Genetics and Adam and Eve

[amortalman]

I began to wonder about this after reading a post by rikuoamero wherein he made mention of it. It sounded like a worthy subject to explore.

So the question for debate is:

Does genetics disprove a literal Adam and Eve?

[John Human]

[Replying to post 116 by John Human]

In other words, the Biblical account of the Flood could very well be a garbled, legendary memory of an actual event that wiped out a group of tribes in the area that now is the bed of the Black Sea.

Then it would not be Noah's flood as described in Genesis. Making up random interpretations, as you are doing, defeats the whole purpose of debating whether or not science can address the issues described in the bible (for example, the one that is the subject of this OP regarding a literal Adam and Eve).

The reason for the disposition is that you keep veering off onto tangents, posting nonsense that you are communicating with demons (or dead people as you mentioned at least once in another thread), bashing evolution and science in general, especially how it is taught in universities, and misinterpreting things I've posted then claiming I'm in error of your wrong interpretation. Demons don't exist, and dead people can't communicate by definition because they are ... dead.

Ancient Demon will act:

"Ancient Demon recognizes the desire to obfuscate. The man NoGods has no other purpose than to promote a way of thinking that is transparently without foundation. The man has a command of the language used in science, which the man uses to intimidate. The man accepts deference from people who are hostile to Christianity. This allows the man to presume that he is part of a consensus. This presumption, together with the man's abuse of the language of science, allows the man to be an effective representative of the man's paymaster."

[John Bauer]

I suspect that consciously or unconsciously John Bauer is attempting to make the identification of Adam and Eve as far removed from any attempt at falsification as possible.

False dilemma fallacy. There is a third option: I'm not attempting to do so, consciously or otherwise.

It is a simple matter of realizing that the existence of Adam and Eve, and any details about them, have always been outside the limited reach of science (and falsification). As I have said repeatedly and continue to demonstrate—how can anyone miss this?—the matter of Adam and Eve "is always and only theological." Almost by definition, that means it doesn't fall within scientific purview.

Some people disagree with that, such as DrNoGods and young-earth creationists. They insist that Genesis describes Adam and Eve as the very first humans. So it is they who are attempting to make Adam and Eve at least partially a matter of science. But, in order to do that, they have to pretend Genesis says something that it doesn't. And I say "pretend" because they've never bothered to make an exegetical case. They point to their favorite Bible translation and talk about a plain or straight-forward reading, as if Genesis was written in English within the last few decades or centuries. It is blatant eisegesis, a refusal to allow the text to speak for itself (i.e., in its original linguistic, historical, and cultural context). And DrNoGods is following suit, tying his argument to their shipwrecked view.

When we take into account the redemptive–historical hermeneutic, the roles that Adam and Eve were given, the meaning and purpose of Genesis, its cosmology and covenants, the Old Testament itself and even just the Bible overall—how it tells of who God is and what he has done for his chosen people, the people of God and the history of their covenant relationship with God, and all of the the images and stories that speak or point to Christ—the overwhelming weight of prior probability lies with biblical material being a matter of theology. I'm not trying to protect any biblical matter from falsification; it was never subject to it in the first place. Anyone who wants to argue that certain points are indeed a matter of science must shoulder the burden of showing that it is, arguing from the relevant biblical texts. And I mean drawing a conclusion out of the text, not imposing one upon the text.

Science does disprove an extreme population bottleneck consisting of a single mating pair of humans, whether 6,000 years ago or at any time in history. [1] However, science is absolutely incapable of investigating a specific prehistoric individual, and it doesn't matter who it was. In fact, science cannot identify an individual who lived a mere 600 hundred years ago, never mind 6,000. [2] Finding bones that belonged to a prehistoric individual won't allow you to identify who it was, thus you cannot prove or disprove the existence of any specific person. This is not unique to Adam and Eve.

Theologically speaking, John apparently (at least he's made no mention of it) has forgotten about the doctrine of original sin.

No, I have not forgotten that doctrine. Original sin is transmitted to all mankind on my view, too, except not through biological continuity—as if sin was a thing passed on genetically. (Is there a heritable sin gene? Can we genetically modify humans to be sinless?) The theological term used in this context is imputation. Let me repeat that: It's a theological term, not a biological one. Just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to many without anyone being descended from him biologically, so also Adam's sin is imputed to all without anyone being descended from him biologically. Imputation is a theological matter of covenant union. The Bible speaks of us being either "in Adam" or "in Christ." That's covenant union through federal headship. It has nothing to do with genetics or biology.

