Two-million-year-old Adam and Eve still possible: Dr. Ann Gauger’s model remains viable

A few weeks ago, I wrote a short post titled, Adam and Eve still a possibility?, in which I drew readers’ attention to the work of geneticist Richard Buggs, Reader in Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary University of London, who thinks it’s still theoretically possible that the human race once passed through a short, sharp population bottleneck of just two individuals, followed by exponential population growth. Biologist Dennis Venema, professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia, has recently written a two-part reply to Buggs, titled, Adam, Eve and Population Genetics: A Reply to Dr. Richard Buggs (Part 1) and A Reply to Dr. Richard Buggs (Part 2). But in a comment in response to a query of mine, Professor Venema conceded that at the present time, science cannot rule out Dr. Ann Gauger’s hypothesis that there was a severe bottleneck around two million years ago, with the emergence of Homo erectus, whom she identifies as the first true human being. When I pressed Professor Venema, saying, “In plain English, what you’re saying is that science can’t rule out an original couple, if they lived more than 1 million years ago,” he replied:

I guess it depends on how reliable you think PSMC methods are as they approach this time frame. The data looks smooth to me out to around 1.5 MYA or so, plus or minus, but the method loses its power as you go back further and further.

In a recent email message, Dr. Gauger clarified her position on Adam and Eve:

I did not settle on an old age for Adam so that the population genetics would work out or because I was seeking to prove two progenitors. It was because I could not understand why God would create Homo species so close to us and not be part of us, and because of morphology. I find species definitions to be tricky things, and sometimes they are assigned because of an agenda. H ergaster and H habilis are disputed for example. But for me Turkana boy is clearly human.

So I arrived at an early date because paleontology. I am aware of arguments for 200k (first modern skeleton), 70 k (Blombos cave, migration out of Africa), or 20-10k to match Genesis.) We will see if any of these dates, as well as the older one, can accommodate a unique origin based on AFS, LD, and several other pop gen statistics. Feel free to pass this on.

Dr. Gauger has adduced evidence that Homo erectus and Homo ergaster (African Homo erectus) were rational beings, who were capable of foresight: they transported tools over distances of 12-13 kilometers, compared to distances of just tens or hundreds of meters for Australopithecus and early Homo (see here). In addition, there is evidence (see also here) that Homo ergaster was able to tame fire as far back as 1,000,000 years ago, and perhaps use it to cook meat as well, although Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University in the Netherlands and Paola Villa, a curator at the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History in the U.S., cautions that we don’t have evidence of regular fire use going back any further than 400,000 years ago. Finally, excavations at the South African site of Kathu Pan suggest that Homo ergaster had a sense of aesthetics. As Dr. Gauger describes it:

…[T]he site has yielded what is termed, the ‘Master Hand-Axe’ which dates to approximately 750 000 BP rendering it the oldest artifact which is indisputably aesthetic i.e. worked for beauty and symmetry, perfectly oriented, and worked considerably beyond the functional requirements of the hand-axe, which could have been achieved with half or fewer blows (see Figure 4-2). The technology which produced it is known as the Acheulian, and the artifacts are thought to be made by Homo ergaster (Homo erectus in Africa), a diverse grouping of early humans commonly imagined as small-brained, small-jawed and robustly built, with heavy eyebrow ridges.

When I look at that master handaxe, I see aesthetics, painstaking care, and a joy in the materials. I see mind.

In a recent comment on Biologos, I expressed reservations about Dr. Gauger’s ancient Adam and Eve scenario:

However, if I were to identify the chief flaw of the ancient Adam and Eve scenario, it would be this: modern human behavior doesn’t appear until 100,000 years ago. Homo erectus may have had foresight (transporting tools over distances of more than 10 kilometers), the ability to control fire (although this is hotly disputed) and even a sense of aesthetics (judging from the elegance of some Acheulean tools), but it almost certainly lacked the capacity for art, religion and science. This means that in some ways it was less human than we are – which means that if we are to believe in Adam and Eve, we have to give up belief in human equality.

