Purpose Nation: Fazale Rana (RTB) on Genealogical Adam

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I want thank Dr Rana for his kind words, but also clarify three things here.

I Am Not an Evolutionary Creationist

I am a Christian that affirms evolutionary science. Separating ways with with BioLogos, I am not aligned with Evolutionary Creation, which I find to be a limited theological position unacceptable to most of the Church, and insufficiently engaged with science.

As I wrote in November:

I still affirm evolutionary science, but I no longer am a theistic evolutionist . Since I first became public in my work, I have never been intent on evangelizing evolution. For this reason, I am not well defined as an “ evolutionist .” My worldview does not rest on evolution; it rests on Jesus, the one who rose from the dead. I am not well defined as a “ theist ” either, because I see great evil in this world justified by generic (and specific) theism; and I follow Jesus, who is much greater than theism.
The Confessing Scientist

Sequential Reading is One of Many Readings

We have put forward a new way to think about Adam and Eve alongside mainstream science, that makes a key distinction between genetic and genealogical ancestry (Story Three: Recent Sole-Genealogical Progenitor Adam). This is the Genealogical Adam, and it is creating a stir in many circles.

In this podcast, however, Dr. Rana’s objections center on the sequential reading of Genesis. A sequential reading of Genesis is merely one of many readings. A Genealogical Adam fits with all of them. I’m thankful to both @jack.collins and @deuteroKJ for helping clarify this with me. As I’ve explained elsewhere:

@swamidass

There are several ways to take this. Here are a few:

1. Gen 1 and 2 sequential, like Walton describes. This appeals to many people here, like @Revealed_Cosmology and @Guy_Coe.
2. Gen 1 and 2 recapitulatory, with Gen 1 including creation of many people, and Gen 2 zooms in on Adam. This is an intermediate position.
3. Gen 1 and 2 recapitulatory, with both referring to Adam and Eve, and remaning totally silent on those outside the Garden. This matches the current YEC reading.

It is honestly hard to resolve which one it could be, from my point of view. All of them work in this model, though an early draft of my Dabar paper (i.e. the one that @TaylorS recieved) focused in on #1.

Y-Adam and Mito-Eve are Not a Bottleneck

Dr. Rana appeals to Y-Chromosome Adam (y-MRCA) and Mitochondrial Eve (m-MRCA) as where he places Adam and Eve. With all due respect, coalescence does not imply a bottleneck. See the figure below. We see y-MRCA (left panel, dark box) and m-MRCA (middle panel, dark circle) arise much more recently in the genealogy than Adam and Eve. If we arise genetically from a single couple (Story One: Ancient Sole-Genetic Progenitor Adam) or from a single couple followed by interbreeding (Story Two: Genetic-Interbreeding Adam, the current RTB model: Engaging the Zoo of RTB Models), it would be exceeding unlikely for Adam and Eve to be the y-MRCA and m-MRCA. The two concepts are only related in that we should think Adam and Eve are more ancient than Y-Chromosome Adam (y-MRCA) and Mitochondrial Eve (m-MRCA).

This is a common misinterpretation of genetic data being made here, that is not intrinsic to his model. For example, a recent science article (Did All Species Arise about 200,000 Years Ago?) created a great deal of controversy by mistakenly concluding that coalescence implied a bottleneck. It does not. Coalescence is expected in even a large population. I hope, for this reason, this error can be corrected at RTB.