I am trying to clarify the original meaning of the word in light of theological concerns that originally motivated it. Theology has consistently used this term differently than biologists.
Biologists donāt use the term at all. What you are talking about has nothing to do with biology. I just think you need a term that clearly suggests what itās supposed to mean. What is it supposed to mean?
2 Likes
Genealogical descent from a single couple, allowing for interbreeding with other lines.
Yeah, thatās not sole anything. Itās genealogical descent from many couples, with one couple for some reason identified as special. And I donāt think you have managed to arrive at your real definition unless it includes what makes the single couple special.
It certainly does include making a single couple special. Iāve been stating that over and overā¦
But you havenāt made it part of your definition. The term does not clearly describe what youāre talking about, nor does your definition. You need to be clear in both cases. Start over: exactly what are you trying to describe by the term you choose? Then we can start thinking about what that term should be.
I do believe it was in the definition that you first rejected. Iāve written many times
if a particular couple has special Theological status (such as original sin) that is acquired exclusively by genealogical descent from them, then they would be our sole genealogical ancestors, but not our genetic ancestors.
Seems we have come full circle.
Yes, that definition does not mean anything like what the words āsole genealogical ancestorā convey. That makes them one couple of a great many genealogical ancestors. As you yourself have shown, genealogical ancestors are a superset of genetic ancestors, not a subset. āSole theological ancestorsā is better, but itās still ambiguous. What does ātheologicalā mean in that term? Better to communicate the actual intent by putting the particular special status ā whether you intend that as original sin or something else, but some specific something else ā into the term.
There is only ONE thing that Adam/Eve has that cant be replaced: the Evangelical view that they carried the nugget of Original Sinā¦ and thats all.
Sole-Progenitorship of Moral Agencyā¦ or of Sinful Agency.
Or the Sole-Progenitorship of Moral Corruption.
If you dont restrict the meaning down to the specificsā¦ you arent going to get the response you are looking for!
Have you tested how long it would take for God to eliminate all non-Adam lines if a populationof 10,000 was to to 100% co-opt the the descendants of the 10,000ā¦ with absolutely only ONE universal couple?
The point of the test is to see if a 100% contrived scenario could accomplish tge desired genealogical monopoly?
If the test shows that it could/canā¦ then at the very least, it is an available option!
But in that case (in all cases, actually) a genealogical monopoly would also be a genetic monopoly, and you are left with the sole genetic descent problem.
I thought i was aware of virtually ALL the problems. What would be the Sole Genetic problem?
The problem is that the human genome doesnāt coalesce to a single person or to two people. Thereās another problem of getting observed genetic diversity in the population. And a third problem of the various archaic components of some human genomes.
I hadnt thought of thatā¦ you are right. Adam and Eve have to remain āOne of Manyā universal couples!