It is instructive to compare Homo erectus with modern-day tribes whose lifestyle has been described by some as “primitive.” Members of these tribes have relatively little trouble in adapting to the cognitive demands of civilization, some making the transition in as little as a generation. I doubt very much whether Homo erectus could have done that. And I also doubt whether anyone could have preached the Gospel to Homo erectus.

Finally, in a recent post on The Skeptical Zone, I marshaled evidence indicating that Homo erectus almost certainly lacked the use of language, and that even the Neandertals probably lacked it. What’s more, the human brain appears to have evolved specific traits in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens, which allowed our species to possess a full-blown theory of mind and imagine what others were thinking about them.

For her part, Dr. Gauger is not troubled by the fact that Homo erectus lacked our level of linguistic ability. And in a post on Biologos, she responded as follows to my concerns about the lack of symbolic culture in Homo erectus: “First of all, our full capacity for art, drama, philosophy, religion and language was not present 300,000 years ago. Nor was it present, it could be argued until the Egyptians, the early Greeks, and the Chinese had their cultural flowering.” I agree with Dr. Gauger that early Homo sapiens, who lived 300,000 years ago, lacked “our full capacity for art, drama, philosophy, religion and language.” I think that these abilities appeared 100,000 years ago, with the emergence of modern human behavior (see also here). Dr. Gauger argues that the long lag between the appearance of Homo sapiens and the emergence of behavioral modernity means that we shouldn’t consider Homo erectus subhuman because it didn’t behave in this way. I would argue, however, that the human brain did not stop evolving with the appearance of Homo sapiens. It may have subsequently acquired the traits which enabled us to use language and to possess a full-blown theory of mind.

So the long and the short of it is: Dr. Gauger’s model of a two-million-year-old Adam and Eve remains scientifically viable, but their minds would have been very different from ours. Personally, I wouldn’t call Homo erectus a true human being. The Neandertals I’m not so sure about, for reasons I’ve discussed previously.

I’ll just finish by mentioning the work of Dr. Joshua Swamidass, who is an assistant professor at Washington University in Saint Louis where he runs a computational biology group. In an article titled, A Genealogical Rapprochement on Adam?, he accepts “the genetic evidence in which it appears (1) our ancestors arise as a population, not a single couple, and that (2) we share ancestry with the great apes,” but also proposes that an individual named Adam “was created out of dust, and Eve out of his rib, less than 10,000 years ago in a divinely created garden where God might dwell with them, the first beings with opportunity to be in a relationship with Him.” After leaving the Garden, Adam and Eve’s offspring blended with that of their neighbors in the surrounding towns. “In this way, they became genealogical ancestors of all those in recorded history. Adam and Eve, here, are the single-couple progenitors of all mankind.” Of course, humans today have many genealogical ancestors, not just Adam and Eve. An article outlining Dr. Swamidass’s hypothesis will appear in the March 1, 2018 issue of PSCF (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith). The important thing for readers to grasp is that genealogical ancestry is not genetic ancestry: “Though scientific discourse focuses on genetic ancestry, genealogical ancestry is germane to the theological claims about Adam.” Adam and Eve are ancestors of us all, because genealogical ancestry becomes universal in just a few thousand years. Dr. Swamidass contends that “Scripture and theology, at most, make claims about genealogical ancestry, but not genetic ancestry,” because when Scripture was written, people had no notion of what genes were. I’m not sure, however, that it’s that simple. The Bible appears to affirm that Adam and Eve were the only genealogical ancestors of the entire human race. As Acts 17:26 puts it: “From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries.” I’m also not sure exactly what new trait Adam and Eve were supposed to have possessed, under the scenario proposed by Dr. Swamidass, since he explicitly declares that even the human beings living outside Adam and Eve’s Graden were made in the image of God. It seems the only thing that was genuinely new about Adam and Eve was that they were spiritually fallen. But because genetic information is transmitted only unreliably, Dr. Swamidass argues that Adam and Eve, if they existed, “probably did not transmit DNA to all their descendants, nor did they transmit any identifiable DNA to any of their descendants.” He continues: “This means that Adam and Eve’s DNA is not how the Fall or original sin, if they exist, is transmitted to all of us.” At any rate, Dr. Swamidass’s article is a very stimulating read, which is sure to take the Adam and Eve debate in a new direction.

