Reconciling Adam and Eve with Evolution

[Resha Caner]

Oops. Pilot error.

 

[Sine Nomine]

By "honest" I meant an honest reading. I wasn't suggesting any particular conclusion - mine or otherwise - other than to say I didn't see how the idea of the OP fits. One can think whatever one wants - speculate until content - but at the end of the day if it doesn't fit with Genesis it shouldn't be called a Biblical view.

So, by "honest" I was referring to maintaining as much objectivity as possible - in the sense of reading Genesis without assuming it must be either strictly literal or strictly allegorical. I was referring to approaching Genesis with a heart bent on knowing God's intent in this text - without fear of criticisms stemming from the world's scientific claims and without surrendering to theological constructs likely invented after the fact.

With that in mind, I have no qualms confessing my own view of Genesis as history - which admits both elements of the literal, the allegorical, and more. However, even if I were to consent (for the sake of discussion) to only allegorical considerations, I would still think the OP has problems in fitting with the text.

I'm not personally insisting on a particular reading, although I do believe there must be an intended reading as we likely agree that Genesis is God's Word. I personally see the universe as also being God's word, not written, but plain enough that all should see His hand and know of Him. Thus, where historical, Genesis must fit with the observable created world. Where allegorical, we learn something of what is beyond the created world.

Whether the OP fits the text depends on what you understand the text to say. Not to put words in their mouth, but I can easily see the main points of Gen 1-2 being:

1. God made all the things we see by his power and all good.
2. God made Mankind to have rule/stewardship over His creation.
3. Man had a relationship with God, but chose his own way over God's.
4. Out of love, God continues to make provision for man, including salvation.

The OP posits that God created through an evolutionary process and that a close relationship begins at a defined historical point with the pair we call A&E. Because Genesis says 'and man became a living soul' they consider this a point of distinction from other humans. Then asks if this is viable.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not personally insisting on a particular reading, although I do believe there must be an intended reading as we likely agree that Genesis is God's Word.

Yes, I would agree with that, and I'm glad you acknowledge an intended meaning.

I personally see the universe as also being God's word, not written, but plain enough that all should see His hand and know of Him. Thus, where historical, Genesis must fit with the observable created world. Where allegorical, we learn something of what is beyond the created world.

Putting a generous light on what you've said, I suppose it is something like that. However, I'll note that Christ is God's Word (John 1:14) and Christ is not the universe (Gen 1:1).

1. God made all the things we see by his power and all good.
2. God made Mankind to have rule/stewardship over His creation.
3. Man had a relationship with God, but chose his own way over God's.
4. Out of love, God continues to make provision for man, including salvation.

Well, that's the problem. When you generalize, you can remove the parts that don't fit.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Putting a generous light on what you've said, I suppose it is something like that. However, I'll note that Christ is God's Word (John 1:14) and Christ is not the universe (Gen 1:1).

Christ is the author of the universe (John 1:3). And the universe testifies to His being and attributes (Rom 1:20). Therefore, like him it must be trustworthy and true and altogether right and good. It does not exist independently of Him (Heb 1:3). This is why general and special revelation cannot conflict. Despite the earth's "four corners" (Is 11:12 and others) and "ends" Deut (33:17 and others), we know the earth to be a sphere. Likewise the sun does not rise or set like the Bible says, it just looks that way.

[/QUOTE]Well, that's the problem. When you generalize, you can remove the parts that don't fit.[/QUOTE]

The issue is about which parts are literal and which are figurative. Jesus said "If your right hand sins, cut it off", yet I know exceedingly few Christians without hands. General revelation has the capacity in some instances to show where figurative language is used. To be literal, you much also account for a plurality of humans being created on Day 6 followed by a special creation of A&E--but because the tradition discounts Gen 1 in favor of Gen 2, no one talks about this.

I'd be curious to know your basis for rejecting the premise in the OP. in this thread I've stated arguments against the OP based on both general and scriptural revelation, but this is not the same as agreeing that the traditional Protestant/medieval Catholic understanding of Genesis is correct concerning specifics of creation.

