I reject this conclusion. @DennisVenema’s analysis starts with modern humanity and works backward. Thus it is giving the maximum benefit of the doubt that humanity 10,000 years ago is comparable to humanity 100,00 years ago… and again, back 200,000 years ago. His analysis is maximally optimistic about the smoothness of the changes.
If there was, in fact, a major genetic disruption, that’s what would be the clue that something dramatic happened. But he finds no evidence of anything dramatically changing in the genome for 400,000 years worth of idealized generations.
Natural selection does act on genetic drift. If you look carefully at the description of genetic drift you will see that natural selection does not select it out because it does not make an ecological difference. Thus natural selection does not select it out, because it selects it in and it selects the allele in because of ecological reasons.
The selfish gene view has been disproven by The Social Conquest of Earth by E. O. Wilson.
Yes, predators and prey are in a symbiotic relationship. Each need the other, just as humans are dependent on their prey, animal and vegetable, and they are dependent on us.
Regarding your genealogical model of Humanity (with God creating a primeval couple Adam&Eve of Image Bearers) and my model (with God creating a primeval population of Image Bearers) you state:
To discuss this question I think the teaching of Jesus Christ in (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) is crucial:
Jesus unites Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 to declare that in the beginning humans “created in the Image of God” received a clear commandment regarding Marriage: “What God has joined together, man must never separate” (Matthew 19:6).
This has a twofold meaning:
To be “Image Bearer” means to be endowed with free will, aware of God’s law, and capable of moral agency and sin.
Since the beginning of Humanity Marriage is intended by God as Original Sacrament between Image Bearers to the sake of being fruitful and multiply the community of Image Bearers, that is, God’s Kingdom on earth.
This has the important following implication for your genealogical model:
The basic assumption of your model is that a genealogical descendant (GD) of the primeval genealogical couple (Adam&Eve) could get married with a non-genealogical descendant (NGD) of Adam&Eve.
From the teaching of Jesus Christ regarding Marriage we are led to acknowledge that NGD should be an Image Bearer.
Hence either NGD was Image Bearer from the beginning of her/his own existence or became Image Bearer through the encounter with GD.
In either case we are led to conclude that there were Image Bearers other than Adam&Eve and their genealogical descendants, which is my basic assumption.
So to this extent our both models seem to be theologically equivalent too.
Regarding original sin:
I definitely reject “The notion of God deciding to manufacture souls with original sin, by fiat”.
In this respect my basic assumptions are the following:
God never violates the freedom of His creatures.
God is NOT the author of sin.
God wants to redeem human sinners.
I will expand on these assumptions with pleasure. However, since me too “I do not make God an author of sin” it may be convenient you briefly refer to the “better options” you have in mind, because I have the feeling we are not far from each other.
Again thanks in advance for any suggestion that may help to improve the preceding formulations.
I guess it depends on how you look at it and define selection. Most biologists define selection in terms of population genetics, so selection would be a deviation away from a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. If this equilibrium is observed then it is considered to be genetic drift.
Whether it has been disproven or not is one thing. What I was responding to is your claim that the Selfish Gene hypothesis was atheistic, which it isn’t.
In what way do deer and elk need wolves? They were without wolves for quite some time in the recent past, and they seemed to do just fine.
@Swamidass’ scenarios involve interpreting Genesis 1 as the truncated story of the pre-Adamites, who we could presume have free will … but to satisfy the Augustinian-Prejudices of Western Protestants, would have to be ignorant of Good & Evil as the pair, Adam & Eve, were ignorant - - up until they ate from the Tree.
Scenarios that say the Pre-Adamites did know good and evil are conceivable, but it’s hard to imagine that English-speaking Young Earthers would have much interest in them.
Now about these thoughts…
Your sentence I have labeled can be evidenced by the words of Genesis 1 which says humanity has the image of God.
The first half of your sentence (which I have labeled [Y] ) is not necessary if Genesis 1 is about NGD. However, the solution mentioned in the last half could be applied to the question of moral awareness. If moral awareness is not exactly what is intended by “image-bearer”, then NGD could gain its knowledge of morality through social contact with GD… or via a “moral awareness ingredient” dispensed to all souls after Adam’s expulsion by God himself.