I’d now like to throw the discussion open to readers – especially those with a Christian background. If you had your druthers, which Adam and Eve would you pick? A two-million-year-old one, who was perhaps a lot dimmer than us, as proposed by Dr. Gauger? Or a Neolithic one, as proposed by Dr. Swamidass, who interbred with other humans that were made in God’s image and likeness, and left descendants all over the globe? Or neither of the above?

I’ll leave you all with a concluding thought: “We are more different genetically from people living 5,000 years ago than they were different from Neanderthals,” according to John Hawks, a professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Many of the genetic mutations that have spread through the human population in the last few thousand years relate to “changes in the human diet brought on by the advent of agriculture, and resistance to epidemic diseases that became major killers after the growth of human civilizations.” Civilization seems to have been what’s changed us most. But how has it changed our brains? That I don’t know. Maybe someone can tell me. Over to you.

300 thoughts on “Two-million-year-old Adam and Eve still possible: Dr. Ann Gauger’s model remains viable

  1. Joe Felsenstein: If it makes people happy to have all the other ancestors not be labeled as part of our species, sure, let’s call them something (someone) else.

    You are on to something with the something/someone dichotomy. I would say that Adam and Eve form the boundary between “something” and “someone”.

    I’m not sure how those who don’t hold to the reality of Adam and Eve can ever make that distinction.

    Yet we all know a line exists between somethings and someones.

    peace

  2. Mung: Don’t pay any attention to dazz. He’s supposed to be working on a program that creates nested hierarchies. So far from him we’ve seen zip.

    He’d better create a program that accounts for the gene-spermia into the tree of life or he is going to get stuck right at the miraculous transition of prokaryotes to eukaryotes… John miraclevolver has some inside scoop on that …apparently…

  3. fifthmonarchyman: When folks in power define things incorrectly it affects us all eventually.

    What’s incorrect about it.

    As far as I know, scientific definitions are made by scientists and the peer review process is involved in whether proposed definitions become established. Do you really think the scientists should consult theologians first?

    Why not defend the concept on “scientific” grounds? Are there any takers?

    There are several books written on that topic.

    My personal view (as a non-biologist) is that species are conventional (established by convention), and that what you are calling a definition is really a guideline. It is my understanding that some biologists say that species are conventional.

  4. Neil Rickert: What’s incorrect about it.

    Did you not read the links articles I posted? Would you like me to post some more?

    Basically since Ernst Mayr coined his definition we have learned that there simply is no genetically isolated population. His definition is wacked

    Neil Rickert: As far as I know, scientific definitions are made by scientists and the peer review process is involved in whether proposed definitions become established.

    You can’t “peer review” a definition.

    Do you honesty think scientists sit around together deciding what words truly mean by committee like some Catholic conclave?

    Neil Rickert: Do you really think the scientists should consult theologians first?

    No, I simply think that when it becomes obvious that a particular understanding is wrong that it should be abandoned for a better one and the sooner the better.

    That goes for the understandings of theologians and scientists.

    Neil Rickert: My personal view (as a non-biologist) is that species are conventional (established by convention), and that what you are calling a definition is really a guideline.

    I really wish you would tell that to the folks administering the endangered species act and to the folks at biologos.

    If you could get them to agree with you the world would be a better place for red wolves and theistic evolutionists. 😉

    peace

  5. fifthmonarchyman: Do you honesty think scientists sit around together deciding what words truly mean by committee like some Catholic conclave?

    I honestly think that scientists suggest terminology. And some of those suggestions are adopted by the scientific community, while others wither on the vine.

    No, I think that when it becomes obvious that a particular understanding is wrong that it should be abandoned for a better one an the sooner the better.

    Or perhaps it should be obvious that your particular way of understaning “species” is not how the term is used in biology.

  6. Neil Rickert: My personal view (as a non-biologist) is that species are conventional (established by convention), and that what you are calling a definition is really a guideline. It is my understanding that some biologists say that species are conventional.

    How many conventions are there? How many conventions are permitted before it’s no longer a convention?

  7. Neil Rickert: I honestly think that scientists suggest terminology. And some of those suggestions are adopted by the scientific community, while others wither on the vine.

