@Jay313 you have explained your goal to build a concordist account of a figurative Adam. I think that is a great idea to add to the mix. You should do this, and from a scientific point of view there is no difference between this an a recent de novo Adam.
As @DarrelFalk puts it:
“science is silent on the question of Adam and Eve being ancestors of us all. It is even silent on the issue of whether Adam and Eve were created de novo…One can’t pin the question of Adam and Eve on science anymore.”
Once again, it is critical to remind you to exercise restraint. Coming to premature conclusions is not helpful for anyone. It will take a few years to make sense of this. As a great example of this, you point to this as an objection...
This is not a valid objection. This is in fact the whole point. Because UGAs are everywhere, we can be certain the arise in the Middle East really any time we feel is required theologically, and we can be certain that there are paired couples. This contrasts entirely with genetic ancestry, which is constantly revised as new evidence is uncovered, and it would be astronomically unlikely for all common ancestry to converge on a single paired couple. This feature of genealogical ancestry gives total autonomy to theology. Which is my point. Science is silent on Adam and Eve.
And this is not unique to evolutionary models. We also see the same thing in, for example, the AIG and RTB models. If the ubiquity of UGAs is not a problem there, it is not a problem here.
There should be no need to repeat this. We have gone over this several times. Even atheists understand what I am saying (@T_aquaticus and @sfmatheson). Science is silent here. The fact that we have told people otherwise is a scientific error.
As we have discussed, this has nothing to do with your personal hangups. You already affirm mainstream science and have come to peace with it. I am not trying to change your mind about anything regarding your model of Adam. I am not trying to convince you that Adam is historical or de novo creation. There is no reason, therefore ,to address your objections. I would encourage you to go argue this with those who are making the claim that this is exactly what happened. Perhaps you can go argue, for example, with Keller. Leave me out of that, and do not pretend you have science on your side.
This is totally false. As just one example you should be familiar with, John Walton's model makes this distinction. He call's Adam the first "true human." There is nothing new here. I suppose you also know this. Theological humans just means "human" as the theologian is using the term. In science, the term is so hotly debated as to be nearly totally ambiguous.
Right now, the problem is actually non-scientists falsely claiming the authority of science to overstate the claims of science. In their own discourse, both theology and science have autonomy. However in dialogue, the problem right now is with people overstating the claims of science.
Remember @Jay313 this has never been about your personal theological concerns and objections. It is about the empty chair.
There are many theologians historically excluded from the conversation who just disagree with you. As their voices rise, you can debate that with them.
@gbrooks9 you are having fun with this! That is great. Just keep in mind that there are a bazillion ways to approach this. It is effective to invite others you are trying to work with into the conversation to help figure it out and adjust details as they see fit.
You do not even affirm a historical Adam (as I understand it), so your effort to make sense of this is a gracious and kind thing to do. Thanks!