The genetic implications of GAE

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

I reject the idea of any kind of humans, pre-humans, or human-like creatures outside the Garden.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@PDPrice

Well, according to my Bible, A&E are the original biological humans. The text is referring to actual, biological human beings, distinct from animals.

@John_Harshman

I merely point out that @gbrooks9’s idea of the argument is wrong.

Your idea of the argument is also wrong, but in a different way. In the main hypothesis of the GAE, Adam and Eve are created de novo as per Genesis 2, while the people outside the garden, all just as biologically human as A&E and all Homo sapiens , are an evolved population as in the mainstream scientific position. If you want to disagree, at least disagree with the actual claim.

@PDPrice

Interesting, yes? I heard that Harshman manages to assert that I am wrong, and that you are wrong, and then concludes by stating a version of the claim that I agree with completely.

So don’t expect me to explain why he thinks my idea of the argument is wrong.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@PDPrice

Please correct if I’m wrong: the GAE hypothesis suggests that all life was produced by undirected (as in, not supernaturally caused) naturalistic means, with the exception of humans , who were a direct miraculous creation of God.

Hi PD
The GAE by @swamidass is an alternative model where special creation and evolution are not in conflict. It is not very specific on how much evolution explains diversity. Unguided evolution, special creation and guided evolution all can work with the model.

Given where we are in understanding Biology at this point I think discussing multiple models makes lots of sense. I am not a YEC yet I really appreciate your thoughts and contributions. I also think Nathaniel Jeanson has provided some interesting evidence.

The very positive aspect of the model is it invites discussion.

[John_Harshman]

@gbrooks9

I heard that Harshman manages to assert that I am wrong, and that you are wrong, and then concludes by stating a version of the claim that I agree with completely.

Your confusion is on display, but can’t easily be communicated to you, especially since you aren’t reading this.

[John_Harshman]

No problem. But that’s what you should be arguing about, not your original complaint.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@PDPrice

No I have not read the book. Based on what is being said here, however, it would seem to be promoting a tautology: If God ‘made’ Adam and Eve in such a way as to be exactly like those things which evolved, then Adam and Eve’s existence would be compatible with evolution.

@PDPrice

Let me offer one scenario that will help you grasp the nuances a little better:

1. God has a standard around which he will build the human race. This would be the standard used for the creation of Adam and Eve.

2. This same standard, on average, is what God would be using for evolving the pre-Adam population of humanity over the course of eons.

3. A comparison of the Adam/Eve genome to the genome of the pre-Adam population would find them to be indistinguishable.

Summation: If God can quickly create humans through special creation, God can certainly accomplish the same thing more slowly through designed evolution!

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@gbrooks9

Summation: If God can quickly create humans through special creation, God can certainly accomplish the same thing more slowly through designed evolution!

That was never in question. Of course an omnipotent god could do that.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@PDPrice

That was never in question. Of course an omnipotent god could do that.

@PDPrice

And that is why GAE is not invoking a Tautology about what is Human. Both the evolved humans and the specially-created humans are made to a single standard: God’s standard.

[Mark10.45 (Mark McGowan)]

@PDPrice

I reject the idea of any kind of humans, pre-humans, or human-like creatures outside the Garden.

With respect, this is an honest question…why?

Genesis 1 creation of humans seems separate to me with Genesis 2 creation of Adam and Eve a different (similar) creation that received the “breath” of life from God directly. The Genesis 1 humans did not receive the breath of life, so I interpret that distinction as a special relationship to God, that A&E received the Spirit of God and were the first of His chosen people that would ultimately be the ancestors of Christ, who would then bring salvation to humanity.

So, my question is specifically how do you interpret the two separate accounts of human creation in Genesis 1 & 2?

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@Mark10.45

So, my question is specifically how do you interpret the two separate accounts of human creation in Genesis 1 & 2?

Genesis 1 gives us a general overview of Creation Week. Genesis 2 homes in on the creation of humans specifically in greater detail. These are not contradictory accounts, nor are the referencing different events.

Genesis contradictions?