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

I don't agree Dick. Any number of studies have shown that every living
person alive today can trace his or her ancestry back to a common ancestor
who lived only a few thousand years ago, though obviously this person was
not the only person alive at the time, nor will most of us have inherited
genes directly from that person. See, e.g., Rhode, On the Common Ancestors
of All Living Humans (http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf);
Chang, Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals (
http://www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/papers/Ancestors.pdf).

A focus on "bloodlines," I think, is archaic -- that's a scientifically
meaningless term. A focus on the coalescence of genes, I think, is foreign
to the Biblical text and unproductive. The focus ought to fall, I think, on
*geneology,* which is what the papers referenced above discuss.

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>wrote:

> Hi David, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >Certainly by the time the scriptures are written, all living people can
> trace their genealogy to Adam, though *genetically *the human population
> is more diverse than n of 2.<
>
>
>
> When I launched into this project in 1984 that’s what I thought too. I had
> surmised that the flood could terminate all mankind and that Noah’s wife was
> outside the Adamic line such that all living today could trace their
> ancestry back to Adam and also through Noah’s wife all the way back to the
> apes in Africa. It was a good idea I thought, but early on in my research
> I found it didn’t line up with the facts of history. The flood is far too
> late and Adam is far too late in history that we all can be related to the
> covenant family. If you wanted to be related to Adam and Noah you should
> have chosen parents who were Arabs or Jews or Greeks. If you didn’t,
> chances are you’re unrelated genetically to the covenant couple. Oh, well.
>
>
>
> When Christ died for us all, the hope of salvation became available to all
> mankind. He urged his disciples to preach to every “creature,” removing all
> doubt that gentiles were welcome in the kingdom of God. The other thing
> that may not be as apparent is the issue of accountability. Who was
> accountable before Christ? I submit it was only those in the Line of
> Promise, the children of Israel. That would exclude all gentiles
> everywhere including those who did have Adamic roots, the children of
> Japheth and Ham, and perhaps even the Assyrians, for example, who were from
> the line of Shem. So the sin nature apparent in all mankind is not the
> issue in my estimation – it’s only accountability.
>
>
>
> When Christ was really upset, He said: “Woe<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3759&version=kjv>unto
> you,<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5213&version=kjv>
> scribes<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1122&version=kjv>
> and<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2532&version=kjv>
> Pharisees,<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5330&version=kjv>
> hypocrites!<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5273&version=kjv>
> for<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3754&version=kjv>ye
> compass<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4013&version=kjv>
> sea<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2281&version=kjv>
> and<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2532&version=kjv>
> land<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3584&version=kjv>to
> make<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4160&version=kjv>
> one<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1520&version=kjv>
> proselyte,<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4339&version=kjv>
> and<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2532&version=kjv>
> when<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3752&version=kjv>he is
> made<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1096&version=kjv>,
> ye make<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4160&version=kjv>
> him<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=846&version=kjv>twofold
> more<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1362&version=kjv>the
> child<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5207&version=kjv>of
> hell<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1067&version=kjv>than yourselves”
> (Mt 23:15).<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5216&version=kjv>
>
>
>
> What we can gather from that is that those who were outside were not held
> accountable, but when they were recruited into the family of Israel they
> became accountable. Today everyone is accountable, perhaps, or maybe only
> those who hear the gospel and have the opportunity to accept or reject. I
> don’t have an opinion on that. But the important point is that bloodlines
> are of no importance.
>
>
>
> 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 Opderbeck
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 25, 2009 9:42 AM
> *To:* James Patterson
>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article
>
>
>
> James -- reading what you've said here, I'm wondering if we've been
> disagreeing when we really basically agree.
>
>
>
> You said: *to deny what Genesis tells us about Adam and Even being the
> ones God chose to impart spiritual existence to, and who chose to sin.*
>
>
>
> I respond: Personally, I believe Adam and Eve were real individuals whom
> God chose, into whom God breathed something "more" for the first time, and
> who chose to sin, the results of which propogated throughout the entire
> human race. So I don't think we disagree here.
>
>
>
> You also said: *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?*
>
>
>
> I respond: yes, exactly! So there are "humans," not descendants of Adam,
> around when Cain wanders off (hence his fear and the need for the mark of
> Cain). Cain and other descendants of Adam intermingle with them and the
> resulting generations are therefore also descendants of Adam, in some
> mysterious way propogating the imago Dei and original sin. Certainly by the
> time the scriptures are written, all living people can trace their geneology
> to Adam, though *genetically *the human population is more diverse than n
> of 2.
>
>
>
> To me, the foregoing sort of model at present seems to do the best job of
> integrating all the information we have available, including the data
> (however mushy) from population genetics, and preserves some important
> theological considerations concerning how scripture treats Adam. It leaves
> some interesting questions -- what about the spiritual status of those
> "pre-Adamites" with whom Adam's descendants mingled? -- but if scripture
> doesn't tell us, maye we don't need to know.
>
>
>
> If we agree that the foregoing is a viable model, I don't think we really
> have any substantial disagreement. If you want to say -- *"let's hold a
> model such as the above as a tentative possibility, with another possibility
> being that there's enough fuzziness in the pog gen data that maybe somehow
> all the genetic diversity can trace to an n of 2 as well"* -- I'm
> perfectly fine with that and would happily welcome robust data to show that.
>
>
>
> David W. Opderbeck
>
> Associate Professor of Law
>
> Seton Hall University Law School
>
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:51 PM, James Patterson <
> james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > -- 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 Wed Feb 25 11:12:43 2009