If John is saying that his [Adam and Eve] lived about 7,000 years ago AND he's supportive of an old earth, then his couple are not ancestors of all humans on Earth. They'd probably have some descendants [...]

You have accurately described my view (and an indirect minor prediction it makes).

[...] but Mitochrondial Eve or Y-chromosomal Adam [...] lived tens of thousands years before John's couple.

They did, and even tens of thousands of years apart from one another. Since they have nothing to do with the Adam and Eve of Genesis ("John's couple"), what is your point?

-- John M. Bauer

Footnotes:

[1] This is assuming for the sake of argument that only Homo sapiens are "human."

[2] "But if the bones were drawn out of a specific grave," someone might say, "then science can tell us quite a lot about that person." Yes, but it was the grave stone or other historic documents that identified the person, not the scientific examination of their bones.

[John Bauer]

That seems to be the standard tactic for unusual ideas that can't be supported (in this case that there were millions of other people around at the time of Adam and Eve in early Genesis).

"Has not been supported" and "can't be supported" are two very different things. I really want to believe that you know the difference. However, that would mean your statement is disingenuous and misleading. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. So I'll stick with thinking that you don't know the difference.

Take an all defensive approach and avoid the primary issue, or deflect the conversation in some way to avoid it.

When my view is misrepresented or misunderstood, I defend it, yes. After all, I value clarity and mutual understanding. But what primary issue do you suppose I have avoided? I answered the genetics issue, I've addressed every Adam and Eve issue, I even started a new thread to address the specific question about their being the first humans. I can't think of an issue that's been raised which I have supposedly avoided.

Unless you're talking about Genesis describing Adam and Eve as the very first humans—but that's your claim, not mine. I don't agree that it does, and the burden is yours to shoulder. So, again, I haven't avoided anything.

Or maybe you're talking about other people and that statement had nothing to do with me.

What support can you offer for your claim that Adam and Eve where just two among millions of humans, and not the pair described in Genesis?

Paleodemography, but mostly Wikipedia and the sources cited by its articles. I'm aware of the huge margin of error when it comes to prehistoric world population estimates—ranging anywhere from one to ten million around the end of the Neolithic (a.k.a. Chalcolithic)—but genomics evidence is fairly conclusive that it was never as low as two.

Adam and Eve ARE the pair described in Genesis. You think it describes them as the first humans. I don't agree with you. (You're at liberty to convince me of your position.) Genesis doesn't specifically mention what the world population was at the time, of course, but that doesn't mean "two." (And there are hints that other people existed but no numbers.) Just a heads-up: This is one of those areas where a person might want to avoid committing logical fallacies, such as argumentum ex silentio ("It doesn't say there were other people, so there weren't") or argumentum ad ignorantiam ("My position is true unless you can prove it isn't").

"Your millions-of-people idea has no basis in Genesis," you said. Correct, that's why I don't use Genesis to support that conclusion.

"[Genesis] is the defining text for the Adam and Eve story," you said. Correct again, that's why I use Genesis to support my conclusions about them, in addition to other sources.

-- John M. Bauer

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 119 by John Bauer]

the matter of Adam and Eve "is always and only theological." Almost by definition, that means it doesn't fall within scientific purview.

This is my point regarding falsification. Theology is, in my view, the art of making something up and declaring it to be true. After all, let's take original sin for example.
You say

Original sin is transmitted to all mankind on my view, too, except not through biological continuity—as if sin was a thing passed on genetically.

Well, if one is not doing or using science...how is this a claim that can be verified? How can we check to see if we humans do indeed have this original sin? Or is it just that one declares all humans to have original sin, that it is something transmitted, never mind actually showing it to be true, just declare it true?
Young Earth creationists at least attempt to use science (they fail hilariously at it, but they still try) when they try to spin Adam as having perfect super genes, and that this is how he supposedly lived for almost a thousand years, and that over time, his descendants had lesser genes, and this is why the shorter life-spans.

That's covenant union through federal headship. It has nothing to do with genetics or biology.

Donald Trump is the current federal head of the United States. This is not a theological claim. If one is confused about just who exactly is the head of the executive branch of US government, they can check in all manner of ways. They can scour newspapers for photos of who's sitting in the big chair in the Oval Office, they can watch on Youtube for videos of the swearing-in.
With regards to your Christ...am I "in Christ" or "in Adam" simply because some anonymous fellows wrote down that phrase a couple thousand years ago?

