Testing the Genealogical Adam Hypothesis

That isn’t quite right. Even if Adam is a myth, we still think that universal genealogical ancestors appear recently and are undetectable in our genomes. Hmm…

1 Like

And my grandmother’s story can still be true?:sunglasses:

1 Like

It wasn’t obvious to you that a given ancestor is unlikely to contribute genetically to his descendants after a fairly small number of generations?

It also depends on whether you agree that scripture is evidence.

Not when I started looking into it. Qualitatively, that seemed likely, but I didn’t have the quantitative case worked out. I did not know at what point in history it would all wash out.

I’m perfectly fine to leave Scritpure out of the discussion in science. It need not be evidence. Outside science, however, is another story.

It all depends on faith, which is not something one can argue against.

1 Like

I’m baffled by this. What makes you think that all would be traceable to a man who lived “within a one hundred kilometers radius of present day Israel”? The Bible makes no claims about HAADAM (“the human one”) living near Israel—let alone within a hundred kilometers radius.


I think every now and then, it seems like @patrick panics, wonders if he has Stockholm syndrome, and searches frantically for a way out of the cognitive dissonance by exposing all the scientific errors that must be riddling a Christian understanding of origins. This, it appears, has happened more than once. It usually wears off after a day or too, once it is clear that (just like the last time) there were not scientific errors. These episodes are becoming part of his charm. :sunglasses:


It ought to be part of this discussion to remind folks that @swamidass 's interest and reputation in this subject has been to correct the erroneous and unsustainably sweeping assertions made by some who have, indeed, committed the kind of “category error” he refers to by equating the genetic notions of Yadam and Meve with the identity of the (putatively --I say this this way because science --at least, yet --cannot precisely settle this question) “historical” figures of Adam and Eve, and then the enterprise of trying to date them definitively OR deny their existence altogether, OR to try to establish them as the first human beings ever.
The text of the Bible makes no such specific claims about Adam and Eve, and that is a concern only to those who respect the biblical text vis-a-vis the supposedly “magisterial” counterclaims of certain opposing scientists.
No mere genetic analysis will ever fully elucidate the question of the dating, location, or means of assembling the first historical living cell on earth, either.
The analogy fits, and ought to remind us all that to undertake such investigations is not a fools errand, nor a waste of effort, depending upon what particular metatheses one is exploring.
My two cents.


What the GA hypothesis and analysis HAS shown, positively, instead, is that the notion of a biblical Adam and Eve playing an important role as genealogical ancestors of all of humanity current at the time of the writing of the New Testament, and current now, is plausible from even as little as six thousand years ago, rendering the conjectural cases for their existence and antiquity in the historical record as NOT INCONSISTENT WITH a rigorous scientific perspective.
This excites YEC’s, relaxes OEC’s, annoys some kinds of TE’s, and befuddles or amuses agnostics, while driving some atheists into temporary episodes of what seems like Stockholm Syndrome, from which they soon recover.
Welcome to the peculiar charm of Peaceful Science!


Did you just wake up from a 3 month nap? Genealogy is testable… just not by means of genetics.

Not past 15 generations in the past. A GA cannot be disproven with genetics, but genetics can produce evidence for interbreeding that makes a GA certain.

1 Like

Not really. I am beginning to see that GA is just a contrived model to keep Adam and Eve invisible to science.
With all of the advances in genomic sequencing of today’s people and ancient fossils, some from the region and time period that Genesis was written, you instead make up a genealogical model that you show is invisible to inquiry and evidence. How convenient.
At least @Alice_Linsley came up with a model for Adam and Eve that was testable and falsifiable by anthropology.

GA is not a single unique person, there could be many GAs. Your GA is ethereal. A probability in a mathematical calculation where the parameters are specifically chosen to yield an invisible person who supposedly caused wonderful things to happen to mankind but nothing detectable in mankind’s genome, mankind’s behavior nor technology. It is just a made up story about a character in a made up story like King Arthur and Merlin.

Fine, outline the tests that will pin point Adam to a specific place and time. There has to be some evidence for this special created grown man without parents to walk out of a climate control hidden garden and become the GA of the entire seven billion of us.

No, there doesn’t. What evidence could there possibly be? And it’s not “the GA”, it’s “a GA”. You have lots of GAs in the population of 6000 years ago. I can’t see how you would identify any of them. What do you even mean by “identify”?

1 Like


Genealogy is not INFINITELY testable.

It cant produce the information you specify. And i think it is odd that you tbink it could!

But computer simulations can demonstrate/predict the min avg time it takes for a singled mated pair to co-opt an entire population.

I may not have a lot of sophistication about things, but when i read a passage of Scripture that says that Eve was called Eve because she was the mother of all the living, (Gen 3:20)and i then review what Hebrew idea of “Eve” is about, im kinda left w the impression that Eve was the second human to have ever existed as accurately recorded in history from which came all other people.

1 Like

There can’t be any evidence because the model is specially formulated to hide all the evidence. Of course, it is quite obvious that all human beings had GAs. @swamidass is anointing one of those real historical people (who certainly all had parents) to have been made special by his chosen creator God with some kind of magical properties like immoral souls, proper morality, and eternal life which the world hadn’t seen up to that point. This special person goes on to be the originator of God’s CHOSEN PEOPLE. Now what can possible go wrong with that once the general population and Fox News hears about this tenured evolutionary scientist professor/MD from a premier secular university pushing it?

A very bad way to put it. How can you hide evidence for something for which there can’t be any evidence?


Adam’s claim for Eve to have been the “mother of all living” must be held in tension against God’s assessment that Adam and Eve had, instead, become dead to Him. You don’t take the pronouncements of human beings, when they contradict God, as definitive or even accurate --only indicative of their state of mind and, frankly, ignorance. Not many pick up on the ironic counterclaim Adam is making, vis-a-vis God’s purposes.
Your thoughts, @jongarvey ?