Story Three: Recent Sole-Genealogical Progenitor Adam


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #1

This thread is to discuss the recent sole-genealogical progenitor Adam. This includes models put forward by @jongarvey, @Revealed_Cosmology, and @swamidass.

The third story is the most surprising, and it is about sole-genealogical progenitorship (discussion). As recently as 6,000 years ago, Adam and Eve could have been created de novo, in the Middle East, ancestors of us all. Their offspring, however, would have interbred extensively with those outside the The Garden. This is The Genealogical Adam we have been putting forward for over a year now.

The Three Stories are discussed separately on these threads:

  1. Story One: Ancient Sole-Genetic Progenitor Adam
  2. Story Two: Genetic-Interbreeding Adam
  3. Story Three: Recent Sole-Genealogical Progenitor Adam

Three Stories on Adam
Greg Cootsona: "Mere Science" and Adam's Empty Chair
Story Two: Genetic-Interbreeding Adam
Story One: Ancient Sole-Genetic Progenitor Adam
Adventures in New Places —Ann Gauger on the Dabar Conference
(Mark M Moore) #2

The Christ-centered model (the Revealed Cosmology) which I support is laid out on the thread below, unfortunately by means of videos.

Key points about the model as it applies to humanity:

  1. Telescoping reading of Genesis 1 and 2 where the first account is mostly about the population outside the garden but mentions Adam and the second account zooms in on Adam’s story only referencing the population outside the garden obliquely and that after the fall. Neither is mentioned in great detail in the first account because its all of creation’s history in one chapter. This also serves to hide, for a time, the mystery of Christ in the text. Adam on earth is but a copy of the pre-incarnate Christ in high heaven.

  2. Adam’s biblical role is not to be the progenitor of the human race, but a figure of Christ (Rom. 5:14). He is created to be a representative for the race as it comes time for God to progressively reveal Himself to His creation and move mankind from innocence to accountability. He was given ultimate “privilege” to give mankind the best possible chance.

  3. Adam is specially created fairly recently (~ 13.4K years ago using a ‘long’ way to read the genealogies without gaps in time) though adam the race (humanity) is much older. They too are specially created in some way that animals are not, though we do not have as much detail on that.

  4. Mankind was in a state of innocence, not sinless perfection, before the creation/formation of Adam. Physical death after a long and happy life was not meant to be part of a curse but more like a graduation to the Land Above. Agree with Martin Luther than not even Adam was immortal without access to the Tree of Life.

  5. All of mankind’s eyes were opened that they had been sinning against God. Until that point they had been living in innocence with no “thou shalt nots” to convict them and no self-awareness to do so either. Once mankind is able to “know good and evil” for himself he discovers that he is evil! He is condemned even before the law of Moses.

  6. Physical inheritance from Adam is not how Original Sin spread. Rather death spread “because all sinned” (Rom 5:12) and after they knew it there was separation from God (death). Nevertheless GA is likely true as a physical event- by now Adam is somewhere in everyone’s family true. Note: the timeline of this model permits this but the YE timeline does not once you factor in the flood reducing Adam’s line to three males much more recently.

  7. The animals formed in chapter two were only a small subset of those formed in chapter one, mostly versions of animals important to a farming life-style.

  8. The descendants of Adam who were meant to help reconcile the earth to God instead hasten its ruin, so the LORD determines to use the earth to ruin them. The flood was not targeted at all the animals and people in from chapter 1, but the more limited set in chapter 2.

  9. Since wiping out the line of Messiah would mean that the earth would ultimately perish and go to ruin, never to be reconciled to God, this was a local flood with global consequences, and the language of God reflects that. Though I don’t see the necessity for GA to spread sin nature, the date for the flood is still sufficiently remote in this model (but not in the Ussher timeline) so that the family tree of Adam still has time to spread to every people group.

  10. Early Genesis is a result of a modified version of the tablet theory, and some of the description of the flood is from the perspective of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. It is not God speaking.

  11. The text indicates that other human groups did not perish in the flood. There were already other people there when some of the clans of Noah came out of the hills and “found a plain in the land of Shinar”.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #3

I think we need to start calling this the @Revealed_Cosmology model.


(Mark M Moore) #4

That’s less objectionable to me than putting my actual name on it. Functionally, it is Christ-centered though.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #5

However, it is not THE (as in only or first) Christ-centered model. Please change the OP. You can say things like,

the @Revealed_Cosmology model I’m putting forward is Christ-centered, by which I mean…


(Mark M Moore) #6

I am honestly not aware of any other model that starts with the assumption that you have to look at the material through the lens of Christ, as if its all pointing to Christ, to make sense of early Genesis. Nevertheless I believe you are sincerely trying to help me when I suggest that I rename my model. In the same way, I am sincerely trying to help you when I suggest, regarding “Genealogical Adam”, that you quit using the phrase “sole ancestor” or “sole genealogical ancestor or progenitor” of humanity to describe Adam when what you are really describing is a situation in which he is A universal ancestor or progenitor.

How about we let each of us help the other, and we each try doing what the other suggests? I will start labeling my model as you suggest and you start labeling Adam’s ancestry as I suggest? Deal?


