All evidence from evolutionary science shows that this statement is false. All humans did not genetically descended from a single primeval couple.
Thanks Patrick for entering this debate.
I fully endorse your claim.
The statement of mine you refer to, is part of an argument proving that the transmission of the state of “original sin” is NOT bound to genetic descent from a single primeval couple:
Suppose there was a primeval single couple from whom all humanity is descended.
This couple could very well have not sinned since they were free NOT to sin.
So the first sinner could very well have been someone who came later and is NOT an ancestor of all humanity.
There wasn’t. So isn’t that the end of the supposition?
First you got to define “sin”.
Well, if you go back more than 500-700 thousand years ago, then it seems that computational genetic analysis cannot exclude the supposition. See what Josh states:
Nonetheless, even in such a case, Adam and Eve were free NOT to sin.
Therefore the first sin could have arrived generations later, and the transmission of “its consequences” (unfortunately called “original sin”) would not have been bound to genetic descent from the primeval single couple.
Yes, but the existence of more than four alleles for at least one locus that are shared between humans and other apes can and does.
What does that mean, how would it be accomplished, and how could it be right for God to set up such a system?
If I understand well you are questioning the Joshua’s statement I quoted, aren’t you?
If that was a quote, you should probably have marked it as a quote, either by using the quote function, putting quotes around it, or attributing it to Joshua.
The computational genetic analysis is really weak. It doesn’t including admixing of very species genomes. All the model really shows that the there is too much noise in the data to make any conclusion in the 500-700 thousand years ago. I am confident that the analysis will be improved so that it can be shown that a bottleneck of two in any species never occurred in billions of years of life on this planet. This would align with all fossil and genomic evidence to date.
What is this “sin” that you don’t define. Please tell me what sin Neanderthals committed? Homo Erectus? Hunter gathers Homo Sapians living 40,000 years ago in Austrailia?
Suarez and Swamidass on Original Sin
@Patrick if a Neanderthal murdered another Neanderthal, or a Sapien, out of spite or jealousy, would this be sin? Would this be wrong?
I am questioning the validity of the conclusions of the analysis - which is “that it can’t be ruled out that there couldn’t have been a bottleneck of two early than 500-700 thousand years ago”
This conclusion would be contrary to both the fossil and genomic evidence. Plus once the computer analysis adds species intermixing, it will show nothing of the sort. If you are going to really on this for your Adam and Eve, you may want to have your faith crisis now as this is not going to be your holy grail.
We’ve covered this ad nauseum @John_Harshman: John Harshman: Bottlenecks and Trans-Species Variation.
@AntoineSuarez is a philosopher. He can’t make the scientific case. So stop pestering him with scientific questions.
I think it is fair to request that he acknowledge:
- This is not peer reviewed yet
- It could be overturned.
- Therefore it is just tentative now, and will have to be sorted out the coming years.
That said, it is legitimate to engage in a though experiment assuming it is true.
Your confidence is misplaced. This signal disappears over time, and no amount of data can bring it back once it has.
Hey, he brought it up, but it appears it was only his failure to mark a quote.
What’s not peer reviewed yet, etc.?
TMR4A (and our discourse on trans-species variation) is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, though it has been peer-reviewed at this point far more than any of my papers. I think the argument is valid, but I also thing it is appropriate to put an astrix on it.
Look at the context:
You should have said something like:
"That is a tentative finding, but we can go along with this thought experiment for now. You, after all, are a philosopher, no a scientist. Give us some time to hash this out in our field before can have high confidence, but it is valid to suppose this for the purpose of this theological conversation.
You are a friggen scientist with expertise precisely in this area. It is not a fair fight, and he is not even saying anything incorrect. It just needs some carefully worded caveats that he is not likely to come up with on his own. Of course you can crush him in a scientific argument, especially because @AntoineSuarez is going to be differential to your expertise. He is not an anti-evolutionist or an ID advocate. When dealing with non-scientists scholars that are not questioning expertise, be helpful not argumentative. Otherwise you are just going to perpetuate even more confusion.
Yes, the resolution as one goes back in time does get buried in noise. So doesn’t that mean that it is an analysis that doesn’t say much of anything as we know a lot more from the fossil and genomic diversity record. Why is this computational analysis needed at all? To see if we can find two characters in a mythological story ever existed?
It’s the only thing that can tell us much about ancient population sizes. And I believe the point here was to determine if those two characters can be ruled out. Turns out that they can be ruled out if you assume they were more recent than 700,000 years ago, but not if they were older than that (though the MHC alleles, a separate line of investigation, rule them out completely). The fossil record can tell us nothing about this. The genomic diversity record is exactly what the analysis uses.
Can’t the fossil record combined with genomic diversity tell us a lot about ancient population size as well as migration and population replacement?
The fossil record contributes nothing to that. You would have to assume that population size was reliably proportional to number of fossils preserved and you would further have to assume a proportionality constant, based on…what?