Questions about Universal Ancestry

[DennisVenema]

@Swamidass

As you know “capable” cannot be construed as any sort of biological capacity here, because there is not enough time for genetic ancestry to become universal, nor would it be reliably transmitted to his offspring. When I wrote this, I meant “capable” as in “first capable because they were first with opportunity.”

I have come to realize that capable is a trigger word for people, especially when not trained in biology. For this reason, I changed the illustration to opportunity in the blog post. This is an entirely inconsequential change, because I never proposed this as a coherent model.

Consider the following two statements:

1. “Dennis is not capable of learning French.”
2. “Dennis has not had an opportunity to learn French.”

These are not equivalent statements. 1 indicates that I would not be able to learn French, even if given the opportunity. Capable relates to the abilities or capacities of a person. If you intended opportunity, using “capable” would very likely lead to confusion.

[quote=“Swamidass, post:56, topic:37071”]
As you know “capable” cannot be construed as any sort of biological capacity here, because there is not enough time for genetic ancestry to become universal, nor would it be reliably transmitted to his offspring. [/quote]

In your model, Adam and Eve are specially created beings, the first capable of a relationship with God. As written in your Sapientia piece, that sounded to me a lot like Adam and Eve were the first to have the imago dei. If one takes a relational / vocational view of the image, then this especially sounds like the imago dei.

@Swamidass

Footnote 4: For example, if we define theological humans as “Adam, Eve, and their descendents,” then by definition they are the sole-couple progenitors of all humans, by definition.

Again, if Adam and Eve are the first “theological humans” it sounds a lot like they are the first bearers of the imago dei.

The distinction between “theological humans” and “non theological humans” was also what I was getting at in my response. Genealogical models of Adam and Eve have to draw a line of some kind between their descendants and everyone else. I don’t like that. I think everyone with an anatomically modern human skeleton is just as human as anyone else. I don’t think that when someone’s lineage finally encountered Adam’s that the children born from that meeting had any different status than the children born the generation before. Others might disagree.