 

[Resha Caner]

Christ is the author of the universe (John 1:3). And the universe testifies to His being and attributes (Rom 1:20).

Yes and no. John says that everything was made through Christ. Romans says that he can be perceived in the things that were made. You might think I'm nit-picking, but words are important* ... or at least they are to me - my hobby is writing. To say the universe testifies to him is to personify the universe, which is different. The agent is changed from us perceiving it to the universe testifying to us. That is the beginning of pantheism, which I hope you're not suggesting.

*More on the importance of words later.

... general and special revelation cannot conflict.

True.

Despite the earth's "four corners" (Is 11:12 and others) and "ends" Deut (33:17 and others), we know the earth to be a sphere. Likewise the sun does not rise or set like the Bible says, it just looks that way.

This gets tricky. I don't insist on literal interpretations as you're probably used to it, but neither do I take references to four corners or sunrises as total figurative speech. To this day our local weatherman speaks of the sun rising even though I doubt he believes that to be a literal statement and neither do I. But when the weatherman speaks about sunrise I don't sit back and think, "What a lovely allegory. I wonder if he's talking about an inward swelling of my spirit." No. I know him to mean that based on our common reference, darkness will disappear and be replaced by light at a specific time tomorrow. He is referring to a very real historic event.

So, when David writes a psalm, I don't expect him to have what we would consider a perfect scientific understanding of what a sunrise really is. He writes in the vernacular of his time. When God steps in to assist Joshua in battle, I don't expect him to ask Joshua to step aside for a brief cosmology lesson so he'll understand exactly what God is doing in order to eliminate nonsense statements about the sun standing still. Rather, God comes down to Joshua's level and "stops the sun" to aid his battle.

And to this day God is still lowering himself to our level. He overlooks the arrogance of some of our mistaken scientific claims.

The issue is about which parts are literal and which are figurative.

Actually, it's not. IMO those arguing for figurative interpretations are just looking for excuses. You can't randomly choose an object and claim it to be a symbol for whatever you speak of. I can't claim the Confederate battle flag now stands for racial equality ... or for the honor of Caucasian Americans living in the Southern U.S. ... because it doesn't. That's not what that flag means.

The Bible uses symbols in a specific way, and you are playing with fire to suggest they mean things they don't mean. The Word means Christ. Creating from the dust means creating, not procreating. Breathing into Adam's nostrils means humanity has been set apart from other animals by the very indwelling of God's spirit. It doesn't mean anything else. And all of that refers to a specific historic event where God interacted with this world.

Are those the exact details of how he did it? Probably not. The language is picturesque. Were it to be a scientific treatise, it would have been written much differently. But that doesn't mean the whole story is allegory only.

Moses was intelligent enough - and the idea of animals merging and changing is an ancient enough idea - that if God had sat in his recliner waiting for man to evolve, he could have easily indicated that in a way Moses could understand through the use of different words and symbols: e.g. And on the fifth day the fish came up out of the waters and crawled upon the land.

I'd be curious to know your basis for rejecting the premise in the OP.

Though originally I phrased it as a question, I think I've said. It doesn't fit with what the text is saying. And I think I've added significant detail to that in the preceding sections. But I'm willing to discuss it more if something is not clear to you.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Yes and no. John says that everything was made through Christ. Romans says that he can be perceived in the things that were made. You might think I'm nit-picking, but words are important* ... or at least they are to me - my hobby is writing. To say the universe testifies to him is to personify the universe, which is different. The agent is changed from us perceiving it to the universe testifying to us. That is the beginning of pantheism, which I hope you're not suggesting.

Psalm 19 and 97 speak of the heavens as telling, proclaiming, declaring--much as a masterful work of art declares something of its maker. So the universe, though not a person, indeed testifies. God frequently points to the creation to declare himself.

This gets tricky. I don't insist on literal interpretations as you're probably used to it, but neither do I take references to four corners or sunrises as total figurative speech. To this day our local weatherman speaks of the sun rising even though I doubt he believes that to be a literal statement and neither do I. But when the weatherman speaks about sunrise I don't sit back and think, "What a lovely allegory. I wonder if he's talking about an inward swelling of my spirit." No. I know him to mean that based on our common reference, darkness will disappear and be replaced by light at a specific time tomorrow. He is referring to a very real historic event.