I'd like for you to answer me this. One can get a PhD in say...genetics.
Here's a couple links I looked up
https://www.abdn.ac.uk/people/fperez-reche
I see a bio there, he explains his research, his core focuses, what he has discovered and what he teaches.
Now let's look here.
https://maynoothcollege.ie/courses/doct ... eology-phd
One can get a PhD in theology...studying what?
Here's something that caught my eye
"The Maynooth doctoral candidate—be it for the PhD or the D.D. (S.T.D.)—has access to a very large, international, multilingual, research active, and diverse Faculty in the Catholic tradition"
What if a student there denies that the Catholic Pope is the successor of St. Peter?
What if someone were to get a PhD in Shinto?
https://www.kokugakuin.ac.jp/en/educati ... into/about
"We foster Shinto practitioners"
Or Hindu theology?
https://www.gtu.edu/academics/concentra ... u-theology

If one wants to study chemistry or medicine or physics, it's all pretty much the same lessons no matter where in the world one studies. A chemistry professor at Tokyo University is going to teach the same things as a chemistry professor in an Israeli school, even if the one teacher also happens to be a Shinto practitioner and the other is a Jew.
However, theology...? Depending on which school one goes to, where in the world, one might be taught that the Pope in Rome is supposed to be the spiritual leader of the entire world. If this is indeed true, why would Shinto theology courses or Hindu courses not mention that?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 120 by John Bauer]

And there are hints that other people existed but no numbers

This is the crux of my argument against your interpretation that there were millions of people alive at the time of the biblical Adam and Eve. Hints, or comments that certain biblical stories are outside of the realm of science (a very common theist position), essentially remove the topics from a discussion regarding the intersection of the topic, and science. If the position is that science can't address the issue because it is outside of the realm of science, then it should be discussed in a section on philosophy, or apologetics, or theology and doctrine (all sections of this forum).

If science is going to be brought into the discussion, then hints and unusual interpretations go out the window unless they can be supported in some concrete way. I read Genesis literally in terms of debating Adam and Eve because if the whole subject is open to interpretation what is the point? Science can't be brought into the discussion in that case as it becomes just someone's opinion. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming view of Adam and Eve among Christians is that they were indeed the first humans (I polled all of my Christian friends yesterday ... 23 of them ... and every one of them are "sure" of this).

That is a small sample size (although 100% in agreement), but I think your interpretation that there were millions of other people at the time of Adam and Eve is not the typical view among Christians (whose holy book the story appears in), and so far your support for that idea here is only that you think there are hints of it in Genesis, and you personally believe it to be true for some reason.

[John Human]

Ancient presumably speaks English. What kind of accent? Is Ancient Demon's vocabulary noticeably different from that of the hearer?

Thank you for being civil.

As Ancient Demon has recently explained, it "speaks" by making words appear in the mind of the "hearer." For this reason, the question of accent simply doesn't come up. With that said, early in my communication with Ancient Demon, there were moments when it could not find an appropriate word. As Ancient Demon has related in detail, at http://earthwarning.org/index.php/here-be-demons/, it was a Hebrew royal demon for centuries, and then highly-placed in the demon hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church -- so obviously it is conversant in Latin and Hebrew. As it relates, Ancient Demon came to the USA over a hundred years ago, giving it ample opportunity to learn to communicate comfortably with English speakers, although particular vocabulary related to legal theory and philosophy (for example) may be new to it.

Has Ancient Demon demonstrated knowledge of present day events that were not known to the hearer but were later verified as true?

Perhaps this thread is not a good location for that type of personal discussion.

Is there any reason not to dismiss Ancient Demon as (a) hallucination or (b) intentional invention?

That depends on your axiomatic presuppositions. For many centuries, first under Roman Catholic intellectual hegemony, and then under the tyranny of pseudo-scientific reductionist materialism, discussion of demons as they are has been a taboo subject. If, for example, you are a junior professor hoping for tenure, you would have a strong motivation to be politely but arbitrarily dismissive of anything and everything that is inconsistent with reductionist materialism.

Beyond that, regarding whether my presentation of communication from Ancient Demon is a "hallucination," I refer you to the above link, where Ancient Demon and another ancient Hebrew demon give lengthy presentations of their life stories. Is there such a thing as a 50-page coherent hallucination??

