I may have partly mixed genetic and genealogical because what @gbrooks9 wrote seemed to be tied to genes. What we see in (fairly complete) genealogical lists reflects reproduction and spread of genes through that line. The genes of Adam or a small group of ancestors could not have spread throughout the world without reproduction that.becomes visible in the genealogical lists. The genealogical lists may include adopted persons but that does not change the basic pattern. If the genes spread widely, that should be seen in DNA analyses.
My current understanding about the genealogical lists in the biblical scriptures is that these reflect the way how ANE people constructed such lists. Having a complete list of people did not seem to be an important point. Numerological side may have been more important, like splitting the genealogical list to parts having an identical, significant number of persons. The persons were selected based on relevance to the topic, etc.
I do think that the theoretical possibilities and reality are separate issues. If we find support for theoretical and metaphysical possibilities from Nature or scriptures, then I take the possibilities seriously. Without such support, I do not give as much weight to what theoretical/metaphysical thinking takes as a logical possibility. Possibility and necessity are of course different things, so logical conclusions about what ‘must be’ true weigh more than mere possibilities.
Even with the ‘must be true’ claims, I try to take into account the possibility that the presuppositions/axioms are not necessarily true. If they are not true, the conclusions of logical reasoning may be false.
Call it what you want but data integration is an important part of my world. Like anything, harmonization can be abused or done to excess but I’m not dumping the baby with the bathwater.
Read my response in context. I was responding to Vinnie’s assertion that the only people who get a soul are those that descended from A&E.
It took 70,000 years for homo sapiens to spread around the world and then with no modern transportation you are saying there was enough global travel for people to reach every part of the occupied world in just 2,000 years? Computer simulations are nice (they are what I used in my previous life) but they ain’t the real world.
Amen brother. Preach on.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
44
In any large enough population there are going to be people that are the genealogical ancestors of everyone in the population but the genetic ancestors of none of them. In other words, we have population wide common genealogical ancestors whose DNA is not found in any of us. They are called ghost ancestors.
You don’t have to go back that far to reach a common ancestor for large populations. For example, nearly everyone in Europe has Charlemagne as on of their ancestors. What we need to keep in mind is that there is a big difference between common ancestor and sole ancestor.
At the same time, there are issues with the Genealogical A&E concept, but we do need to keep in mind the difference between common ancestor and sole ancestor.
Words matter, that is true. And my use of words may have been a poor choice.
A common ancestor may be easy to find within a region if there is a continuous historical line of related families in the region. Charlemagne may be a common ancestor for many in some part of Europe but not everywhere - not here, as far as I have heard. The distant relatives of Genghis Khan may cover a large part of Asia but even that is far from global.
The article (abstract) was interesting. I could not read the whole article but if I understood the abstract correctly, in a population without strict reproductive barriers, we might find a common ancestor for all the people if we go far enough backward, even without shared DNA. If all humans in the world would belong to the same connected population, it might be possible that Adam is a common ancestor of all of us - even if we have no DNA from him.
The caveat there seems to be in the ‘reproductive barriers’. Geographical, social and other barriers are likely to slow down the mixing of populations, especially before the last centuries.
For example, Europeans have Neanderthal genes, most people in Africa do not have such. This suggests some form of reproductive barrier that has lasted for tens of thousands of years, at least from Eurasia to Africa.
Europeans and Americans were isolated before Columbus and other Europeans sailed across the Atlantic. Lots of relatives now but not 700 years ago.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
46
It’s really a numbers game. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, and so on. Your ancestors increase exponentially as you go backwards. Obviously, this isn’t reflected in the actual populations. That’s because those ancestors are shared with everyone else. Every marriage is between cousins, it’s only a matter of how distant that cousin is.
As for the loss of genetic material, that is also a numbers game. Each round of meiosis divides your diploid genome into haploid gametes, and there is a unequal distribution of DNA from your mother and father between those gametes. Since only half your genome makes it to the next generation there is also going to be an unequal contribution to each child from their grandparents. This can result in the entire loss of an ancestors DNA in their descendants.
We do all share African ancestors, at the very least.
3 Likes
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
47
One way we know that a Moses did not write the Pentateuch is because it is devoid of
ANY notion of an Egyptian-style afterlife! And yet Moses, raised as a high born Egyptian,
would have been steeped in all sorts of Afterlife concepts. These are not found in the
Pentateuch and the Prophets!