Figurative does not require allegory or symbolism, although these are examples of figurative speech. The weather man understands the reality, but uses figurative language--our idiom if you will, to communicate. Figurative also does not mean wrong, but will be wrong if taken literally. My love is not actually a red, red, rose--but the words convey a truth nonetheless. One example of a non-allegorical, non-symbolic form is the parable. Although these can have allegorical elements.

So, when David writes a psalm, I don't expect him to have what we would consider a perfect scientific understanding of what a sunrise really is. He writes in the vernacular of his time. When God steps in to assist Joshua in battle, I don't expect him to ask Joshua to step aside for a brief cosmology lesson so he'll understand exactly what God is doing in order to eliminate nonsense statements about the sun standing still. Rather, God comes down to Joshua's level and "stops the sun" to aid his battle.

It's good that you don't expect scientific exactitude from the Bible, that is not its purpose. The question about Joshua's long day is whether the earth stopped spinning and then resumed or is there another understanding? Christian astrophysicists have considered a flipping of the poles or a wobble in the earth's rotation might explain this, but they know that a cessation of rotation would have been calamitous.

And to this day God is still lowering himself to our level. He overlooks the arrogance of some of our mistaken scientific claims.

This and your comments above sound like an accommodative position. God accommodates his language to our limited understanding. By 'mistaken scientific claims' do you mean evolution? What specifically do you think is mistaken about its claims? There is quite a lot of misunderstanding about what the science actually says and what it does not.

Actually, it's not. IMO those arguing for figurative interpretations are just looking for excuses. You can't randomly choose an object and claim it to be a symbol for whatever you speak of. I can't claim the Confederate battle flag now stands for racial equality ... or for the honor of Caucasian Americans living in the Southern U.S. ... because it doesn't. That's not what that flag means.

The Bible uses symbols in a specific way, and you are playing with fire to suggest they mean things they don't mean. The Word means Christ. Creating from the dust means creating, not procreating. Breathing into Adam's nostrils means humanity has been set apart from other animals by the very indwelling of God's spirit. It doesn't mean anything else. And all of that refers to a specific historic event where God interacted with this world.

Are those the exact details of how he did it? Probably not. The language is picturesque. Were it to be a scientific treatise, it would have been written much differently. But that doesn't mean the whole story is allegory only.

Moses was intelligent enough - and the idea of animals merging and changing is an ancient enough idea - that if God had sat in his recliner waiting for man to evolve, he could have easily indicated that in a way Moses could understand through the use of different words and symbols: e.g. And on the fifth day the fish came up out of the waters and crawled upon the land.

I assure you, I am not at all interested in excuses. Nor do I presume to know precisely what certain texts mean. While I believe that Word frequently refers to Christ, especially in John, I suspect if refers more often to communication from God in the prophets--although there are instances where indeed Christ personally is communicating. I am also very concerned with words and their meanings. We have a translation of Hebrew and Greek into English. The words that get translated 'bring forth' and 'create' in Genesis do not necessitate a spontaneous process. Some of the language is actually more specifically indicating a process using preexisting material. We are all formed of exactly the same dust as every other living thing. Regarding God's breath into A&E, I don't see what other interpretation there could be. The OP seems to think essentially the same.

Again, I don't expect a scientific treatise--in fact I think the bible is explicitly not a scientific treatise, rather testimony to God's saving work in Christ.

I see that you think that Genesis was written by Moses. The Bible doesn't claim this perspective. But it doesn't really matter if he did or not, just because God could have provided a more accurate description to satisfy scientists (or literalists), doesn't require him to do so.

Though originally I phrased it as a question, I think I've said. It doesn't fit with what the text is saying. And I think I've added significant detail to that in the preceding sections. But I'm willing to discuss it more if something is not clear to you.

