most Christians who accept evolution who have no problem viewing Adam and Eve metaphorically.
And since I tend to get a lot of visceral negative feedback when I criticize Josh I’ll note these are Ken Miller’s criticisms that I just happen to agree with so instead of directing any ire towards me you can save it for him.
5 Likes
The POGs existed before A&E and were the genealogical ancestors. A&E were just miraculous additions to that population. My current quarrel with the GAE is how A&E became genealogical ancestors to all modern Africans 6,000 years ago in the face of significantly reduced long-range migrations. They would have needed extensive continent-wide interbreeding to achieve the status of genealogical ancestors in Africa but that doesn’t seem to be the case per that 2022 paper I cited in a different thread.
Yeah, this is one of the reasons I don’t buy the GAE. However, it has merits which can’t be overlooked.
True.
Another of my quarrels with the GAE.
No one has given you visceral feedback, only correction of some misconceptions you had about the GAE. Look up the genetic entropy threads and you will see belligerent feedback.
Its nice to have you here though. Learned a lot from your talk with Dan.
2 Likes
No, no, no, no, no. Can this be any clearer? I don’t have a clue where you’re getting all this. One might almost suppose that you are trying your hardest to misunderstand. Two people hypothesized inside the garden. Everyone else outside. All of them (except the few who left no descendants) are our genealogical ancestors. And by “our” I refer to everyone living.
This is an attempt to rescue just one bit of Genesis, one that many Christians think is the most important bit. It does that by presenting a scenario that’s compatible with genetic and demographic data. It’s not intended for you or me, and it doesn’t matter whether we think there ever were two specially created people, or a magic garden, or a talking snake, etc. It’s not intended for Christians who already accept evolution, just those who don’t. And since Ken Miller isn’t here, I’m not going to argue with him.
2 Likes
The solution is a chain of short-range migrations. Think of it as diffusion. And it isn’t 6000 years ago; it only has to be 2000 years ago. Note that genealogy can make the trip much more easily than alleles can.
1 Like
One slight, and not particularly consequential, clarification. The important thing is not that it refer to everyone now living, but to everyone living at the moment of the birth of Jesus, so that by his incarnation he could act as saviour for all humankind, (i.e. the inheritors of Original Sin.) Of course, that would mean it also refers to everyone now living.
1 Like
If that is the case then the data on the degree of genetic relatedness collected by Lipson et al should have been different. They say (bold mine):
Your proposed chains of short-range migrations should have generated “excess genetic relatedness” in the long-run, but that wasn’t observed.
This assumes genealogical descendants of A&E did make the trip all over Africa. I can’t accept that without something solid behind it.
That’s where you might be confused. What you are saying here isn’t true.
Expatiate.
1 Like
Not sure what counts as excess. Are you? And let’s remember that genealogical relationship outpaces genetic relationship.
No, it only assumes that there is some level of intermarriage among adjacent demes. Nobody is making the trip all over Africa; somebody is making the trip to the next village, and somebody from that village is making the trip to the next, and so on. You can check his original references for the details of the assumed parameters.
Understood. That’s what I took @Michael_Okoko’s use of “chains” to mean.
In only 4000 years, though, correct?
Correct.
To your point 1, it is true that there are continued theological discussions that would need to be had about the people outside the garden. Joshua addresses that in his book and reaches out to theologians to consider and discuss. The people outside the Garden would need to be fully human, with full human dignity, of course, although they did not yet have the special relationship with God that was granted to Adam and Eve. Thus the people outside the Garden were not given the commands/moral law given to Adam and Eve and so were not condemned by Original Sin as Adam and Eve were. What GAE does is set the boundaries of the limits of where science speaks into the story and gives space for the theological discussions. (in this way, Joshua and Jeanson’s approaches are completely opposite. Jeanson is denying the science to allow for his narrow interpretation of Genesis, while Joshua is drawing lines to show where the science stops and where the theology can start)
Your point 2 is correct
Your earlier statements that GAE may not help people with YEC beliefs is likely also true. However, the more I learn about YEC, the more I learn that they also have a diverse set of views, so perhaps GAE could help some, although not most.
Point number 4 is also correct, GAE is not needed for people who accept a completely metaphorical view of Adam and Eve.
There are also theological challenges with seeing Adam and Eve as purely metaphorical, as described in depth by Tim Keller here:
Note that Jesus and Paul discuss Adam and Eve as if they were real people, so there are challenges in interpretation of New Testament texts if there is not an actual first couple.
To point number 3: Some people can view Genesis as containing a lot of metaphorical language, while also requiring a historical couple for the theology to stand up. William Lane Craig, for example, calls this “mytho history.” William Lane Craig sets a single couple much farther back in history. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl8547
Another view that can accord with the science is the federal headship model for Adam and Eve (described in that article linked above by Tim Keller).
GAE could very well help some Old Earth Creationists accept human evolution. Joshua has had various discussions with Reasons to Believe, for example.
Of course no theory of Adam and Eve fully satisfies all theological challenges and all the science, but the fact that there are various options to consider is reassuring to me personally, even if I do not know which is the correct solution and will likely not know the full picture until we get to heaven.
Don’t see it. Jesus also discusses the good Samaritan and the prodigal son as if they’re real people. All we need is that it be a shared story that helps people understand some point.
4 Likes
Didn’t Josh say that Adam and Eve were the sole genealogical ancestors - the tip of an inverted pyramid or the headwaters of all living people? Didn’t you argue this exact same point with him in this thread? Finally just saying “agree to disagree”?
I mean isn’t this really for us as well? To prevent people from arguing a literal Biblical isn’t scientific? Which of course it’s not. I don’t see why Josh would be touting secular scientists who praise his ideas if this weren’t also for them.
And yes I get the centrality of Adam and Eve and the Christian theology of original sin and the need for salvation through Christ’s crucifixion. I get the basics. I’ve been there before.
There’s a lot more to the story than that however and most anti-evolution Christians don’t share Josh’s view that this is the only important thing in Genesis to take literally. So I think it’s pretty clear that accepting Josh’s theological interpretation is a pre-requisite for his most important scientific conclusion - namely you can’t scientifically dismiss a literal Adam and Eve.
Just pretend Ken’s criticisms are my own. I was thinking along the same lines beforehand.
1 Like