Beyond that, I have recorded the stories of other demons (most recently, of a demon who was involved in the founding of the Mormon church in post #9) on this thread in the "Random Ramblings" sub-forum: viewtopic.php?p=967129#967129

It seems that to dismiss these stories as lengthy "hallucinations" requires positing a whole new level of previously-unknown hallucination. Perhaps a loose comparison with the phenomenon of "channeling" is in order: see (for example) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Material

If you want to test the argument or supposition that I am "fabricating" these stories, that requires pre-suppositions or conclusions about (1) my inclination or motivation to do so; and (2) my ability as a creative writer. I would like to suggest that, at the present time, you have not acquainted yourself sufficiently with me or with the relevant demon stories to come to any conclusion.

Once again, I recognize the taboo nature of this subject, and I also recognize that the taboo is becoming brittle.

Ancient Demon will act:

"Ancient Demon observed as John wrote. Ancient Demon is aware of three people who followed as John thought and reviewed the story of Seventh Chakra Demon. All three are people who post on the forum, as Ancient Demon has learned to say. Ancient Demon is aware that two of the three people are not hostile, but are concerned about a topic that may lead to hostility being expressed. Ancient Demon observes that the third is not exactly hostile. This person had the misfortune to express a view that was condemned in public and in private. This person is of a mind to try to conform to the rule of propriety. Ancient Demon communicated with this person. There is no need for others in the forum to expect the person to continue expressing overt hostility to Christianity."

[John Human]

.
Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate.


Those who are unhappy with the Forum are not compelled to remain or to post.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 116 by John Human]

In other words, the Biblical account of the Flood could very well be a garbled, legendary memory of an actual event that wiped out a group of tribes in the area that now is the bed of the Black Sea.

Then it would not be Noah's flood as described in Genesis. Making up random interpretations, as you are doing, defeats the whole purpose of debating whether or not science can address the issues described in the bible (for example, the one that is the subject of this OP regarding a literal Adam and Eve).

The reason for the disposition is that you keep veering off onto tangents, posting nonsense that you are communicating with demons (or dead people as you mentioned at least once in another thread), bashing evolution and science in general, especially how it is taught in universities, and misinterpreting things I've posted then claiming I'm in error of your wrong interpretation. Demons don't exist, and dead people can't communicate by definition because they are ... dead.

Ancient Demon will act:

"Ancient Demon recognizes the desire to obfuscate. The man NoGods has no other purpose than to promote a way of thinking that is transparently without foundation. The man has a command of the language used in science, which the man uses to intimidate. The man accepts deference from people who are hostile to Christianity. This allows the man to presume that he is part of a consensus. This presumption, together with the man's abuse of the language of science, allows the man to be an effective representative of the man's paymaster."

The invisible flying pink unicorn just told me in a vision your full of … (you know what).

[Clownboat]

Ancient presumably speaks English. What kind of accent? Is Ancient Demon's vocabulary noticeably different from that of the hearer?

Thank you for being civil.

As Ancient Demon has recently explained, it "speaks" by making words appear in the mind of the "hearer." For this reason, the question of accent simply doesn't come up. With that said, early in my communication with Ancient Demon, there were moments when it could not find an appropriate word. As Ancient Demon has related in detail, at http://earthwarning.org/index.php/here-be-demons/, it was a Hebrew royal demon for centuries, and then highly-placed in the demon hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church -- so obviously it is conversant in Latin and Hebrew. As it relates, Ancient Demon came to the USA over a hundred years ago, giving it ample opportunity to learn to communicate comfortably with English speakers, although particular vocabulary related to legal theory and philosophy (for example) may be new to it.

Has Ancient Demon demonstrated knowledge of present day events that were not known to the hearer but were later verified as true?

Perhaps this thread is not a good location for that type of personal discussion.

Is there any reason not to dismiss Ancient Demon as (a) hallucination or (b) intentional invention?

That depends on your axiomatic presuppositions. For many centuries, first under Roman Catholic intellectual hegemony, and then under the tyranny of pseudo-scientific reductionist materialism, discussion of demons as they are has been a taboo subject. If, for example, you are a junior professor hoping for tenure, you would have a strong motivation to be politely but arbitrarily dismissive of anything and everything that is inconsistent with reductionist materialism.

Beyond that, regarding whether my presentation of communication from Ancient Demon is a "hallucination," I refer you to the above link, where Ancient Demon and another ancient Hebrew demon give lengthy presentations of their life stories. Is there such a thing as a 50-page coherent hallucination??

