RE: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article

-- I've read many of the scientific articles you cite before, but I'm not
sure I've read all of them. Do any of them suggest an "n=2" for the origin
of modern humans? I don't think that's the case, but I could be wrong.

Nope. Not a one. To do so would be considered a religious bent, and would be
unacceptable in a scientific (read: naturalist) journal. I think that, if
Adam and Eve were the progenitors of mankind, or even the Hebrews, then God
stirred the pot. Russell's OSP if you don't like miraculous intervention.

-- When you say "n=2", do you insist that "n" consist of the origins of the
modern human genome?

Not insistent, but I don't presume it's impossible. However it is worth
pointing out here that even RTB states that the dawn of man was *sometime*
10-100 kBC, mankind spread out from its origins at ~40 kBC, the flood was
about ~20 kBC, was universal and not global, and that Noah's lineage was the
origins of the Hebrew race. So.there's some genetics back there with Cain
wandering off, it seems. What does one do with the aborigines that appeared
in Australia at circa 40 kBC?

 Can "n" consist instead of spiritual properties?

I think so.

 Let me offer something I think is an analogue: if Abraham was the father
of the Hebrew nation, was it necessary that every "true" Hebrew have genetic
material derived only from Abraham and Sarah, or was it possible to be
grafted into the Hebrew nation through marriage or other spiritual
relationships (follow up query to this question: were the children of Moses
and Zipporah Hebrews?)?

Well I certainly hope it's possible to be grafted into the Hebrew nation!
I'm counting on it! I think I answered this question above, tho.

JP

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 24 21:53:26 2009