Finally, you will need to fully comprehend @Swamidass’ distinction between “genetic descendants” and “genealogical descendants”.
Many popular writers have contributed to the misinterpretation that the phrase: “humans are the genetic descendants of Adam and Eve”. While we all know what this supposed to mean, it is technically flawed without references to an original population:
For example, one could might say that all of the finches that Darwin observed are genetically descended from the founding Population of finches that arrived on the islands. That seems inescapable. Modern populations, by definition, have to be genetic descendants of earlier populations.
But what about a Finch population and an originating pair? Can we say that the whole population of Finches seen by Darwin descend from a single pair? I suppose you could, with the assumption that no other Finches arrived later, diluting the genetic imprint of the founding pair.
In the case of the @Swamidass scenarios, the genetic luggage of the Pre-Adamites may very well have “swamped out” the purely genetic contribution of Adam and Eve’s meager 46 chromosomes! But as computer scenarios show, there is no way for the genealogical contribution of Adam and Eve to be swamped out - - if God’s intent was for the couple to be a Universal Ancestral pair. See the difference here? Genetic descent, which is frequently used in a technically incorrect way, is quite different from Genealogical descent, which is irreversible and un-defeatable, as long as ancestral records, or the isolation of an island or a whole planet, is securely understood!
Modern evolutionists, however, when they talk about a hypothetical “Original Y Donor” or “Original Mitochondrial Donor” literally run out, by definition, of any certain genetic contributions from other branches of ancient hominid that are not on the genetic “pipeline” from the pair of donors.
If we remember that 46 chromosomes can only go so far, before they are swamped out by over-riding contributions by newer or different lineages, then it will be easier to remember that the key aspect of the Adamite kinship is the “genealogical” connection.
George
I dare to say that you are confirming what I claim.
Dennis states:
Here he does not clearly distinguish Humanity as community of Image Bearers and the evolving species of “anatomically modern human.”
Thus, when “he finds no evidence of anything dramatically changing in the genome [of modern humans] for 400,000 years”, Dennis suggests that there is no sharp beginning of Humanity either, which clearly contradicts Genesis 1:26-28.
“10. We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.” [emphasis mine]
The problem with @DennisVenema position is that he overlooks what Denis Alexander has often stressed: One cannot discuss “Adam and Eve” coherently without “integrating the scientific and biblical narratives.”
She identifies Humanity with Homo genus. And because she rightly keeps to a sharp beginning of Humanity she is led to conclude that Homo genus has a sharp biological beginning too, what is wrong.
Homo sapiens and Homo genus are evolutionary biological constructs: It is biologically impossible to establish when the species Homo sapiens or the genus Homo begins with anything other than arbitrary criteria.[see this Essay]
So I can’t help concluding:
@agauger and @DennisVenema fall in the same pitfall: Lack of distinction between the sharp beginning of Humanity and the fuzzy beginning of a whatever evolutionary biological construct.
The suggestion that the creation of the earth took more than 6 days 6,000 years ago also “clearly contradicts” Genesis 1. Removing the sharp beginning of Humanity is no different than removing the sharp beginning of planet earth. It is just part of the narrative not a fact. While it remains a truth.
You are right. It depends how you look at it and define selection. It appears that biology has become based on math, which can describe what is happening, but not really explain why it is happening. This means that in effect ecology is not seen as the basis of natural selection. All genetic drift says is, if there is not change or an equilibrium there is no selection. If there is a change or los of equilibrium, there is selection.
This type of circular thinking was the basis of criticism of evolutionary theory by the late distinguished scientist Karl Popper. Ecological natural selection gives evolution the scientific foundation Darwin never did…
Actually @Swamidass branded an evolutionary view as atheistic, but I agreed and identified it as The Selfish Gene. Dawkins has made no secret that he is drawn to Darwinism because of its atheistic basis. He has used this theory which is not well based in fact to buttress his atheistic views, so he claims it as atheistic.
Wolves have been added to the ecology in Yellowstone National Park, so maybe they have not done fine. The reason why the deer and the elk need wolves is population control. As Malthus said, if there are no limiting factors to population, it would grow geometrically, Instead of allowing the deer to strip the foliage and still starve to death, the wolves control and strengthen the population. This how God uses the ecology to provide for the diversity and economy of nature.