    Right In this case, (I believe) an influential scientist wrote a book where he coined a faulty definition that became a pillar of the “modern synthesis” and it was accepted based on his presumed authority and the lack of conflicting genetic evidence that existed at the time.

    It has continued to be used well past it’s shelf life based on cultural inertia to the determent of the scientific enterprise.

    Neil Rickert: perhaps it should be obvious that your particular way of understaning “species” is not how the term is used in biology.

    If biologists don’t like the common sense definition of species that existed for thousands of years before Mayr I have no problem with them using an alternative definition, as long as it’s not whacked

    peace

  8. fifthmonarchyman: If biologists don’t like the common sense definition of species that existed for thousands of years before Mayr I have no problem with them using an alternative definition, as long as it’s not whacked

    If science stuck with the common sense definitions from 1000 years ago, then our science would not have advanced beyond that of 1000 years ago.

    No, the definition of species is not “whacked”. It’s an idealization. Your complaint is that it doesn’t quite work in reality. But that’s typical of idealization. A lot of science is idealizations. Maybe take a look at Nancy Cartwright’s book “How the laws of physics lie” to see how idealization works in physics.

  9. Neil Rickert: If science stuck with the common sense definitions from 1000 years ago, then our science would not have advanced beyond that of 1000 years ago.

    Do you honestly think that science advances by changing what words mean somehow?

    I thought science advanced by increasing our knowledge of the universe

    silly me

    Neil Rickert: No, the definition of species is not “whacked”. It’s an idealization. Your complaint is that it doesn’t quite work in reality

    Did you read any of the articles?

    It’s not that it “does not quite work in reality” it’s that as we are increasingly discovering it does not work very well at all

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/defining-species-fuzzy-art

    Species are not generally formed by genetic isolation in fact hybridization is often the mechanism by which species form.

    https://sciencerecorder.com/article.php?n=galapagos-finches-reveal-mechanisms-behind-rapid-evolution&id=133694

    Once a species exists it’s often interbreeding that introduces important new advantageous alleles

    https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47474/title/Advantages-of-Neanderthal-DNA-in-the-Human-Genome/

    The concept of species as genetically isolated populations is just increasingly seen out of touch with what is really going on.

    I can’t understand why you are defending it.

    If it serves some useful scientific purpose why not present that case ?

    Neil Rickert: But that’s typical of idealization.

    If by idealization you mean misleading and unhelpful and whacked then I suppose it’s typical

    peace

  10. fifthmonarchyman: It’s not that it “does not quite work in reality” it’s that as we are increasingly discovering it does not work very well at all

    You don’t have the right to say “we”. Real scientists doing real work can say “we”. you cannot. You simply don’t count. You can make yourself count by hard work and effort. But you won’t do that.

    How’s your game going? Written it yet? Or still waiting for others to do your work for you?

  11. fifthmonarchyman:

    Joe Felsenstein: The genetic evidence does strongly indicate that the set of ancestors of us has never been as small as 2, at least not since we were Homo erectus.

    I never was Homo erectus I’ve been Homo sapien as far back as I can remember.

    It really does depend on what you mean by “us”.

    If by “us” you mean a species as defined by genetic isolation then I would not disagree instead I would withhold judgement in light of the rapidly shifting assumptions in this enterprise .

    However since I don’t define species in that way I have no problem with a set of ancestors as small as 2.

    I still do not get the relevance of the definition of species to the Adam/Eve issue. We humans have ancestors. The evidence from genetics is clear, that there was no point, at least in the last couple of million years, at which it is plausible that there were then only two ancestors.

    So you either have to say that this evidence is wrong, or wrongly interpreted, or you have to say that there were two individuals who were the ancestors of all modern humans, but who were not the only individuals back then who were ancestors of present-day humans. (Just as you and I might share a pair of great-great-great grandparents, but we each also have a lot of other ancestors back then). Or else you have to argue that there was a bottleneck of ancestry down to A&E much earlier.

    Now where, exactly, in this argument does the definition of species come in? Although there is much to say about that topic, as far as I can see it has no relevance to the Adam/Eve issue.

  12. fifthmonarchyman: Do you honestly think that science advances by changing what words mean somehow?

    Do you honestly believe I was suggesting anything like that?

