The Genealogical Adam and Eve

[Job 33:6]

If anything, Swamidass is more accepting of conventional evolutionary biology than WLC, and was in fact instrumental in the latter's acceptance of it. He also has no use for most ID arguments, as you will learn if you spend time at his website. They both allow for miraculous intervention in the creation of the first humans, Swamidass in the de novo creation of a first couple who are biologically compatible with existing, evolved creatures, and WLC in divine modification of an evolved pair, along with the infusion of an immaterial soul.

Of the two, I find WLC's approach more compatible with both science and the Bible. With science, since he's postulating a genetic change that accounts at least in part for modern humans' behavioral changes; with science, because the focus on physical descent (with or without any genetic inheritance) as being essential to being human seems profoundly at odds with the NT focus on spiritual descent and adoption. But then, I don't find either at all plausible.

(You can read my take on WLC's book here, or more readably, through the link here.)

SFS, did you read that news on non-ranfom mutations in an article by UC Davis?
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-evolu...39r7zgsw7gVmXOI3564F5vJOQyo-YGLRXhBLSzo6qWlwg

Study challenges evolutionary theory that DNA mutations are random: Findings could lead to advances in plant breeding, human genetics
Journal Reference:

J. Grey Monroe, Thanvi Srikant, Pablo Carbonell-Bejerano, Claude Becker, Mariele Lensink, Moises Exposito-Alonso, Marie Klein, Julia Hildebrandt, Manuela Neumann, Daniel Kliebenstein, Mao-Lun Weng, Eric Imbert, Jon Ågren, Matthew T. Rutter, Charles B. Fenster, Detlef Weigel. Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature, 2022; DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-04269

I wonder how much of this is actually old news with just a flashy headline.
-6-6

 

[SavedByGrace3]

SFS, did you read that news on non-ranfom mutations in an article by UC Davis?
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-evolu...39r7zgsw7gVmXOI3564F5vJOQyo-YGLRXhBLSzo6qWlwg

Study challenges evolutionary theory that DNA mutations are random: Findings could lead to advances in plant breeding, human genetics
Journal Reference:

J. Grey Monroe, Thanvi Srikant, Pablo Carbonell-Bejerano, Claude Becker, Mariele Lensink, Moises Exposito-Alonso, Marie Klein, Julia Hildebrandt, Manuela Neumann, Daniel Kliebenstein, Mao-Lun Weng, Eric Imbert, Jon Ågren, Matthew T. Rutter, Charles B. Fenster, Detlef Weigel. Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature, 2022; DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-04269

I wonder how much of this is actually old news with just a flashy headline.
-6-6

I wish I had the time to read and research these studies. Sounds very interesting.

 

[sfs]

SFS, did you read that news on non-ranfom mutations in an article by UC Davis?
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-evolu...39r7zgsw7gVmXOI3564F5vJOQyo-YGLRXhBLSzo6qWlwg

Study challenges evolutionary theory that DNA mutations are random: Findings could lead to advances in plant breeding, human genetics
[...]
I wonder how much of this is actually old news with just a flashy headline.

It looks like an interesting paper, and I plan to read it when I have time. But those who wrote the news pieces (and judging from Twitter, the paper authors as well) seem to be confused about what evolutionary biologists mean by 'random mutations'. It's well known that mutations do not occur at uniform rates across the genome, and it's well known that mutation is biased against mutations with large functional impact. It's also long been hypothesized that natural selection will tend to place critical genes in low mutation regions. This may be the first time someone has provided good evidence supporting that hypothesis -- I don't keep up with this area of research much. If so, that would make this an important finding, but not something that upends evolutionary theory in any way. The mutations are still random in the evolutionary sense, meaning that the plants have no way of choosing those functional mutations that will be beneficial rather than deleterious.

(Mind you, there is at least one mechanism for nonrandom mutations. Bacteria can insert fragments of viral genetic sequence into their own genomes to serve as a template for CRISPR-mediated protection against the same virus in the future. But those are mutations that do not alter the evolutionary trajectory of the species.)