Does it fit with what the text means? The biological data is inconsistent with an initial pair of humans no matter how ancient they are. thus, as in the OP it makes sense that A&E are special and we agree that God's spirit/breath indicates that specialness. Arguing that the OP should be rejected because it doesn't fit the text should include the specific ways in which the text doesn't fit. Rejecting either the biological facts or the text itself is simply a non-starter for any conversation.

 

[Resha Caner]

Psalm 19 and 97 speak of the heavens as telling, proclaiming, declaring--much as a masterful work of art declares something of its maker. So the universe, though not a person, indeed testifies. God frequently points to the creation to declare himself.

We're straying from the context in which I made the statement. My comment only referred to your interpretation of Romans 1:20, and that only because it seemed to me your reference to the universe as God's word was an improper use of Biblical symbolism. I realize personifications occur elsewhere, but they must be kept in their proper context.

And yes, uses of "word" in the OT often refer to God's message delivered through the prophets. But since Christ is God, and Christ is the Word, it is all connected. The modern age has somewhat lost the sense of wonder surrounding the idea of words, and that is too bad. Think about it. Words are delivered by the breath (which in Hebrew is ruach - the same word used for "spirit"), and that breath is formed by the throat (which in Hebrew is nephesh - the same word used for "soul").

It's good that you don't expect scientific exactitude from the Bible, that is not its purpose.

Your reference to idiom is fitting, and that is about as far as I would go. God may use idiom, and people in the Bible may have expressed mistaken ideas about physics, but I don't believe God's accommodations amount to lies. Accommodating someone with lesser understanding does not require misrepresenting.

Per the example of sunrise, I've seen people sneer because they have been enlightened that the earth goes round the sun, not the sun round the earth. That is a somewhat mistaken idea. While it is the most parsimonious explanation, the motion of bodies in space is much more complex than that ... to the point that current science postulates no fixed point at all. All motion is expressed as relative motion. Therefore, to speak of the motion of the sun relative to the earth is actually perfectly acceptable. The error would be to make a scientific claim that the earth is fixed at the center of the universe. Given all the use of idiom, I don't see that the Bible is ever making such a claim.

By 'mistaken scientific claims' do you mean evolution? What specifically do you think is mistaken about its claims?

I'm not interested in going there. But if you really want me to answer I will.

I see that you think that Genesis was written by Moses. The Bible doesn't claim this perspective.

You're right that there is a sense in which it doesn't matter if Moses wrote Genesis. But don't be too quick to state the Bible makes no such claim. The first 5 books - the Pentateuch - are referred to as the Books of Moses, and the Bible uses that term (e.g. Nehemiah 13:1). The gospel of John refers to giving the law to Moses (John 1:17), which at the very least means Deuteronomy. If Moses wrote Deuteronomy, who came before him to write the rest? It would seem no one, because in Luke 24:27, when Jesus teaches from the beginning, he starts with Moses. I see no reason to think he didn't write it. Maybe he collected from prior sources rather than actually writing it word for word from a voice in his head, but it seems most likely he is the one who put pen to paper.

So, it's not important in the sense that the Bible's veracity depends on God and not on Moses. But if the Bible is actually claiming Moses wrote it, it is important to stand by that claim.

Does it fit with what the text means? The biological data is inconsistent with an initial pair of humans no matter how ancient they are.

Current biological theory is inconsistent with an honest reading of Genesis. That is true. Data is a different matter. Do we have data regarding the first population of organisms modern science would classify as human?

 

[sfs]

Current biological theory is inconsistent with an honest reading of Genesis. That is true. Data is a different matter. Do we have data regarding the first population of organisms modern science would classify as human?

Science doesn't classify organisms as "human"; it's not a scientific category. We have genetic data that shows the human population was larger than a single pair for at least the last half million years or so.

 

[Resha Caner]

Science doesn't classify organisms as "human"; it's not a scientific category. We have genetic data that shows the human population was larger than a single pair for at least the last half million years or so.

Yes, I debated that word. I considered saying "homo sapiens", but then that begs the question of whether homo erectus, etc. had souls. I don't pretend to know the answer to that, so I don't want to get into that debate. Therefore, I chose a more colloquial phrasing. I accept your correction, but hope you understand my intent.

