This thread is to discuss the recent sole-genealogical progenitor Adam. This includes models put forward by @jongarvey, @anon46279830, 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.
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.
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.
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.
That is not true. They did not say “sole-DNA 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.
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.
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.
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:
They really need to get a good handle on genetic vs. genealogical.
Read the definition I’m giving for genealogical sole-progenitorship.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed; as hard to understand as it may seem, some level of ambiguity, which is on the advocate’s part, a willing tentativity, is what allows for folks to discover the truth in dialogue… it would seem as though that is how God prefers it, so we get beyond “right versus wrong” to “how much versus how little.” My two cents.
Shared understanding is always a moving target.
@swamidass, I have not agreed with your definitions of sole genetic progenitor as you know. It’s not my term. But I am still looking for another.
Now I think the use of sole genealogical progenitor is misleading too.As I understand your model and genealogy, there is no sole genealogical progenitor. By definition, we all have many genealogical ancestors. So the name would need to be sole Adamic genealogical progenitor (SAGP) or genealogical Adamic sole progenitor (GASP). Or GASPs if you include Eve.
That is not the model. Would it be helpful sometime to explain this? In the Genealogical Adam there is a single specific sole-progenitor couple: Adam and Eve.