 

[Buzzard3]

The explosion of sophisticated human civilizations within the past 10,000-20,000 years is quite mysterious and strongly suggests "something happened." This thesis is also consistent with Genesis, which has the first generations of humans engaging in agriculture, metalworking, city-building and other activities that are believable if Adam and Eve were created within the author's timeframe

I agree.

 

[Buzzard3]

This is one of the most fascinating and groundbreaking books I've read in a long time: The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. It's far superior, both scientifically and theologically, to William Lane Craig's recent book on Adam and Eve, which is little more than theistic evolution with some possible direct intervention by God. The author is a Christian. Although secular and atheist scientists don't agree with his thesis, they do acknowledge that the science is rock-solid.

The author accepts conventional evolutionary theory for the sake of argument. His thesis is that God created Adam and Eve in His image and placed them in the Garden of Eden as recently as 6,000 years ago but potentially several thousands of years before that. He didn't fashion them from the humans then existing but, consistent with Genesis, made them as wholly new creatures. They were the first true humans in a theological sense. Through mating with the biological humans then existing, they became the genealogical ancestors of all humans living by the time of Christ.

If this sounds scientifically implausible, it isn't. The book is written at a very high level and is well worth your time if you have any interest in this subject.

I'm steeped in the Intelligent Design literature and have long believed that Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism and all the permutations are fundamentally flawed, which isn't to say they are complete nonsense. I had also long suspected what this author proposes. The explosion of sophisticated human civilizations within the past 10,000-20,000 years is quite mysterious and strongly suggests "something happened." This thesis is also consistent with Genesis, which has the first generations of humans engaging in agriculture, metalworking, city-building and other activities that are believable if Adam and Eve were created within the author's timeframe but not if they existed 500,000 years ago as Craig proposes.

The author also began his own website which includes an open forum (lots of scientists contribute, so is pretty hardcore ... but informative).

 

[DamianWarS]

This is one of the most fascinating and groundbreaking books I've read in a long time: The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. It's far superior, both scientifically and theologically, to William Lane Craig's recent book on Adam and Eve, which is little more than theistic evolution with some possible direct intervention by God. The author is a Christian. Although secular and atheist scientists don't agree with his thesis, they do acknowledge that the science is rock-solid.

The author accepts conventional evolutionary theory for the sake of argument. His thesis is that God created Adam and Eve in His image and placed them in the Garden of Eden as recently as 6,000 years ago but potentially several thousands of years before that. He didn't fashion them from the humans then existing but, consistent with Genesis, made them as wholly new creatures. They were the first true humans in a theological sense. Through mating with the biological humans then existing, they became the genealogical ancestors of all humans living by the time of Christ.

If this sounds scientifically implausible, it isn't. The book is written at a very high level and is well worth your time if you have any interest in this subject.

I'm steeped in the Intelligent Design literature and have long believed that Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism and all the permutations are fundamentally flawed, which isn't to say they are complete nonsense. I had also long suspected what this author proposes. The explosion of sophisticated human civilizations within the past 10,000-20,000 years is quite mysterious and strongly suggests "something happened." This thesis is also consistent with Genesis, which has the first generations of humans engaging in agriculture, metalworking, city-building and other activities that are believable if Adam and Eve were created within the author's timeframe but not if they existed 500,000 years ago as Craig proposes.

God speaks light into a desolate dark void and then calls that light good, this starts a process that when complete ushers in God's rest. What a powerful metaphor for salvation but we are blinded to it because all we can do is focus on the parts of the account that have no relevance.

 

[Buzzard3]

His thesis is that God created Adam and Eve in His image and placed them in the Garden of Eden as recently as 6,000 years ago but potentially several thousands of years before that. He didn't fashion them from the humans then existing but, consistent with Genesis, made them as wholly new creatures. They were the first true humans in a theological sense. Through mating with the biological humans then existing, they became the genealogical ancestors of all humans living by the time of Christ.