    I thought science advanced by increasing our knowledge of the universe.

    It does. But we probably disagree on what is knowledge.

    Science advances by carving up the world into ever smaller parts, so that it can get more and more precise information. When you carve in into smaller parts, you are going to need names for new parts.

    Your plan would abandon this method, and thereby abandon what has made science successful.

  13. fifthmonarchyman: Yes that is because for the non-materialist there is no problem to be solved.

    Yet you cannot demonstrate how that would work in the real world. You ended up suggesting that we should “observe the phenotypes and genotypes,” which doesn’t look very “non-materialistic,” nor does it look like there’s no problem to be solved, let alone like there’s some clear delimitation that can be drawn, which lead you to admit that there’s no solution to the problem. Good job.

    fifthmonarchyman: We have well defined categories but categories are mental things and not physical ones. I thought I had made that clear.

    Oh, so you mean that you have well-defined categories in your mind, and those clear categories cannot be put to practice. Your non-materialism lead you to solve the problem in your imagination, but the solution cannot be applied to reality because it has little to do with reality. Sure. If there’s no problem to solve in your mind, even though the problem persists in reality, then surely your non-materialism keeps you feeling at ease, but uselessly so. Mental comfort but no real-life solution. Now that’s rich metaphysics!

    Peace to you too.

  14. Entropy: Mental comfort but no real-life solution.

    I guess they never wonder why they are not heading multi billion dollar corporations given their superior insights.

    It’s the same as when phoodoo insists PSI is real but then fails to actually point out any examples of it actually being used to do something useful. That never seems to bother him either.

  15. Entropy: Yet you cannot demonstrate how that would work in the real world.

    Really, It’s been working in the real world since there were people to observe things.

    I even posted an article that explained how one scientist describes the method I’m talking about working in real world biology.

    quote:

    Such shenanigans have led Ertter to what she calls the “fuzzy species concept.” After looking at all the kinds of evidence she might muster for a plant, from its genes and distribution to the details of petals, leaf hairs and other parts, she sides with the preponderance of data to designate a species.

    end quote:
    from the previously linked article

    simple is it not?
    Life can be simple if you just let it be.

    Entropy: nor does it look like there’s no problem to be solved, let alone like there’s some clear delimitation that can be drawn, which lead you to admit that there’s no solution to the problem.

    Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around this it is elementary metaphysics.

    There is no problem for me because I don’t look for a precise physical boundary for what is a mental construct. To do so would be just silly.

    On the other hand it would be a problem if I assumed that mental constructs could be reduced to the physical.

    I’m not sure how many more ways I can explain it.

    Perhaps if you reread the last couple of sentences a few times you will be able to get it.

    peace

  16. Neil Rickert: Science advances by carving up the world into ever smaller parts, so that it can get more and more precise information. When you carve in into smaller parts, you are going to need names for new parts.

    Now that is something I can agree with.
    That is precisely what I am advocating here.

    Carving into smaller parts has nothing to do with defining species by genetic isolation.

    Neil Rickert: Your plan would abandon this method, and thereby abandon what has made science successful.

    No my plan is to return to the method by abandoning out misguided and fruitless effort to define species with a whacked out definition

    peace

  17. OMagain: How’s your game going? Written it yet? Or still waiting for others to do your work for you?

    I addressed this earlier in this very thread.

    Do you expect me to do your work for you or can you look for that comment for yourself? 😉

    peace

  18. Joe Felsenstein: or you have to say that there were two individuals who were the ancestors of all modern humans, but who were not the only individuals back then who were ancestors of present-day humans.

    Adam is the progenitor and covenant representative (head) of the entire human race the only way that this explanation works is if any other “individuals” present at his creation were not human but belonged to another species.

    That is why the question of species is relevant to this discussion

    Hope that helps

    peace

  19. fifthmonarchyman: Adam is the progenitor and covenant representative (head) of the entire human race the only way that this explanation works is if any other “individuals” present at his creation were not human but belonged to another species.

    That is why the question of species is relevant to this discussion

    Thanks, that is helpful. It makes clear that the argument is that there were more individuals than Adam and Eve around, and that there could be descendants of A&E who were their descendants too. So A&E and the Others were not, in that view, reproductively isolated from each other.