Nor am I YEC, so I'm not bound to 6000 years (or whatever number someone might throw out). So whether it was 6000 years ago or 6 million, there is no data in hand for the first "human" (whatever that might be), and hence no basis for saying the data speaks against a historical Adam and Eve.

 

[ALoveDivine]

To reiterate and perhaps assuage some confusion, my contention is that there was an original pool of anatomically modern homo sapiens, out of whom God chose two, male and female, to enter into covenant with by way of ensoulment via supernatural intervention. This ensoulment marks the demarcation line between merely homo sapien and human.

This view reconciles the scientific evidence of genetics and population studies with the reality of a literal pair of two humans from which all existing humans descend.

 

[Resha Caner]

To reiterate and perhaps assuage some confusion, my contention is that there was an original pool of anatomically modern homo sapiens, out of whom God chose two, male and female, to enter into covenant with by way of ensoulment via supernatural intervention. This ensoulment marks the demarcation line between merely homo sapien and human.

This view reconciles the scientific evidence of genetics and population studies with the reality of a literal pair of two humans from which all existing humans descend.

I understood that. Did you see my question at the beginning of post #18?

 

[ALoveDivine]

Did you see my question at the beginning of post #18?

I missed that, thanks for pointing it out. Yes I do believe this is consistent with an honest reading of Genesis

An "honest" reading need not be a literal reading. It is my view, and also the view of the Catholic Church, that the early chapters of Genesis use figurative language to describe deeper realities. A scientific treatise on biological history would not have served ancient humanity very well, and I do not believe God intended to provide this in Genesis. Is it so unfathomable that God chose to use figurative language to convey spiritual realities, so that all humans, primitive and modern, could understand it?

To take an example of what I'm saying, consider the phrase "from the dust of the ground". This could easily be seen as idiomatic of the idea of emerging from the earth. Just as the church teaches that humans are at once both corporeal and spiritual, this may be a way of explaining the unity of earth and spirit in the human being. Hence us being formed of the "dust of the earth" and yet also having the "breath of life" breathed into us by God. In this I see the corporeal and spiritual united into one being. This is especially clear when, in Genesis 1, we see the phrase "let the earth bring forth" in reference to the animals. I see in this phrase a direct parallel to the phrase "from the dust of the earth".

So an honest but figurative reading of Genesis is fully in accord with modern science. It is only by reading Genesis as literal science and/or history that we find an apparent contradiction. And we know that truth is truth, and that the creation and scripture alike testify to the glory of God, so any apparent contradiction must be ultimately a product of our misunderstanding. Given this, it behooves us as rational and faithful Christians to give serious weight to a figurative reading of the creation accounts in Genesis.

I also found in an earlier post mention of my view allowing the possibility of non-ensouled homo-sapiens existing today. I reject this. A key part of my "hypothesis" is that ALL existing humans are descended from the covenantal pair. Even if some humans share some dna with pre-Adamic homo-sapiens, they also share dna with post-Adamic humans and are therefore also ensouled and covenantal. This view is supported by the scientific notion of "Mitcochondrial Eve" a single woman from whom all humans genetically descend.

 

[Resha Caner]

An "honest" reading need not be a literal reading.

I covered that with Sine Nomine. I'm not insisting on a literal reading. What I mean by "honest" can be found in post #20. In short, figurative language does not allow complete freedom to assume whatever meaning one desires. In describing historic events (since you seem to be promoting a historical Adam and Eve), figurative language does not give God license to misrepresent what he did.

As you note, with each creative event life came from the ground, not from other life. It would have been quite easy for God to relate to Moses if it had been otherwise.

To take an example of what I'm saying, consider the phrase "from the dust of the ground". This could easily be seen as idiomatic of the idea of emerging from the earth. Just as the church teaches that humans are at once both corporeal and spiritual, this may be a way of explaining the unity of earth and spirit in the human being. Hence us being formed of the "dust of the earth" and yet also having the "breath of life" breathed into us by God. In this I see the corporeal and spiritual united into one being. This is especially clear when, in Genesis 1, we see the phrase "let the earth bring forth" in reference to the animals. I see in this phrase a direct parallel to the phrase "from the dust of the earth".