That’s not it at all. The math is what keeps us honest and allows us to test our hypotheses.
So, for instance, that there are black and tan mice. Their environment contains lots of tan colored desert scrub land, but here and there are piles of black basalt rock from past volcanic eruptions. When we look at the distribution of two alleles for a gene responsible for skin and coat color in other species we see that those alleles our out of equilibrium when we compare niches within that ecological environment:
Using those equations from population genetics you can show that there is an objective (i.e. statistically significant) difference between the populations which allows you to test the hypothesis that the background color of the environment (through predation) is selecting for the dark coat allele. They can also use those equations to determine if there is free interbreeding between the brown and black populations by comparing the distribution of mitochondrial DNA, and they were able to confirm that there is free interbreeding.
Where did Dawkins ever say that his Selfish Gene hypothesis was an atheistic view?
How is it preferable to have deer ruthlessly killed by wolves than to starve to death? Who is keeping the population of apex predators in check?
I’m not sure you are correctly interpreting the ramifications - - or shall we say, the lack of ramifications - - of Dennis’s narrative.
If you start with the current state of diversity of the Human genome and work backwards, and if you make no special adjustments for any alleged or supposed beginnings or endings of any other genetic contributions …
a researcher can - -
a) flow the calculations back in time 2000 years… or
b) flow the calculations back in time 4000 years… or
c) flow the calculations back in time 400,000 years … or
d) flow the calculations back in time 4 million years.
The methodology, when not adjusted in any special way for a hypothetical point of transition, makes no conclusions either way.
You say that Dennis is contradicting Genesis 1:26-28, and Point 10 of BioLogos.
Firstly, all Christian adherents to Evolution are contradicting at least one interpretation of Genesis 1:26-28.
Secondly, I don’t think you are reading Point 10 correctly:
“We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.”
God would rather have a healthy population of huntable deer for humans to glean from … than a raggedy population of dear where the average would be a devastated woodland, and emaciated deer.
The book “The Selfish Gene” by Dawkins, which includes value laden mythos of biology (e.g. we are nothing more than genes, as if great art is nothing more than paint on a canvas).
The biological paradigm that focuses on genes instead of organisms as an analytic framework.
#1 is atheistic. #2 is not atheistic; it has value, but it is not the whole story. So I agree with both of you in different ways. Rather than letting Dawkins value laden mythology define good science, affirm evolutionary science and even his contribution to it, but reject his value laden overlay.
I have corrected two statements in my post as follows:
“The basic assumption of your model is that a genealogical descendant (GD) of the primeval genealogical couple (Adam&Eve) could get married with a non-genealogical descendant (NGD) of Adam&Eve.”
“In either case we are led to conclude that there were Image Bearers other than Adam&Eve and their genealogical descendants, which is my basic assumption.”
Death is death. If wolves are going to live, they must eat. If humans are4 going to live, we are going to eat meat also. Wolves are not ruthless, they eat to live. Humans kill for sport.
Your position here looks similar to that of Cardinal Robert Bellarmino in the Letter to Paolo A. Foscarini (which played a crucial role in the Condemn of Galileo Galilei). In this Letter the Cardinal puts Biblical statements concerning Humanity (as community created in the Image of God) and statements about physical phenomena on an equal footing, as you and @DennisVenema seem to do.
By this lack of distinction Bellarmino is led for instance to the conclusion that to say “that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun” is equal heretical “as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin”.
The other way around you are led to the conclusion that removing the sharp beginning of Humanity as a community created in the Image of God (Genesis 1:26-28) is no different as denying the sharp beginning of the planet earth.
I apologize for insisting: There is no way to define the beginning of planet earth by physical means, as it is no way to define the beginning of any species or genus by biological means. By contrast God’s creation of Humanity in His image (Genesis 1:26-28) marks a sharp beginning of Humanity as a community of Image Bearers. If you remove this beginning you can remove the Incarnation as well.