    So then the argument is entirely about whether we get to call the Others the same species as A&E. So the argument is about words, not anything substantive about A&E or about the Others.

    I see no reason why anyone should care how you label them.

  20. fifthmonarchyman: Adam is the progenitor and covenant representative (head) of the entire human race the only way that this explanation works is if any other “individuals” present at his creation were not human but belonged to another species.

    Wouldn’t the offspring then be hybrids of the two species, part human and part non human?.

  21. newton: Wouldn’t the offspring then be hybrids of the two species, part human and part non human?.

    no,

    They would be human if they shared the characteristic that defined the human species. Namely for our purposes here decent from Adam

    peace

  22. Joe Felsenstein: So then the argument is entirely about whether we get to call the Others the same species as A&E.

    no you are assuming that any hypothetical “Others” shared the attributes of the human species that originated with Adam. They most certainly did not.

    So by definition they are not the same species no matter what we choose to call them.

    I think possibly you are buying into the idea that what makes us human can be reduced to genetics alone.

    If it helps think behaviorally verses anatomically modern human

    peace

  23. Well, I am not sure what scientific result establishes that, in some generation in the past, there were two special individuals who were humans, but in the rest of the population who were able to mate with them, all the others were not humans, I must have missed that scientific paper.

    Or perhaps it is just a rationalization of statements in sacred texts, confronted with scientific evidence that the population of individuals who were our ancestors never got as small as two individuals. In which case, it will be interest to theologians, but not to scientists.

    Nor will arguing that we need some different notion of species, so that we can call the Others not humans.

  24. Joe Felsenstein: Well, I am not sure what scientific result establishes that, in some generation in the past, there were two special individuals who were humans, but in the rest of the population who were able to mate with them, all the others were not humans, I must have missed that scientific paper.

    I’m not saying that Adam and Eve have been established scientifically as of yet. The OP was about a claim that their existence had been ruled out scientifically that is clearly not the case.

    Joe Felsenstein: Nor will arguing that we need some different notion of species, so that we can call the Others not humans.

    We don’t need to abandon the concept of species as a genetically isolated population so we can call the hypothetical “others’ not human.

    We need to abandon the “biological concept” of species because it’s misleading and unhelpful and whacked. Because it causes all kinds of real world problems with things like environmental protection and warps our understanding of evolutionary history.

    It’s simply an added bonus that by abandoning a wildly faulty definition allows us to maintain the noble and accurate idea that all humans have a familial bond regardless of our race or national origin.

    peace

  25. I’d say we could prove the existence of Adam and Eve philosophically right now by pondering Joe Felsenstein’s something/someone dichotomy.

    I’d really like to know how you can have a line between “someones” and “somethings” if there is no Adam and Eve.

    Does anyone care to answer that question?

    peace

  26. fifthmonarchyman: no,

    They would be human if they shared the characteristic that defined the human species. Namely for our purposes here decent from Adam

    peace

    They also would have descended from a not Adam.

  27. By the way there is no reason we could not prove Adam and Eve did not exist scientifically.

    All we would have to do is prove that there is no possible individual couple that is everyone’s ancestor since the human species arrived.

    If we discovered a population of folks with Neanderthal Mitochondrial DNA that would do it I think.

    peace

  28. newton: Sounds like you are using a biological concept to define a species

    How so??? Please elaborate???

    Humans have DNA from all sorts of sources that says nothing about what defines us as humans

    peace

  29. fifthmonarchyman: The fact I have some Neanderthal DNA does not make me a Neanderthal any more than the fact that I have some virus DNA makes me a virus.

    Sure, but the fact that you might want to label one of many persons in an ancestral population “Adam” doesn’t ensure that you have any more DNA from that labeled individual than from those neanderthals.

  30. Entropy: but the fact that you might want to label one of many persons in an ancestral population “Adam” doesn’t ensure that you have any more DNA from that labeled individual than from those neanderthals.

    The volume of DNA I got from Adam compared to other sources is irrelevant.

    According to article I linked 80% of our DNA is from nonhuman sources that does not make us only 20% human? Come on man think

    peace

  31. fifthmonarchyman: The volume of DNA I got from Adam compared to other sources is irrelevant.

