So I attended the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in Boston in November, and Marcus Ross presented a paper critiquing the GAE. I was there for it, and so was @swamidass , but I finally had a chance this morning to sit down and read the paper. I was wondering if there’s been any response to it yet, either here or from Josh anywhere else. Josh did make some points during the Q&A, which I asked Ross about afterwards.
Basically, Ross says that Josh’s claim that the GAE is consistent with a recent Adam and Eve (less than 10kya) doesn’t hold up under scrutiny because the simulation he’s referring to is about the human population of AD 2000 not AD 1. The model uses a number of assumptions about human breeding/migration that are not consistent with a universal GAE at the earlier date. There’s another model for example that shows a hypothetical GAE at 150kya, and Ross complains that Josh doesn’t show that there’s any good reason to assume that the model would work with the YEC timeline. (In fact he says Josh’s particular GAE of AD 1 has never specifically been modeled or tested).
There’s other stuff in there, and I know some of this has been discussed here before, but I was wondering if Josh or anyone else has responded here or anywhere to the specific arguments in this paper.
Question: Is Ross claiming that the human population distribution in 4000 B.C. was different enough from the distribution in 2000 B.C. to invalidate the comparison?
Looks as if various bits in this thread address that question: Adam and Eve: Genealogical Ancestors of What Fraction of Humanity? (I don’t quite know how to link to a thread.)
I chatted with briefly @swamidass about this last year, and he asked if I thought this needed a response. My take was “no”, as this is rehashing Ross’ 2018 criticisms.
There are a lot of scenarios where GAE might be falsified, but this misses the point; all that is needed is one scenario where it cannot be falsified.
Uh, more like that genetic migration patterns after AD1500 are different enough from 500 BC to invalidate the comparison.
That was one of Ross’ complaints: that it cannot be falsified. And I noticed this when I initially read GAE years ago. Josh kinda contradicts himself on whether or not it counts as a scientific hypothesis, and Ross quotes where he says this.
I understand the confusion, it seems like it’s trying to prove a negative. I was confused about it myself when I first heard about it. GAE was never supposed to be falsifiable, it is (or should be) a question that science is unable to address, leaving room for a certain theistic interpretation of Genesis.
The claim being refuted is that science rules out all scenarios for a recent A&E; It doesn’t. There are people who have a barrier to accepting science (and evolution in particular) because they think it contradicts their religious beliefs. GAE is intended to poke a hole in that barrier.
Personally, I think GAE is unlikely in many real world scenarios. BUT if we already accept that A&E could have been recently created recently, then a little extra divine nudge to make that unlikely sequence of events pan out should be no big deal.
If you look at that thread, Joshua is claiming that recent changes are not relevant to the model except for places like Polynesia.
Yes, I would agree that it isn’t a scientific hypothesis; just parts of it are. The creation of A&E has no observable effects and can’t be falsified. What can be falsified (and failed to be) is the ability of a single couple in the Middle East in 4000 B.C. to be genealogical ancestors of all people in 1 A.D. GAE isn’t a scientific hypothesis; it’s an attempt to show that the existence of A&E is not contradicted by the data we have. Again, there are parts of the hypothesis that can’t be falsified and parts that could have been but weren’t. The part we’re talking about here is of the second sort.
Well, it would be to me because God doesn’t exist to plug holes in scientific models. If you need God to intervene solely for that purpose, the far more likely possibility is the model is wrong. And I hold to this consistently. I don’t think YECs should be doing that either. The “interventions” we defend are in the Bible, i.e. they have historical evidence for them. Scientific models should account for all the evidence, but they shouldn’t be positing divine intervention just to make a model work.
Well if the barrier is the biblical chronology, Ross’ point is the GAE doesn’t work with that.
Ross notes this in the paper. Most of his specific objections are about Tasmanian isolation, and how Swamidass argues for highly implausible scenarios for genetic migration to Tasmania.
OK, but GAE isn’t supposed to be a scientific model. It addresses a claim that science (specifically genetics) contradicts a recent A&E. I agree GAE is unlikely, but no more unlikely than A&E from my perspective (but then my perspective is not the one that matters).
I can’t argue that one way or the other, but I’m pretty sure we could find someone will to argue about it.
This is something @swamidass has previously addressed, and AFAIK he stands by that. I think if he was going to respond to Ross on this point, he could have done so already. (But I think he has been busy too)
Replying to myself mostly, and off-topic, but it occurs to me that any claim that GAE represents is a very small claim compared to what we see from various Creation Science ministries. GAE isn’t contradicting any laws of physics, it’s only making a little wiggle room for a recent A&E in a way that is plausible to our understanding of science. I do not understand why Ross should want to object. OTOH I think GAE might contradict some of what Ross has previously written, and ego may be involved, but such speculation isn’t useful.
I find it odd that Ross would focus on the isolation of Tasmania in respect to the GAE, when that presents a far more intractable problem for dispersion from Noah’s ark around 2500 BC.
