Yes, its been an option all along, but nobody thought it could be made into a coherent theory - - until @swamidass.
1 Like
For sure. As I said, I’m not against GAE. I enjoyed the paper Swamidass wrote about a while back, and I’m sure the book would help me understand the thesis more!
I think this hits the nail on the head for me, so a good place for me to end👍
1 Like
I’m not sure what you are saying here George. Who is ‘nobody’ and what do you mean by ‘coherent theory?’
I think the idea that there could be a separately created Adam and Eve in the midst of a population of humans has been around a long time, as it is hinted within the narrative. I remember having that thought since college anyway. The difference is linking it to genealogy and holding that significant, which is something I am skeptical of.
2 Likes
Josh Swamidass has replied more at length to @Jay313:
Adding the genealogical aspect of Adam’s lineage co-opting all of humanity is a rather crucial part of the scenario.
What does this mean?
It doesn’t do much good to have an historical Adam if intuition convinces people that this new scenario doesnt still enable Adam to be a universal common ancestor of all humanity before Jesus arrives!
So co-opting humanity just means “becoming a common ancestor?”
I confess it is not the best choice of words… but that is my meaning for this thread.
The narrative is clear (at least it is until…?). God created all from nothing, created humans from the material of the earth, and created Adam and Eve for communion with him in a sacred space. Things described happened (biblically) and Adam and Eve were sent into the world of thorns and hard work. This world may be studied and debated using history and the sciences; the biblical narrative of A&E cannot - the genealogy from Adam to Christ is relevant to theological understanding.
I am bemused by attempts to distort what seems to me to be obvious to those of us who do not seek conflict (be it science vs the bible, of other matters).
Season greetings and best wishes.
3 Likes
Yes, thanks for the correction. The footnote was correct, and I fixed the post.
The footnote is incorrect if it attempts to prove there could not have been a one-off contact with a member of the Adam/Eve lineage before 1 BCE.
How can a footnote attempt to prove anything? It’s a footnote. You might actually read the paper that the note refers.
Edit: I’m unsubscribing from this list. George keeps blowing up my phone. I have relatives to entertain and graduation stuff to do. Tag me if you have something substantial.
Working on my final review of GAE, I discovered the source of my error in referring to Pugach 2013 as 2006. Seems it came from the source:
On page 70: Looking at whole genomes, taking into account all the genetic information, there is usually genetic evidence of mixing.10
Footnote 10 reads: I. Pugach and others, “Genome-Wide Data Substantiate Holocene Gene Flow from India to Australia,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (2013): 1803-8, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211927110.)
On page 72: A 2006 genetic study uncovered evidence that about four thousand years ago there was “substantial gene flow between the Indian populations and Australia, well before European contact, contrary to the prevailing view that there was no contact between Australia and the rest of the world.” 17
Footnote 17 reads: Pugach and others, “Genome-Wide Data Substantiate.”)
I’m working off a set of proofs, so the final text may have it right. Sorry I didn’t catch Swamidass’ mistake the first time around. Send it to his “errata” file. 
So you accept the verdict of the footnote then?
In any case, the lack of genetic links is not adequate evidence to refute a one-off genealogical connection.
I have deleted this post until i confirm facts.
Let me quote from the book:
This is evidence that ancient Homo sapiens were capable of crossing large bodies of water. In this case, the genetic data settles the debate. A 2006 genetic study uncovered evidence that about four thousand years ago there was “substantial gene flow between the Indian populations and Australia, well before European contact, contrary to the prevailing view that there
was no contact between Australia and the rest of the world.” 17
Footnote 17 in the manuscript reads: Pugach and others, “Genome-Wide Data Substantiate.”
As you should realize by now, Pugach et al. was 2013. It was not a “2006 genetic study.” I mistakenly assumed the author hadn’t made an error when he cited the date.
The null hypothesis applies. Should I quote what the experts had to say in my review of Genealogical Adam & Eve again?
Perhaps realizing that his case disregards the evidence, Swamidass focuses on Australia as a whole and claims that “genetic data settles the debate” (72) about isolation. He points to a controversial 2013 study that claimed “substantial gene flow between the Indian populations and Australia” around 4,000 years ago.[11] In making this claim, Swamidass ignores a 2017 study that noted “all studies on mtDNA variation in Aboriginal Australians, including the present one, find no evidence of recent gene flow from the Indian sub-continent during the Holocene. … As all Aboriginal-specific mitochondrial haplogroups are of great antiquity, show considerable substructure, and are (mostly) very widely dispersed across the Australian continent while not being present outside Australia, it can be inferred that after initial colonization some 50,000 years ago there has been a very long period of isolation of humans in Australia.”[12]
Appealing to no evidence is no argument. It’s called “special pleading” when you resort to an extremely unlikely event (or miracle) to rescue your pet theory. Showing a bunch of maps with similar distances is not evidence. We’re talking about a particular time and place where people lacked the seafaring technology to make the passage.
O’Connell, a member of the editorial board of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, points out that “It is on the author to make the case, not on the reader to prove a negative.”
It’s as though you can read a whole book and not notice what the book is saying.
There is no way for science to convincingly detect two One-Off miracles involving the special creation of one man/one woman … in the midst of an evolved population of humans.
And THAT’s why the GAE is a (apparently) different approach from anything you have imagined or considered. You keep thinking Science can disprove the GAE methodology. But that’s just it: only those miraculous scenarios that are significant, and beyond the testing of Science are being considered.