... and therein lies the Achilles' Heel of theistic evolution. The idea that "true" humans (the descendents of Adam and Eve, created in the image of God) mated with "biological" humans (animals produced by evolution) is both repugnant and absurd.

For starters, it would amount to inappropriate behavior with animals.

Next, "true" humans would have been so different in consciousnes, mentality and behaviour to "biological" humans, that the two breeds would have been totally incompatible.

Finally, the claim that the offspring of a "true" human and a "biological" human would automatically inherit a soul is pure speculation (I doubt if any reputable theologian has stooped to give this subject any serious thought, on account of its inane proximity to science-fiction).

In short, theistic evolution fails because it can't offer a sensible explanation for what happened to the race of "biological" humans supposedly produced by evolution.

 

[sfs]

... and therein lies the Achilles' Heel of theistic evolution. The idea that "true" humans (the descendents of Adam and Eve, created in the image of God) mated with "biological" humans (animals produced by evolution) is both repugnant and absurd.

Note that you're arguing against one person's theological speculation, not against theistic evolution more broadly.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

“ In short, theistic evolution fails because it can't offer a sensible explanation for what happened to the race of "biological" humans supposedly produced by evolution. “

so I just shared a quote….. what in the world are y’all talking about? I’ve not even heard this weird theory among evolutionary creationist.

 

[Buzzard3]

“ In short, theistic evolution fails because it can't offer a sensible explanation for what happened to the race of "biological" humans supposedly produced by evolution. “

so I just shared a quote….. what in the world are y’all talking about? I’ve not even heard this weird theory among evolutionary creationist.

Never heard of it? Really?

Theists evolutionists believe Adam evolved and that, before God infused him with a soul (Genesis 2:7), Adam belonged to a race of souless humans (ie, his alleged parents and ancestors were souless humans that evolved from some kind of ape).
But theist evolutionists cannot provide a sensible explanation for what happened to this alleged race of souless humans. They obviously no longer exist, so what happened to them?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Never heard of it? Really?

Theists evolutionists believe Adam evolved and that, before God infused him with a soul (Genesis 2:7), Adam belonged to a race of souless humans (ie, his alleged parents and ancestors were souless humans that evolved from some kind of ape).
But theist evolutionists cannot provide a sensible explanation for what happened to this alleged race of souless humans. They obviously no longer exist, so what happened to them?

Thoughts:
The "souless" earth humans evolved from the beasts of the field that were "brought forth" by the dirt.
Jehovah God at some point created Adam and Eve and placed them into the garden. After the fall Adam and Eve and their children mixed with the "souless" humans. This also explains where the children of Adam and Eve found their wives. This also accounts for the existence of the many maladies, useless DNA, and vestigial organs we find in our bodies.

 

[Buzzard3]

Thoughts:
The "souless" earth humans evolved from the beasts of the field that were "brought forth" by the dirt.
Jehovah God at some point created Adam and Eve and placed them into the garden. After the fall Adam and Eve and their children mixed with the "souless" humans.

That scenario is almost as implausible as the standard theistic-evolution model.

The idea that the descendents of Adam and Eve bred with "souless" humans is both repugnant and absurd.
For starters, it would amount to inappropriate behavior with animals.
Next, "souless" humans would have been so different in consciousnes, mentality and behaviour to "true" humans, that the two breeds would have been totally and utterly incompatible.

Finally, how do you explain the extinction of the (alleged) race of "souless" humans? Are you claiming that the offspring of a "true" human and a "souless" human automatically inherited a soul and became a "true" human? If so, that is pure speculation and has no theological support whatsoever. No reputable theological would bother to even discuss such a claim, lest he be laughed into retirement.

This also explains where the children of Adam and Eve found their wives. This also accounts for the existence of the many maladies, useless DNA, and vestigial organs we find in our bodies.

Why can't the Original Sin of Adam and Eve account for the "the many maladies, useless DNA, and vestigial organs we find in our bodies"?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

That scenario is almost as implausible as the standard theistic-evolution model.

