Bioinformatics

[Faith.Man]

An article by Dr. Patricia Fanning on Reasons to Believe, Dr. Hugh Ross' website.

Bioinformatics and a Literal Adam and Eve | Reasons To Believe

 

[Papias]

There are so many things wrong in the article that it is hard to know where to start.

First of all, many theistic evolution supporters - and certainly the largest churches that support theistic evolution - do indeed agree with the idea of a literal Adam. I've lost count of how many times I've described this.

The real, literal, historical, single, human Adam was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today – he was the first to whom God divinely gave a soul. Understanding how populations interbreed makes it obvious that all humans today are descended from him. Original sin did enter the human race though him, because he was the first to be divinely given a soul by God, and perhaps to be developed to the point of being able to conceptualize God, and hence to be able to rebel against God. The idea of Adam as a real, single, historical person, who brought about original sin, and who is the literal ancestor of all humans alive today, is fully compatible with, and an important part, for some, of theistic evolution.

Remember that there is variation, and that mutations are in individuals before they spread to the rest of the tribe. So as the whole community gradually evolves from ape to human, whatever arbitrary characteristic is used to define "being human", one individual will be the first to cross that line – including a line of “God divinely creating a soul” in one. Of course, all humans will be descended from him, just as they are all descended from others as well. Think of that mayflower club, which only allows members who are descended from the few people who came over from Europe on the mayflower. That club today has thousands of members, and in a few thousand years or so, literally everyone on earth will be descended from those on the mayflower. The same holds true for an individual, so long as they have a few kids. Thus, if you have a few kids, it is very likely that in a few thousand years, literally everyone on earth will be descended from you as well. It's all a mix. So, coupling that with the thing above about the literal Adam, it all works well.

Second, by showing that he doesn't understand that a single Adam can be consistent with a large (non-human) population, he shows that he simply doesn't understand the simple math of how populations work.

Third, he (she) repeats the all too common creationist canard (or intentional misunderstanding) that there is a divide between "theory" and "fact". Actually, many things, such as germs, atoms, evolution, and gravity, are both theories and facts. That alone tells us that as far as science goes, she doesn't know what she is talking about. Does it say anywhere what her degree is in? If you look over the website, you'll see that they are criticizing biological evolution without having a background in biology. That's like Joe the Plumber giving you legal advice - one would be a fool to give him the time of day.

The most important point, I think, is the idea that he (she) is ignorant of the fact that literally millions of Christias support the idea of a literal, single, historical Adam (including the Pope) as part of theistic evolution in a way that is completely consistent with all that science has shown us about God's creation.

Papias

 

[sfs]

The article said very little, and the little that it did say about why science rejects a single originating pair for our species(*) was wrong. The main arguments seem to be that scientists don't always understand the software they're running, and that phylogenetic trees are not completely reliable. Both are true, and both are irrelevant. Most studies about the size of our ancestral population have used software specially written for that purpose by those carrying out the study. More importantly, the studies do not use phylogenetic methods. So what the heck was the point of this piece?


(*) As Papias notes, concluding that our ancestral population was fairly large need not imply that Adam and Eve were not historical individuals.