    Well, I’d guess that if the volume is zero it’s pretty relevant. It’s also relevant if you have much more inherited material from someone else. Then talking about that labeled person as “Adam” is nonsense. As I said, feel free to do that if that makes you happy, but as some kind of “foundational” individual? It just doesn’t make sense.

    fifthmonarchyman: According to article I linked 80% of our DNA is from nonhuman sources that does not make us only 20% human.

    Non-human sources? Do you think that anatomically and culturally and “common sense” identifiable humans were around 40 million years ago? That that “foreign” DNA really was introduced into an ancestral human population, rather than, mostly, in ancestors that didn’t look very human by either of those materialistic and magnificent non-metarialistic definitions?

    You’re the one with the rich metaphysics, which seems to consist on making excuses for not delivering on your claims by distancing your words from the realities they purported to have already solved.

  32. Entropy: Well, I’d guess that if the volume is zero it’s pretty relevant.

    It could be but not necessarily so.
    If I’m adopted then the fact that I don’t share my parents DNA is not relevant to my being their son.

    Entropy: It’s also relevant if you have much more inherited material from someone else. Then talking about that labeled person as “Adam” is nonsense.

    Why so?? I’m human because I’m descended Adam.

    Talking about the person who originated the species is not nonsense it’s vital to understanding why I’m human.

    Entropy: Non-human sources? Do you think that anatomically and culturally and “common sense” identifiable humans were around 40 million years ago?

    No

    Entropy: That that “foreign” DNA really was introduced into an ancestral human population, rather than, mostly, in ancestors that didn’t look very human by either of those materialistic and magnificent non-metarialistic definitions?

    When the Nonhuman DNA was introduced is irrelevant to the fact that it has a nonhuman origin.

    Entropy: You’re the one with the rich metaphysics, which seems to consist on making excuses for not delivering on your claims by distancing your words from the realities they purported to have already solved.

    It might be better if you spent a little more time giving specifics instead of editorializing.

    As it is I’m having difficulty ascertaining if you even understand what is being discussed here.

    peace

  33. fifthmonarchyman: Why so?? I’m human because I’m descended [from] Adam.

    There may be rather little of our DNA that comes from any one ancestor at that remove. If we could figure out which stretches of our DNA are descended from Adam or from Eve, and that the rest comes from Others, we could begin to map where in the genome are the genes for being human (perhaps the genes for Original Sin?).

    Thus I am now announcing the founding of the new field of Molecular Theology, which leads to Theological Biotechnology.

    But that’s assuming that A&E were the only ones of our ancestors in that generation that were humans, the rest being Others. For which we have no evidence.

  34. fifthmonarchyman: It might be better if you spent a little more time giving specifics instead of editorializing.

    Why? It’s not as if you’ll suddenly change your ways and will read it in its entirety, or for comprehension. If anybody was interested, they could check that conversation and figure it out themselves.

  35. fifthmonarchyman: When the Nonhuman DNA was introduced is irrelevant to the fact that it has a nonhuman origin.

    When the DNA was introduced into the lineage is important my irrational friend. It cannot be called “nonhuman,” If the DNA was introduced before there was such a thing as a human. Since it was introduced before there was such a thing as a human, we inherited from the ancestors of humans. It’s therefore human DNA. Of traceable origin in viruses, but still human DNA.

    What happened with your non-materialist rich metaphysics? It doesn’t look like that much of an advantage.

  36. Joe Felsenstein: Thus I am now announcing the founding of the new field of Molecular Theology, which leads to Theological Biotechnology.

    I’m staking out the study of the microtheome, which investigates the behavior of small gods.

  37. I’ve always wondered who satan sells all those souls to, and what his profit margin is. Is there a market in prosthetic souls?

  38. Joe Felsenstein: If we could figure out which stretches of our DNA are descended from Adam or from Eve, and that the rest comes from Others, we could begin to map where in the genome are the genes for being human (perhaps the genes for Original Sin?).

    Again you are assuming that what makes us human can be reduced to genes alone. That is a view I explicitly reject.

    It’s theoretically possible that the hypothetical Others could be genetically identical to Adam (identical twin perhaps) and still not be human.