The idea that the descendents of Adam and Eve bred with "souless" humans is both repugnant and absurd.
For starters, it would amount to inappropriate behavior with animals.
Next, "souless" humans would have been so different in consciousnes, mentality and behaviour to "true" humans, that the two breeds would have been totally and utterly incompatible.

Finally, how do you explain the extinction of the (alleged) race of "souless" humans? Are you claiming that the offspring of a "true" human and a "souless" human automatically inherited a soul and became a "true" human? If so, that is pure speculation and has no theological support whatsoever. No reputable theological would bother to even discuss such a claim, lest he be laughed into retirement.

Why can't the Original Sin of Adam and Eve account for the "the many maladies, useless DNA, and vestigial organs we find in our bodies"?

Sorry, I should have included that Gen 1:26 is understood to mean that the "gods" took the beast that evolved into "human" and made them into their image. Exactly who these "gods" were and why they did this - that is a good question. But the end result was a being from beast with human qualities.

 

[Job 33:6]

Never heard of it? Really?

Theists evolutionists believe Adam evolved and that, before God infused him with a soul (Genesis 2:7), Adam belonged to a race of souless humans (ie, his alleged parents and ancestors were souless humans that evolved from some kind of ape).
But theist evolutionists cannot provide a sensible explanation for what happened to this alleged race of souless humans. They obviously no longer exist, so what happened to them?

I like this post.

But I will say that, many theistic evolutionists also don't view Adam necessarily as an individual person. Indeed, Adam isn't even an actual name. Rather the Hebrew refers to Ha-Adam, or "the-man". A nameless being in an epic in which his wife was made out of his rib bone before a talking snake, beneath a solid dome over the sky with stars stuck equidistantly inside of it, with tiny windows holding back water, in which the sun orbits.

When Cain is banished from the garden, he fears that others might kill him, though other children of Adam and Eve aren't even mentioned as being born until the next chapter after Seth, a replacement for Abel. Then Cain meets a woman and starts his own city populated by unknown people's, again, before Adam and Eve are even mentioned as having more children.

Shrugs* can we really be blamed for not viewing Genesis as a literal scientifically modern history?

I'd recommend Peter Enns Book, Genesis for normal people.

I believe it more accurately represents the position that most theistic evolutionists are taking today. And when we read scripture carefully and in the context of the ancient Hebrews, and we read about things like the raqia for example, we see that scripture actually tells a very different story than the interpretation proposed by YECs. Which would explain why YECs have been fighting head-on against the world's OT scholars and of course scientists.

And so ultimately, it's not necessarily correct to assume that theistic evolutionists believe that Adam was a literal person whos descendants bred with soulless animals. Maybe some theistic evolutionists think something along these lines, but many otherwise do not.

 

[Buzzard3]

I like this post.

But I will say that, many theistic evolutionists also don't view Adam necessarily as an individual person. Indeed, Adam isn't even an actual name. Rather the Hebrew refers to Ha-Adam, or "the-man". A nameless being in an epic in which his wife was made out of his rib bone before a talking snake, beneath a solid dome over the sky with stars stuck equidistantly inside of it, with tiny windows holding back water, in which the sun orbits.

When Cain is banished from the garden, he fears that others might kill him, though other children of Adam and Eve aren't even mentioned as being born until the next chapter after Seth, a replacement for Abel. Then Cain meets a woman and starts his own city populated by unknown people's, again, before Adam and Eve are even mentioned as having more children.

Shrugs* can we really be blamed for not viewing Genesis as a literal scientifically modern history?

I'd recommend Peter Enns Book, Genesis for normal people.

I believe it more accurately represents the position that most theistic evolutionists are taking today. And when we read scripture carefully and in the context of the ancient Hebrews, and we read about things like the raqia for example, we see that scripture actually tells a very different story than the interpretation proposed by YECs. Which would explain why YECs have been fighting head-on against the world's OT scholars and of course scientists.