Yes, but does this phrase imply procreation? Consider Genesis 2:18 and 4:1. (edit: I should have mentioned Genesis 1:27-28 as well).

 

[Sine Nomine]

We're straying from the context in which I made the statement. My comment only referred to your interpretation of Romans 1:20, and that only because it seemed to me your reference to the universe as God's word was an improper use of Biblical symbolism. I realize personifications occur elsewhere, but they must be kept in their proper context.

And yes, uses of "word" in the OT often refer to God's message delivered through the prophets. But since Christ is God, and Christ is the Word, it is all connected. The modern age has somewhat lost the sense of wonder surrounding the idea of words, and that is too bad. Think about it. Words are delivered by the breath (which in Hebrew is ruach - the same word used for "spirit"), and that breath is formed by the throat (which in Hebrew is nephesh - the same word used for "soul").

I was not using "biblical symbolism", nor was the universe personified. I simply used figuratively language to relay the same point that David was making, that as the work of the creator, the creation proclaims its maker. Paul also figuratively personifies creation as "longing eagerly".

Your reference to idiom is fitting, and that is about as far as I would go. God may use idiom, and people in the Bible may have expressed mistaken ideas about physics, but I don't believe God's accommodations amount to lies. Accommodating someone with lesser understanding does not require misrepresenting.

Per the example of sunrise, I've seen people sneer because they have been enlightened that the earth goes round the sun, not the sun round the earth. That is a somewhat mistaken idea. While it is the most parsimonious explanation, the motion of bodies in space is much more complex than that ... to the point that current science postulates no fixed point at all. All motion is expressed as relative motion. Therefore, to speak of the motion of the sun relative to the earth is actually perfectly acceptable. The error would be to make a scientific claim that the earth is fixed at the center of the universe. Given all the use of idiom, I don't see that the Bible is ever making such a claim.

I do not think that God is lying in the Bible. The point I was making was about the use of figurative language (i.e. language that communicates its point without having the literal sense of the text itself) and the need for anyone reading the Bible to distinguish between what they believe can (and should) be taken literally versus what cannot (and should not) be taken literally. If one reads all of Genesis literally, plainly, without any figurative language, then the biological data is a big problem for them.

You're right that there is a sense in which it doesn't matter if Moses wrote Genesis. But don't be too quick to state the Bible makes no such claim. The first 5 books - the Pentateuch - are referred to as the Books of Moses, and the Bible uses that term (e.g. Nehemiah 13:1). The gospel of John refers to giving the law to Moses (John 1:17), which at the very least means Deuteronomy. If Moses wrote Deuteronomy, who came before him to write the rest? It would seem no one, because in Luke 24:27, when Jesus teaches from the beginning, he starts with Moses. I see no reason to think he didn't write it. Maybe he collected from prior sources rather than actually writing it word for word from a voice in his head, but it seems most likely he is the one who put pen to paper.

So, it's not important in the sense that the Bible's veracity depends on God and not on Moses. But if the Bible is actually claiming Moses wrote it, it is important to stand by that claim.

This is a different discussion altogether with its own merits, lets get back on topic.

Current biological theory is inconsistent with an honest reading of Genesis. That is true. Data is a different matter. Do we have data regarding the first population of organisms modern science would classify as human?

I also found in an earlier post mention of my view allowing the possibility of non-ensouled homo-sapiens existing today. I reject this. A key part of my "hypothesis" is that ALL existing humans are descended from the covenantal pair. Even if some humans share some dna with pre-Adamic homo-sapiens, they also share dna with post-Adamic humans and are therefore also ensouled and covenantal. This view is supported by the scientific notion of "Mitcochondrial Eve" a single woman from whom all humans genetically descend.