The Enochian view of an afterlife seems to come from the Persians, not the
Egyptians.
The loss is in the specific genetic markers for that individual. But calculations can estimate how big the bottleneck might be for a whole population…. frequently estimated at 10,000 for modern humans.
But while genetic markers are being halved with each generation, GENEALOGICAL heritage expands geometrically.
And since this expansion is most relevant to the idea of the seed of Abraham, and the
New Testament notion of when sin enters into the human “matrix” - - the idea of several
U.C.A.’s being established by God’s providential actions, is consistent with Evangelical
imaginings.
G.Brooks
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
49
GENEALOGICAL heritage is just lines on a paper and are meaningless IMHO. Trace my family back far enough and you will find Charlemagne. So what? It’s me and most of the current European population. It would have more meaning to someone in the ANE but only because they didn’t understand genetics and thought someone in the distant past actually did contribute “something” to them.
Why invoke God, aka love (not even transcendent Love), teaching us anything at all in Genesis 1-11? What’s unnatural, impossible in it? Where’s the divine emotional intelligence we couldn’t have made up? That transcends the ancient (not that ancient; C6th BCE) mythology?
The unique role assigned to the Universal Common Ancestry from Adam (or from Noah)
is only made relevant with the unique role assigned to Jesus. Significantly before the
date of the birth of Jesus, it matters little if there are gaps in the UCA heritage.
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
54
Ironically, that’s when the Adam/Eve story was composed …. during a time when they
thought ancient ancestry DID contribute “something”.
So are you rejecting the idea that humanity is prone to sin?
Or, that there was an Adam/Eve?
Or, are you rejecting the idea that infants are born in a state of sin?
Or, do you reject the validity of the Old Testament text:
Exo 34:5-7 “Then the LORD came down in the cloud and
stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD.
And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the
LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger,
abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands,
and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave
the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children
for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”
You can similarly describe any written text, including the Bible as lines on a paper. That’s certainly is true but to call it “just” lines on a paper is false.
I’m trying to figure out why it matters after? If there were 3 biological humans in the middle of a jungle somewhere who were not metaphysical humans in the year 73AD, what is the major problem? Animals not created in God’s image exist on the earth both before and anfter Jesus. I’m not saying this is the case, just asking why it’s so important to some people. All I get out of people usually is the idea “It can be used to support racism/slavery” which is just an emotive non-argument. Anything can be abused to supporting. What matters ultimately is whether a view is true or false, not of sinful humans can use it as an oppressive tool. I’m not sure what they can’t use for that.
2 Likes
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
56
The science of Genealogy, combined with a Theistic view of Providence, makes your
scenario nothing more than a metaphysical speculation.
The YECs who think the UCA of Adam/Eve explains human sin don’t have to answer
your speculation. BECAUSE: computer simulations show that UCA’s can exist after 1,500
to 2,000 years from Adam, or from Noah.
As far as I know, YECs treat neanderthals and others as full humans who lived after Adam. I’m not as interested in YECs as you and don’t define my beliefs with them in mind. I’m interested in truth and how to reconcile the Biblical account with modern science which tells me their scenario that Adam is the ancestor of every human alive today and every human looking fossil found in the ground is contrary to empirical observations and data. Why should I (not Ken Ham) adopt the birth year of Jesus as some necessary cutoff? That is what I am asking you? Or are you just engaged with some specific young earth creationism viewpoints —which I note is an ideology that is held by no one that has posted in this topic as far as I can tell.
I am not sure how the genealogical Adam and Eve helps YECs scientifically when they think humans and neanderthals bred after Adam and Eve were created 6,000 years ago. I’m honestly a little confused how it helps them at all. What am I missing here? They think the earth is 6,000 years old. How does this scenario truly help them with evolution?
Vinnie
2 Likes
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
58
And then my relevant question: how does the genealogical Adam and Eve help YECs?
Seems it’s more beneficial to theistic evolutionists who think scripture teaches a literal Adam and Even and a fall dependent on them.
Educate me. How does the genealogical Adam and Eve help YECs? It seems that A&E being the genetic ancestor of all humans is non-negotiable for them. Maybe they need introducing to my “metaphysical speculations” as you called them.
Yes they thought it did, but we know it doesn’t (after a big enough period of time). So why would you accept this misunderstanding while rejecting the dome over the flat earth (hoping you don’t). It is just another accommodation.
And in answer to your questions, no, yes, yes, depends on what you mean by validity.