Additionally, as I have argued in another post, there is no physical reality without free human observers: “All starts with our observations; the big bang is here” (as the quantum physicist John A. Wheeler puts it). Claims regarding what happened before free human observers appeared refer to activity in some invisible mind, which was thinking how the world should appear to us. Accordingly statements like “the universe started 13.79 billion years ago”, “life began 4.28 billion years ago” refer to times that should not be interpreted in an absolute way, as if a physical reality had been there independently of any human observer. In this sense such times are not less “figurative” than the 6 days of Genesis.
Exactly, it was a gradual change from dust that gradually formed the planet.
It says He created us. There is no implied period of time required for this to be accomplished. It could have happened in the blink of an eye or in 50,000 years. What is the difference to God?
Sorry but now you are arguing like a YEC. Why would the incarnation be in danger if the human race gradually became image bearers? At the time of the incarnation there were only image bearers around.
I don’t know if you already answered that in one of these 400+ messages on this topic, but just for the sake of curiosity. In your model about the start of “humanity/human beings” as the endowement of “humanity” by God to human-like animals, do you think that this “humanity” was transmited to the next generations by some physical mean (I.E. DNA) or by supernatural/Godly means? Is it sustained by physical changes in your opinion?
The elements to answer your question are contained in previous messages. You give me opportunity for putting them together and I thank you for this. My model works as follows:
1
God created Humanity in His Image by endowing human-like animals with capacity to freely love Him, which as a consequence includes also the possibility of rejecting Him and sinning.
This creation happened in several moments:
God first created a little population of Image-Bearers. This corresponds to the creation referred to in Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:22-24. Thus, at this moment only a little percentage of the whole population of human-like animals (individuals of Homo sapiens) becomes Image-Bearers. The descendants of these Image-Bearers were Image-Bearers as well.
Thereafter, and in addition to these descendants, God still created other Image-Bearers from human-like animals, according to Genesis 6:1-4, so that the percentage of Image-Bearers increased.
Finally, at a later moment God made the resting human-like animals (a large population living all over the world) to Image-Bearers. This corresponds to the God’s Decree referred to in Genesis 9:6. Since this moment and till the end of times all human-like animals on earth are Image-Bearers. In fact it is Humanity that prompts us to define the species “modern humans”.
2
The transmission of “humanity” (i.e.: the quality of Being Image-Bearer) to the next generations happens at the instant when God creates a spiritual principle (“soul”) to animate a piece of “flesh” (a fertilized egg or equivalent cell consisting in biological stuff originating through evolution) and a human personal body appears.
Accordingly, “humanity” (the quality of Being Image-Bearer) emerges at the very moment of the generation of each new person, and thus is transmitted through both by physical means (including DNA) and Godly ones.
The transformation of adult human-like animals into Image-Bearers is a purely spiritual transformation and happens without any observable genetic or anatomical change. The signs of such a transformation are rather achievements of Humanity demonstrating sense of law and accountability as we found at the dawn of civilizations.
Similarly the emergence of a human being in God’s image at the moment of fertilization or equivalent process does not involve any physical change other than the usual growth through cell cleavage and metabolism.
An important point in this respect is that Humanity as community of Image-Bearers is called to live according to moral rules and law, mainly the “Golden Rule”. And at the moment of implement this rule and assign rights the “observable Golden Basis” is the specific human body, the sign for belonging to Humanity. A human individual shares the status of a person, and personhood is inseparably united to Humanity. This principle means that the fundamental rights of a person cannot be established by belonging to a subgroup of humankind, be it by race, religion, stage of development, nation, or political class. Neither can one reduce the rights of humankind to the rights of the present-day generation. [see M&M, 16-1 (2013) 85]
Please let me know whether I have answered your queries or you would like further clarifications.
I think your response clarified them pretty well. If I understood you right, I can assume that:
1 - When you talk about the appearence of the Homo sapiens personalis as a “new species”, it is just an analogy with taxonomy, not an actual taxonomical claim. Since anatomical or genetic differences are required for making such a claim for any other species, and the presence or absence of souls is not a matter of biology or even science in general.
2 - The utility of the elimination of intermediate species is to give us humans an easy way of knowing who is a image-bearer or not, since it would be dificult to discriminate that otherwise, given that we can’t access other people’s internal subjective experiences (we don’t have to worry about intermediate species being image-bearers or not, which we could never really know for sure without accessing their inner experiences).