What is meant by human is very important. There is evidence of human behavior dating back around 500K years ago. A Love Divine however specifies "anatomically modern humans". All women existing descend from Mitochondrial Eve in central Africa around 200,000 years ago (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve), but even this Eve is not thought to be a single woman. All men existing descend from Y-chromosomal Adam ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam ), but there is some debate over how old, perhaps overlapping with Eve, but geographically distinct. So while all men descended from mtEVE, yAdam was very likely not her mate. Also, the descendants of mtEve mated with Neanderthals and Denisovians which explains the admixture remaining in our genomes today (and the absence of Neanderthals and Denisovians). So a "covenantal pair" is possible, but everyone on earth is not their direct descendent. A figurative reading makes more sense than an ensouled covenantal pair from which all humans on earth descend biologically.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Yes, I debated that word. I considered saying "homo sapiens", but then that begs the question of whether homo erectus, etc. had souls.

All animals have souls. It is a very fundamental error to suppose that only humans have them.

 

[sfs]

All women existing descend from Mitochondrial Eve in central Africa around 200,000 years ago (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve),

And therefore all humans descend from her. She one of many common ancestors that all humans descend from; she happens to be the one who is a universal ancestor by strictly female descent.

but even this Eve is not thought to be a single woman.

More precisely, she was a single woman, but part of a larger population.

All men existing descend from Y-chromosomal Adam ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam ), but there is some debate over how old, perhaps overlapping with Eve, but geographically distinct. So while all men descended from mtEVE, yAdam was very likely not her mate. Also, the descendants of mtEve mated with Neanderthals and Denisovians which explains the admixture remaining in our genomes today (and the absence of Neanderthals and Denisovians). So a "covenantal pair" is possible, but everyone on earth is not their direct descendent.

You're confusing ancestry of DNA with genealogical ancestry. Each piece of your DNA has a single ancestor -- your parent's chromosome that it descends from. Each chunk of DNA in the population has a common ancestor: a piece of chromosome that is ancestral to all living copies of that chunk. Those ancestral chunks were in many different humans (or their ancestors) who lived anywhere from ~100,000 years ago to well over a million years ago.

Genealogically, each person has two ancestors, his or her parents. The number of genealogical ancestors doubles with each generation back that you look. Thus, all living humans could easily share a pair of ancestors within the last few thousand years (assuming no population was completely isolated around that time). But of course, they weren't the only people in their population.

 

[Sine Nomine]

And therefore all humans descend from her. She one of many common ancestors that all humans descend from; she happens to be the one who is a universal ancestor by strictly female descent.


More precisely, she was a single woman, but part of a larger population.

How many women in that population had mtDNA L0? mtEve could in principle be a single woman, but this is highly unlikely. The mtDNA of the "matrilineal MRCA" represents a population with identical mtDNA.

You're confusing ancestry of DNA with genealogical ancestry. Each piece of your DNA has a single ancestor -- your parent's chromosome that it descends from. Each chunk of DNA in the population has a common ancestor: a piece of chromosome that is ancestral to all living copies of that chunk. Those ancestral chunks were in many different humans (or their ancestors) who lived anywhere from ~100,000 years ago to well over a million years ago.

Genealogically, each person has two ancestors, his or her parents. The number of genealogical ancestors doubles with each generation back that you look. Thus, all living humans could easily share a pair of ancestors within the last few thousand years (assuming no population was completely isolated around that time). But of course, they weren't the only people in their population.

I'm doing no such thing. You are correct that all living human might share a common pair of parents, but their DNA predates those parents, and it wouldn't be in the last few thousand years--the Y and mtDNA diversity is much too large for that possibility. In fact, the data points to a date where we all share common mtDNA at about 200k years ago (mtEve) and at a less certain date for yDNA (200-300kya). Since only a small fraction of the Y chromosomes (and mtDNAs for that matter) present in the current population have been sequenced, we could find novel DNAs that would push the dates back further (this last happened for yDNA just a few years ago.

But assuming a common pair at an appropriate time in the past (ie A&E and ensouled as defined in the OP and represented by mtEve and yAdam), would genetically "identical" individuals at the same time be considered non-ensouled? And how long ago did their last descendants die out to be replaced by solely A&E descendants. This last question can be addressed with our present data and technology but will require analysis of autosomal regions that co-segregate during meiosis. The current sample size is likely insufficient, but strong conclusions might be attainable.