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #7

Sorry, I can’t take that deal. There are reasons why I’m using that term. Do you remember what they are? Do you remember the definition of the term? Unless you can show me why I am wrong there you are going to have a real problem.

The renaming I’m suggesting the change for you is because their are other Christ centered models in the mix. Some of them have even been described here, and you missed them. That name is going to grate on others because of that. You do not have THE Christ-centered model, but A Christ-centered model. In the same way, I’m putting forward A Genealogical Adam model, not THE Genealogical Adam model.


(Mark M Moore) #8

I do. Some obscure people from 500 years ago who had different ideas from you about the state of the humanity of the population outside the garden used the term “sole progenitor” the way you do. And what you mean by “sole progenitor” or ancestor is that Adam is the sole source for our falleness, or spread of original sin, or spiritual dark energy or whatever one wants to call it. And that would clarify things too if you would add some sort of qualifier like that. Its just when you call it “Genealogical Adam” and then say Adam was the “sole” genealogical ancestor or progenitor of mankind without any other qualifiers then its only natural for people to not catch that you mean only in the sense of falleness or whatever you wish to call this trait.

I guess I have. Perhaps a link to where they have been discussed here would set me straight. I am considering the change along the lines you suggest even if you are not going to heed what I suggest and that would help me sort through this.


(George) #9

@Revealed_Cosmology

A clarification please:

Do you mean you would like Joshua to use the phrase “Adam and Eve are ONE of our Universal Progenitors” ???


(Mark M Moore) #10

It doesn’t matter- he does not want to do that so that is his business. There are many ways he could phrase it which would clarify this issue and I don’t care which way of doing so he chooses. But its a moot point. The only issue I see on this thread is whether I am going to adjust the name of my model and @swamidass can help me decide to do that by showing a link to what he mentioned- the OTHER models which are similarly Christ-centered have that already been discussed here.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #11

That is not true. They did not say “sole-genealogical progenitor”.

I do. The qualifier is “sole-genealogical progenitor”. This also is consistent with Kemp’s usage of the term “monogenesis.” I also demonstrate how this is the the meaning of sole-progenitor most consistent with their understanding. This is dealt with head-on in the book. So give me time on this.


(Mark M Moore) #12

But that’s what I am saying. That term suggests that Adam is at the root of every family tree rather than being now intermingled into every family tree. “Sole” means only, yet you are not saying that all the other lines around prior to Adam have died off. They contributed too. In many if not most cases those earlier men contributed to more slots in the family tree of many families than Adam did. So “universal progenitor” fits better.

I am not saying this to “call you out” or rush you. I am saying this to help you. I have already seen how smart people have misunderstood your work because of this very issue, and I know that bothers you.

Take all the time you are given on this rock, or never do it at all. I will quit mentioning it and wait to read your book. In the mean time, if you are able to show me a link from other threads on this forum where the other “Christ-centered” models are discussed, that would help me decide to take your advice to me.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #13

@Revealed_Cosmology do you know why I think that misunderstanding is good? And why I am doing it this way?


(Mark M Moore) #14

Nupe.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #15

So that is the heart of it. That is why we are disagreeing.


(Mark M Moore) #16

Its possible. I am not much for maneuvering. More of a straight-at-ya kind of guy who counts on others perceiving my invincible good will even when I am pointing out the issues everyone is trying to ignore.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #17

I’m not ignoring what you are seeing. I’m just saying what you are seeing is good, not bad. Next time you see someone confused, tell them that:

  1. They really need to get a good handle on genetic vs. genealogical.
  2. Read the definition I’m giving for genealogical sole-progenitorship.
  3. Engage my argument for why that is the traditional definition of sole-progenitorship.

Even if they disagree, they will have concede the definition of sole-progenitor is more debatable than they had thought before. That is a key point I am making, that is critical not to abandon.

All this is somewhat out in public already. We can go deeper as it arises. Wait for people to be confused, and take them through those steps.


(Mark M Moore) #18

And will I see why when your book finally gets here?


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #19

Look how this played out with @Kathryn_Applegate’s article. https://biologos.org/blogs/kathryn-applegate-endless-forms-most-beautiful/why-i-think-adam-was-a-real-person-in-history After discussion with me, she agreed to this language and added it to the footnotes:

By “sole progenitors” I mean the idea that Adam and Eve were the only two people from whom all other people descended. Swamidass defines “human” and “sole progenitorship” differently; see Peaceful Science for his view. There is legitimate ambiguity both scientifically and theologically over how to define these terms.

That text is very important. Not everyone has to agree with me, but it is critical to unsettle the notion that sole-progenitorship must mean genetic. That is just false. It is to @Kathryn_Applegate’s credit that she is acknowledging ambiguity here. There is legitimate differences on these terms.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #20

If you look in the comments to this article, you will find this definition of the “Traditional” meaning of sole-progenitorship, which is understood by the writer to be in conflict with a Genealogical Adam:

I was referring to the idea that Adam and Eve were the first couple from whom all humans biologically descend. The traditional understanding of “sole progenitor.”

Note, this definition of sole-progenitor is the way how it is traditionally understood, and also it is not in conflict with a Genealogical Adam. There is major confusion about what exactly the meaning of the term is. People think they know what it means, but then they go on to say contradictory things.