RTB and the Genealogical Adam

[anon46279830]

Good morning @gbrooks9 and @Guy_Coe.

@gbrooks9

And now for the second question: what does Mark mean here? What element is it in the traditional “de novo” scenario that doesn’t get cleared up? @anon46279830, can you reduce the answer to just a sentence or two?

Guy_Coe:

I can do it in three though it doesn’t help that the original statements were on another thread, this one…

Should RTB/OEC's Tweak Model in Light of New Data and if so How?

Well because humans are sinful and want to immediately start figuring out who has the most blood of ‘the’ Adam I have already encountered some of this. This even though I made a point to say otherwise in the book. I actually had to go back in a later edition and edit the book to make the point even more emphatically. And I made this video on the subject… But humans being what they are, even a sequential view of the text can be used to racist ends if that is what people want to do. After all a recent de-Novo Adam would still presumably be missing the genes from any ancient admixture from other hominids. But as I point out at the end of the book, the northern Europeans who have historically been the center of this sort of thing would actually have a SMALLER proportion of heritage from Adam than a lot of other people.

The issue was twisting the view which we all share, a race adam long ago and a more recent individual man Adam, into having racist overtones. Guy was saying that viewing the two accounts in Gen. 1 and 2 sequentially (rather than a telescoping of an account within a larger account as I do) dispensed with that problem. I said “not necessarily” and gave a de Nova Adam with no Neanderthal genes as an example of something that would give sinful man something to hang onto and make this about “who has the biggest share of heritage from THE Adam”.