 

[sfs]

How many women in that population had mtDNA L0?

Impossible to say, since no other mtDNA survived from that population. I would expect that it had mtDNA diversity typical of a decent-sized population. (It's actually more complicated than that, since human ancestry comes from more than a single population at that time.)

mtEve could in principle be a single woman, but this is highly unlikely. The mtDNA of the "matrilineal MRCA" represents a population with identical mtDNA.

mtEve is by definition a single woman: she is the most recent common ancestor of all living humans by purely female descent. There is no reason at all to think that her entire population shared the same mtDNA; it's wildly unlikely that they did, in fact.

I'm doing no such thing. You are correct that all living human might share a common pair of parents, but their DNA predates those parents, and it wouldn't be in the last few thousand years--the Y and mtDNA diversity is much too large for that possibility.

Y and mtDNA diversity tell you essentially nothing about the time of our most recent genealogical ancestors. See this paper to see how one can model the time to that ancestor, and why it's likely to be in the range of a few thousand years.

But assuming a common pair at an appropriate time in the past (ie A&E and ensouled as defined in the OP and represented by mtEve and yAdam), would genetically "identical" individuals at the same time be considered non-ensouled? And how long ago did their last descendants die out to be replaced by solely A&E descendants.

Well yeah, I think this model of a historical Adam and Eve is deeply flawed, but not on genetic grounds.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Impossible to say, since no other mtDNA survived from that population. I would expect that it had mtDNA diversity typical of a decent-sized population. (It's actually more complicated than that, since human ancestry comes from more than a single population at that time.)

That more than a single population is present then is likely, but not certain. mtEve corresponds roughly with the emergence of Homo sapiens. An evolutionary bottleneck was certainly present then and it is quite plausible to envision a small population that represents all members of the new "species". I don't however see any barrier to mating between Homo subtypes, certainly Neanderthal was a viable mate. We can't even be sure that mtEve is Homo sapiens can we?

mtEve is by definition a single woman: she is the most recent common ancestor of all living humans by purely female descent. There is no reason at all to think that her entire population shared the same mtDNA; it's wildly unlikely that they did, in fact.

Technically you're correct, but as you point out there may be others with the same mtDNA in the population--diversity within a population takes lots of time for mtDNA--typical diversity may be an erroneous assumption.

Y and mtDNA diversity tell you essentially nothing about the time of our most recent genealogical ancestors. See this paper to see how one can model the time to that ancestor, and why it's likely to be in the range of a few thousand years.

True. But ALoveDivine isn't concerned with just the MRGAs of the existing population. Assuming that Biblical history covers about 10,000 years, which is reasonable, they need to account for the first ancestors (pair) of all the humans existing in the historical window---because none after A&E lack souls. The 2004 study is a statistical model which assume equal chances of any male mating with any female-- the authors acknowledge that this is not reflective of reality. So, while its possible to account for all currently living humans with a couple ancestors a few thousand years ago, the geographic isolation of the past makes a larger number more likely. The genetics don't help solve or show signs of becoming concordant with a literal reading of Genesis or a YEC position.

Well yeah, I think this model of a historical Adam and Eve is deeply flawed, but not on genetic grounds.

Fortunately our flaws are forgiven.

I suspect that no one here as a problem with the doctrine that Christ's death atones for our sins--one man for all--why is it difficult to see Adam in a similar light? I.e. The sin of one corrupts the whole, not because of biological descent, but because of spiritual descent. This places no constraints on the genetics and is agreeable with traditional Christian theology-Catholic and Protestant.

 

[sfs]

That more than a single population is present then is likely, but not certain. mtEve corresponds roughly with the emergence of Homo sapiens. An evolutionary bottleneck was certainly present then and it is quite plausible to envision a small population that represents all members of the new "species". I don't however see any barrier to mating between Homo subtypes, certainly Neanderthal was a viable mate.

Assuming anatomically modern humans appeared ~200,000 years ago, genetic evidence currently suggests that there was no accompanying population bottleneck (e.g. see this paper).

We can't even be sure that mtEve is Homo sapiens can we?

Correct.