Beyond that, I have recorded the stories of other demons (most recently, of a demon who was involved in the founding of the Mormon church in post #9) on this thread in the "Random Ramblings" sub-forum: viewtopic.php?p=967129#967129

It seems that to dismiss these stories as lengthy "hallucinations" requires positing a whole new level of previously-unknown hallucination. Perhaps a loose comparison with the phenomenon of "channeling" is in order: see (for example) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Material

If you want to test the argument or supposition that I am "fabricating" these stories, that requires pre-suppositions or conclusions about (1) my inclination or motivation to do so; and (2) my ability as a creative writer. I would like to suggest that, at the present time, you have not acquainted yourself sufficiently with me or with the relevant demon stories to come to any conclusion.

Once again, I recognize the taboo nature of this subject, and I also recognize that the taboo is becoming brittle.

Ancient Demon will act:

"Ancient Demon observed as John wrote. Ancient Demon is aware of three people who followed as John thought and reviewed the story of Seventh Chakra Demon. All three are people who post on the forum, as Ancient Demon has learned to say. Ancient Demon is aware that two of the three people are not hostile, but are concerned about a topic that may lead to hostility being expressed. Ancient Demon observes that the third is not exactly hostile. This person had the misfortune to express a view that was condemned in public and in private. This person is of a mind to try to conform to the rule of propriety. Ancient Demon communicated with this person. There is no need for others in the forum to expect the person to continue expressing overt hostility to Christianity."

Religious paranoia is an irrational fear of being purposefully attacked by an outside agent(s) in or through some religious context. Some examples:

The fear of one's soul being stolen
The fear of being tempted by demons
The fear of being plotted against by cultists
The fear of God or Satan
It is a condition which has been compared to extremism and intolerance.[1] It has been cited as a possible contributor to political violence.[2][3] It is often related to splitting, psychological projection, a desire to maintain a sense of purity in situations of real or perceived persecution, and rigid and unchallengeable attitudes.[4]

In an alternate form of religious paranoia of a psychiatric nature, the patient can suffer from a permanent delusion of a primarily religious nature. He could, for example, believe that he is the messenger of God who has been sent to the world to propagate some religion or that he speaks with an ancient demon.

Bold added...

Any rational person is going to ask themselves, 'what is more likely'.
1) You actually commune with demons.
2) You suffer from a known and understood delusion.

The fact that ancient demons words are no more profound than that of a mere mortal informs me currently about which option I find more likely. Perhaps ancient demon's ramblings will become significant and less human in nature? If that happens, I may be willing to consider options 1.

The fact remains that ancient demon is far too human in its postings to be considered anything but human currently IMO.

Pointing out that ancient demon posts like a human and seems no more knowledgable then any other human is not ment as an attack on you by the way. I would imagine that this opinion of mine is shared by every single person reading anceint demons claimed words here.

Why does ancient demon seem so mundane do you think?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 116 by John Human]

In other words, the Biblical account of the Flood could very well be a garbled, legendary memory of an actual event that wiped out a group of tribes in the area that now is the bed of the Black Sea.

Then it would not be Noah's flood as described in Genesis. Making up random interpretations, as you are doing, defeats the whole purpose of debating whether or not science can address the issues described in the bible (for example, the one that is the subject of this OP regarding a literal Adam and Eve).

The reason for the disposition is that you keep veering off onto tangents, posting nonsense that you are communicating with demons (or dead people as you mentioned at least once in another thread), bashing evolution and science in general, especially how it is taught in universities, and misinterpreting things I've posted then claiming I'm in error of your wrong interpretation. Demons don't exist, and dead people can't communicate by definition because they are ... dead.

Ancient Demon will act:

"Ancient Demon recognizes the desire to obfuscate. The man NoGods has no other purpose than to promote a way of thinking that is transparently without foundation. The man has a command of the language used in science, which the man uses to intimidate. The man accepts deference from people who are hostile to Christianity. This allows the man to presume that he is part of a consensus. This presumption, together with the man's abuse of the language of science, allows the man to be an effective representative of the man's paymaster."

The invisible flying pink unicorn just told me in a vision your full of … (you know what).

This will likely be read as an attack by John.

However, your words are not lost on the rest of us I trust and your analogy speaks volumes. Basically, that your rebuttal is exactly as trustworthy as John's claim that he communes with demons.

I don't believe you spoke with an invisible flying pink unicorn and I don't believe that John communes with demons. Do you feel like I attacked you though? (Asking rhetorically).