While the account never explicitly states that Adam is the first man, it is a reasonably inference, since later there was no, “suitable” helper for Adam, hence God created Eve.[quote=“Sy_Garte, post:20, topic:36368”]
Getting back to Swamidass’ ideas, while there can be no valid scientific argument against the idea of a single couple being the biological ancestors of all modern humans
An historical Adam and Eve are not the biological ancestors of all modern humans, they are one of many genealogical ancestors of modern humans, according to Joshua’s theory.
I’m not sure I understand the objection. If it’s conceded that Adam and Eve are not the first homo sapiens, then why the need to account for racist differences in, “a relatively brief period”?
Respectfully disagree that Joshua’s view isn’t an attempt at concordance. The issue I have with Joshua’s theory (I read all the articles that he referenced in a response to me) is that it counters the spirit of the Genesis account, which is that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of the human race. Since we now know that, if they existed, they couldn’t have been, the genealogical ancestry idea is a way to, “concord” the creation narrative with science, IMO.
I do think a lot of people would be attracted to Joshua’s theory and I’ll certainly present it as an option to those who want to hold to an historic Adam and Eve. I don’t find it compelling, however, since I believe the account is an origins tradition with theological value, not an attempt to teach us how the first humans and animals came about.