In 2025, Marcus Ross published a paper offering his theistic assessment of the GAE Hypothesis:
I was disappointed in his approach, but perhaps it was helpful to him to find ways to
distinguish his personal “take” on theories involving Universal Common Ancestors.
The abstract is below, and pretty much is all that is needed to see the ironies in his
analysis:
”Joshua Swamidass’ recent genealogical Adam and Eve (GAE) hypothesis posits that all humans alive by AD 1 could share genealogical ancestry with the biblical Adam, who lived as recently as 6,000 years ago. We evaluate the scientific underpinnings of this hypothesis, including
(1) ancestry studies providing timeframes to universal ancestors,
(2) the choice of AD 1 as a point of universal connection to Adam, and
(3) the deployment of unfalsifiable claims in both the recent GAE’s core and auxiliary propositions.
We find that the recent GAE hypothesis itself has not been specifically modeled or simulated, but rather it anachronistically employs studies of genealogical ancestors among the modern-day population. Necessary adjustments to the parameters of these studies would likely extend any potential date to GAE, as do challenges regarding the applicability of AD 1 and the extreme isolation of native Tasmanians. Both individually and collectively, these issues raise substantial challenges to the recent GAE timeline.”
Ross has done an impressive job explaining many of the scientific limitations for
evaluating just how long it would take to contribute Adam&Eve’s genealogy to
distant populations, including the very isolated one on Tasmania. But he isn’t
critical of the possibilities - - only of the probabilities. In other words, he doesn’t
say it isn’t possible. In fact, it is my impression that he believes the unguided
process, within an ancient context, would take well more than 100,000
years.
But my objection to his objections comes down to just one phrase: a Universal
Common Ancestor is an aspect of a theistic view of Genesis, and being
consistent with a theistic interpretation does not require a string of miracles,
it only requires a well planned series of PROVIDENTIAL marriages and matinigs
when the time and place allows for it.
How do you dismiss a scenario embracing the THEOLOGY of Adam and
Eve by not allowing for God’s providential hand to bring about the point of
having Adam & Eve.
DISCLAIMER: I personally do not endorse the necessity of Original SIn
to make Christianity sensible to the human situation. For more than 1,000
years, millions of Good and Devoted Christians - - in most of the Orthodox
communities - - have been satisfied that God required the burden of sin to
shape the lives and souls of mortals into his desired vessels. But for the
millions of Augustinians alive today, if you are “in for a penny, you are in
for a pound!” My Pilgrim ancestors believed in the Providential events
shaping the future of their devout community. I share this belief!
