RE: [asa] Two questions... (bottlenecking)

Hi David, you wrote:

It's also possible you meant that Adam and Eve both had mutations that set
them apart as the first truly modern humans. But along with this goes the
idea that they were special and their mental capabilities were distinct from
the pre-existing population.

The only thing we know from the biblical narratives in Genesis that was
truly special about Adam and Eve of a biological nature was longevity which
carried through multiple generations, even Abraham lived to 175. If Adam
was specially created that would be understandable. If he had natural
parents then a genetic mutation would be required somewhere either at that
generation or up the line at an earlier point.

Dick Fischer, GPA president

Genesis Proclaimed Association

"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"

www.genesisproclaimed.org

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Clounch
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:23 PM
To: David Campbell
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions... (bottlenecking)

I have a question.

> If you go back far enough, you should have a single ancestral pair for

> all modern humans.

1. Would that be true of all phyla that require sexual reproduction?

Another question:

2. Why is a pair of biological human bodies related to the origin of

a pair of human minds (souls)? I mean, don't some people believe that

the human physiology was a sufficient substrate to support the mind

(and/or soul) but that the actual infusion of the soul was a separate

event in history? I mean, could not there have been a large

pre-existent population of homo sapiens into which God breathed life

(where life here means not bio but zoe)?

I'm not saying I subscribe to the idea. But I vaguely remember

reading about it. On this list there has been discussion of the idea

that the human mind itself is actually supernatural, not of natural

origin at all. The idea that when you look at a human and it's

ability to recognize design - that you are looking at something that

originates not from nature or physics but from outside the universe -

well, I'm not saying I subscribe to this idea - in fact I object to

it. But it seems some ASA members believe this and if thats true then

I fail to see why they would not also accept the idea that human

evolution prepared a repository. A repository into which was at some

point in history deposited an intelligence from outside nature. And

this intelligence does not originate from the genes. It's sort of

like like pre-Adamic humans are analogous to a computer with no

operating system. If you download an O/S into them then you have a

computer system (or a pc). Until then you just have what it takes to

support a computer system. Humans as a pre-Adamic species could have

been like that. The idea seems consistent with thinking of humans as

 being supernatural beings.

> I think Adam and Eve as representatives out of an existing human

> population is the easiest way to reconcile Genesis and genetics, but

> it is not absolutely impossible to have a single pair ancestral to all

> humans if you go far enough back in time.

Ah, perhaps that answers my question. If one believes that humans

minds are a supernatural phenomena then one can certainly believe that

Adam and Eve are the pair that "got the download" and the rest of the

existing population did not.

But I am not sure this is what you meant. It's also possible you meant

that Adam and Eve both had mutations that set them apart as the first

truly modern humans. But along with this goes the idea that they were

special and their mental capabilities were distinct from the

pre-existing population. This theory would be congruent with a view

that human minds are of natural origin, and not supernatural at all.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 11 11:30:33 2009