I recall somewhere long long ago in this thread where someone said that Adam and Eve are the genealogical ancestors of all of us and parenthetically added “almost all”.
If it’s possible it’s “almost all” rather than all then there could be quite a few of us out there who have nothing to do with this notion of inherited sin. That to me is a weird possibility.
Plus I’m just not comfortable pigeon holing everyone on earth into one and only one belief system and viewing them as subject to YOUR religion’s moral laws.
[quote=“Michelle, post:78, topic:9199”]GAE could very well help some Old Earth Creationists accept human evolution. Joshua has had various discussions with Reasons to Believe, for example.
[/quote]
Have you met any OEC or any anti-evolution Biblical creationists? I’m being facetious of course. I’ve been talking about this stuff with people for the better part of 40 years and for the most part just don’t see many of them going for any of this in any meaningful way. It’s asking them for a pretty big concession.
I think everyone religious and non-religious alike would be better off if science were not part of their religious apologetics. I don’t see any problem believing in something that doesn’t make sense if it brings you some positive personal meaning and cultural belonging and you aren’t coercing anyone to share those beliefs, harming others or yourself in the name of those beliefs, or misrepresenting your religious beliefs as something they are not. Making sense is not the arbiter of every belief.
I’m sure most people here would disagree with that however and I think there’s no convincing them otherwise anymore than I can convince a dedicated YEC that Adam and Eve were part of a big population and they all are our ancestors.
Yes, but he meant something weird by it, not what the words would normally mean. He’s been told many times that his terminology is confusing, so no wonder you’re confused. They’re the sole ancestors of “textual humans”, and he defines textual humans as descendants of A&E. A tautology, in other words. People outside the garden are human, but not textual humans. There is no real difference between the two.
No. Nor is he claiming that the bible is scientific, whatever that means.
It all depends on just how literal you want. There are all sorts of ways to interpret a literal Genesis, some of them very weaselly. It should also be pointed out that he’s never said what he really thinks is true, just presented a scenario that he thinks might appeal to some people.
None, or very little, genealogy being much easier to pass on than genes. I would expect gene flow between neighboring populations to be at least slightly greater than zero. If you can find a population that was completely isolated from all others between 4000 BC and 1 AD you can falsify the hypothesis. Do you know of any such?
The paper talks about the breakdown of a clinal regime, itself evidence of some gene flow, into a regime of greater gene flow in the past 5000 years. None of that implies that any populations were isolated from adjacent ones; in fact it implies that there were none such, even before 5000 years ago.
And I happen to think this is one of the more “weaselly” ways to use your term. I know he’s never said what he really believes and I’ve long ago pressed him on that. I happen to think that’s a mistake as it just makes it look like he’s hiding something, which in fact he is.
There are no genetic markers that indicate genealogical ancestry. Going back 20 generations, the majority of your ancestors are likely to have contributed zero genetic material to you, bu they’re still your ancestors.
But that’s what the scenario you propose requires, whether you know it or not.
I know this too, but it doesn’t mean that genetic data can’t provide some insight into our genealogy.
No. What I am arguing against is the constant success at intermarriage, progeny dominance, and migration of the descendants of A&E in those times. It strikes me as unrealistic. Note that I am looking at this from my modern perspective which aligns with what the Lipson et al paper suggests about increased regionalization in those times. You could imagine the descendants of A&E were found among the Fulani herdsmen and they encountered my tribe’s (Igbo) members: there would be few intermarriages and their progeny would never dominate. I am not saying the tension that currently exists between the Igbo and Fulani existed back then but I would expect similar issues to have been present, as well as other factors that would prevent successful intermarriages.
I don’t think that dominance is essential. That being said, I am skeptical that sufficient dispersion took place in 4000 years. Africa is a huge continent with significant physical barriers.
It can be used to estimate historical migration rates, which can be used as parameters in a genealogical simulation. As long as you don’t confuse genetic introgression with genealogical ancestry.
What do you mean here by “dominate”? Are you saying that the children of Igbo-Fulani marriages would not become part of their populations? That would mean that there must be zero gene flow between tribes. The children of such marriages must be shunned and contribute nothing to the next generation. In effect, separate species.
Genealogical descendants of A&E being the only ones present after several generations.
No. I am saying that Igbo-Igbo marriages are the norm, while Igbo-Fulani marriages are uncommon at present. Having Fulani ancestry also tends to keep potential Igbo suitors away. This is will prevent or severely reduce subsequent intermarriages.
There is gene flow alright, but its little. Of course, that little gene flow can be sufficient for the purposes of the GAE under certain conditions, but I don’t see why we should assume those conditions persisted for the descendants of A&E 4000 years ago.
If they’re uncommon but not nonexistent that doesn’t prevent intermarriages. Reduction isn’t such a big deal. It all depends on whether the migration rate parameter is reasonable.
What would those conditions be and why would they be implausible?
It can’t all depend on the migration. The extent of interbreeding should matter too.
One condition would be unhindered interbreeding. Cultural factors would make that implausible during 4000 years in every single village the descendants of A&E would have encountered.
The impression I get is that this dominance you talk about is supposed to be a special attribute of A&E’s lineage. I’m saying that they are no different from any other people alive at the time, whose genealogical descent would be spread in the same way and to the same degree.
Of course. But doesn’t your scenario demand that there must be no interbreeding at all?
Not true. Hindered interbreeding decreases the effective migration rate between some populations. It doesn’t decrease that rate to zero, though. Or do you think it does?