    Joe Felsenstein: But that’s assuming that A&E were the only ones of our ancestors in that generation that were humans, the rest being Others. For which we have no evidence.

    What would you consider to be evidence?

    Please be specific. How can you tell “scientifically” when one species begins and another ends?

    Peace

  39. Entropy: Since it was introduced before there was such a thing as a human, we inherited from the ancestors of humans. It’s therefore human DNA.

    What??? If DNA came from non humans it by definition came from non humans. It makes no difference if the source was Neanderthal, Australopithecus or a virus

    Nothing controversial there.

    In another sense all my DNA, every list bit of it, is human DNA It belongs, to me and I’m a human.

    Again nothing controversial here

    peace

  40. fifthmonarchyman: Again you are assuming that what makes us human can be reduced to genes alone. That is a view I explicitly reject.

    It’s theoretically possible that the hypothetical Others could be genetically identical to Adam (identical twin perhaps) and still not be human.

    Then you have a definition of “human” that comes from some theological source, and for me it passeth understanding. And probably is of no scientific interest.

    Joe Felsenstein: But that’s assuming that A&E were the only ones of our ancestors in that generation that were humans, the rest being Others. For which we have no evidence.

    What would you consider to be evidence?

    Please be specific. How can you tell “scientifically” when one species begins and another ends?

    I said there was no evidence that the Others at the time of A&E were not human. The evidence would have to be some characterization of their genome. Showing them to be very different genetically.

    We have evidence of Neanderthal contributions to our genome. But we don’t have any evidence for a very large fraction of the human genome coming from a set of individuals who are very different from us, with also evidence for a small fraction coming from just two individuals who are like us.

  41. Joe Felsenstein: But we don’t have any evidence for a very large fraction of the human genome coming from a set of individuals who are very different from us,

    What does this mean? If a large fraction of the genome were from a set of individuals that were different from us, how would we know? We would just say they must be very much like us, because we share a large part of their genome!

    Isn’t that what we do with chihuahuas and wolves?

  42. Joe Felsenstein: Then you have a definition of “human” that comes from some theological source, and for me it passeth understanding.

    I think you know that I think all correct definitions come from a theological source (revelation and all that).

    I’m sorry you don’t understand it it’s really not all that difficult a concept…..We are more than our genes

    Joe Felsenstein: And probably is of no scientific interest.

    Again I find it surprising that you would say that.

    There is a lot of scientific interest in determining if the roots of behavioral modernity are genetic.It’s definitely a testable question.

    here is an article if you are interested

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02221838

    Joe Felsenstein: The evidence would have to be some characterization of their genome. Showing them to be very different genetically.

    So you are presupposing that differences had to be genetic. Why not some difference in phenotype with out a genetic cause?

    Joe Felsenstein: But we don’t have any evidence for a very large fraction of the human genome coming from a set of individuals who are very different from us, with also evidence for a small fraction coming from just two individuals who are like us.

    Define “different” and “same”.

    Are you assuming that any and all differences and similarities be reflected in the genes?

    We know that individual organisms with the same genes (clones) can be very different and those with very different genes can appear to be very similar.

    peace

  43. fifthmonarchyman: I think you know that I think all correct definitions come from a theological source (revelation and all that).

    I think this is why Paul went to the lengths he did (mentioning it several times in his writing) that his knowledge of Jesus Christ did NOT derive from any human witnesses or any personal experience. Paul was explicit that every bit of his knowledge of Jesus came directly from revelation (and his interpretation of specific extant Jewish scripture).

    In Paul’s day, claims of direct-to-the-brain revelation were regarded as dispositive, easily trumping direct observation. Your eyes can and often do deceive you, but Paul’s god (and yours, I take it) never does.

  44. fifthmonarchyman,

    So you think that some phenotype of A&E (an unspecified phenotype) has been passed down to us, but not in genes. Sure, phenotypes are affected by environments, but the issue here is not phenotype, but inheritance of phenotype.

    So how did it happen?

    So we have a case of inheritance, only not a documented case, nor one that can be checked by looking in families of present-day people. How is anyone to investigate how that happens? Or whether?

Leave a Reply