And so ultimately, it's not necessarily correct to assume that theistic evolutionists believe that Adam was a literal person whos descendants bred with soulless animals. Maybe some theistic evolutionists think something along these lines, but many otherwise do not.

You make some interesting points.

 

[Job 33:6]

You make some interesting points.

Here is part 3. I'd recommend making it to 20:00 minutes in for discussion on the firmament.

 

[Job 33:6]

You make some interesting points.

When we read the Old testament, just go on Google and look up every single verse in the Old testament about the raqia or firmament. And read all of the adjectives or words used to describe it. And you'll find that every single time an adjective is used to describe it, they all suggest that it has some sort of solid properties. Every single time.

And if you think of it, if you think of the firmament as a dome, which is how it's translated in some versions of Scripture, but if you think of it as a dome of some sort of divine solid nature, then all of these verses fall into place. Birds flying across the face of the firmament, the stars being placed in it, God in human form walking above it, the windows that open and close to let water through it etc.

If we rearrange our perspective on the context of the Old testament, and consider the possibility that it was written by people who lived at a different time and in a different place, And they were writing for different reasons and had a different style of writing. They had a completely different perspective.

And I think it's also helpful to understand that this perspective was shared by many other neighboring cultures who also had a view that there was a solid dome, holding the stars up in the sky with little windows that would open and let water through.

This firmament is also translated as an expanse as in expanded like molten metal as described in the book of Job. Metal spreads and expands when you heat it and it is molten and you spread it like a blacksmith spreads a sword. And that's where the word expanse comes from. And that's why it's also translated as dome or firm structure firmament.

Adjectives describing it include like frozen water, like sapphire, like molten metal, like pavement, the windows are described as floodgates that restrain water, that separate water from water, God walks on it in human form. Every single verse in the Old testament that describes it suggests that it has a solid nature in accordance with what many other ancient cultures believed about the cosmos.

So when you take a different perspective of scripture and the Old testament and Genesis, all of these conflicts with science disappear. There is no conflict with things like an old earth or evolution. The perspective of the authors of Scripture just didn't encompass these modern scientific concepts. And that doesn't mean that they weren't inspired by God It just means that they lived in a different time and a different place and God shared what He wanted to share and God didn't share what He didn't want to share.

So we circle back to this original topic of if Adam was interbreeding with animals. It's a question that could only be asked if we viewed scripture as some sort of a modern scientific textbook. But that's just not what it is.

And for those who take on this perspective and eventually come around: your mind has been set free, welcome.

 

[Sheila Davis]

This is one of the most fascinating and groundbreaking books I've read in a long time: The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. It's far superior, both scientifically and theologically, to William Lane Craig's recent book on Adam and Eve, which is little more than theistic evolution with some possible direct intervention by God. The author is a Christian. Although secular and atheist scientists don't agree with his thesis, they do acknowledge that the science is rock-solid.

The author accepts conventional evolutionary theory for the sake of argument. His thesis is that God created Adam and Eve in His image and placed them in the Garden of Eden as recently as 6,000 years ago but potentially several thousands of years before that. He didn't fashion them from the humans then existing but, consistent with Genesis, made them as wholly new creatures. They were the first true humans in a theological sense. Through mating with the biological humans then existing, they became the genealogical ancestors of all humans living by the time of Christ.

If this sounds scientifically implausible, it isn't. The book is written at a very high level and is well worth your time if you have any interest in this subject.

I'm steeped in the Intelligent Design literature and have long believed that Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism and all the permutations are fundamentally flawed, which isn't to say they are complete nonsense. I had also long suspected what this author proposes. The explosion of sophisticated human civilizations within the past 10,000-20,000 years is quite mysterious and strongly suggests "something happened." This thesis is also consistent with Genesis, which has the first generations of humans engaging in agriculture, metalworking, city-building and other activities that are believable if Adam and Eve were created within the author's timeframe but not if they existed 500,000 years ago as Craig proposes.

I will have to read it

 

[SavedByGrace3]

25 bucks for a paperback?
I would love to get a copy.
I don't think so.