Middle Ground: A Science Friendly Account of Human Origins


See the below diagram, which depicts a recent pinch point and replacement of the entire population with humans who are the genealogical progeny of Adam and Eve, yet have mixing, and therefore genetic inheritance from other preexisting Non-Adamic beings.


This model stands as a solid middle ground solution which:

  • Embraces the recent, miraculous creation of Adam and Eve
  • Allows any position regarding origins of early non-Adamic “sons of God” (e.g. Evolutionary creation, Instantaneous creation, etc.)
  • Differentiates between genetics and genealogy. Accept genetic evidence of the presence of hominid DNA in the modern progeny of Adam and Eve. Accept the genealogical evidence of Adam and Eve being the single-couple progenitors of all mankind

This an interesting article in that it seems to be giving a lot of deference to ID, while also adopting a GAE and a good path forward.



This is by no means a good way to start an article, and it leaves me with lessened inclination to proceed. And I see that my inclinations were correct. This article is chock full of horrendous claims, and only the fact that he ends up at GAE would seem to recommend it to you.

1 Like

In context, I don’t think they guy is a scientist. I do not know how he could know better on the science. However, he is trying to work out a reconciliation that makes space for common descent. I found the post because it had a link to Peaceful Science, but even if that wasn’t the case, the attempt at common ground is notable. Perhaps that could be a starting point for unraveling the scientific misunderstandings there.


Step one would probably be to stop reading David Klinghoffer. :slight_smile:


That misses the point. Even if you think it is absurd, there is a large population out there that trusts David Klinghoffer more than most scientists. He is not likely to trust us till he sees we are trustworthy. Of course, that can happen pretty quickly if we can slow down and explain ourselves.

1 Like

What, is he here?

I understood your point because the issue of establishing trust is a theme that runs through much of your writing.

Nevertheless, I was making a silly joke. Hence the smiley.


Not yet, but I invited him here in a comment of the article.

@John_harshman, it is also notable that he uses “sole-progenitor” in the same was as I’ve noted is legitimate: Three Stories on Adam.

He is a bit confused about this:

Bloom argues that DNA and mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) studies strongly support this conclusion. The initial mDNA researchers inferred that, due to extremely high mDNA similarity, the female ancestor common to all modern humans lived as recently as 90,000 to 180,000 years ago. To many this implies that a pinch-point occurred in the human population in the recent past, pointing to a universal relationship of all modern humans to that genealogical pinch point; a proverbial genealogical Adam and Eve.


I was reading from your linked narrative about “Comments on a Blog”:

The argument from “Allelic Multiplicity.” This was published several times since 2010, online and in print, but never peer-reviewed. “In fact, to generate the number of alleles we see in the present day from a starting point of just two individuals, one would have to postulate mutation rates far in excess of what we observe for any animal.” This is a fallacious argument that does not appear in the scientific literature.”

Joshua, what is the least clarification a scientist needs to add to “Allelic Multiplicity” to make it NON-fallacious? Is it fallacious because it doesn’t specify to a time frame (e.g., the usual Biblical assumption of the Earth being 6k years old)?