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

Preston said: *the any number seems to be same as the desired number of
ancestors (2) :)*

I respond: I cited two. There are others. Probably as many (maybe 5 or
10?) as there are on pop gen and the MHC. But so what?

Preston said: *have to go with Glenn on this. It just seems unreasonable
to insist that no population anywhere, no matter how small, has remained
isolated the whole time.*

I respond: I don't think you can "insist" on this, but it seems reasonably
plausible. Do you have a specific example of a truly isolated population?
As far as I'm aware, examples that have arisen in recent decades have turned
out not to be as isolated as supposed.

Preston said: *But, the essential point seems to me to be, so what? What is
the implication of a recent common ancestor if most of us don't actually
have any DNA from that ancestor? What are we supposed to have inherited, a
soul?
*
I respond: Maybe -- why not? Let me flip it around: what difference
should it make spiritually if we *did *all inherit DNA from that ancestor?
Since when is "DNA" the locus of the image of God, or "soul," or "sin," or
whatever other properties "Adam" was supposed uniquely to have possessed?

My point in citing these studies is simply this: *if* a universal chain of
ancestry to a primal pair is theologically important, that notion is not
ruled out and can be supported. Obviously the studies I cited don't "prove"
it, and obviously the MHC studies suggest more is going on than only two
physical ancestors. But a "recent representative" view is not on this basis
implausible.

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

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:36 AM, Preston Garrison <pngarrison@att.net>wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Preston Garrison wrote:
>>
>> I don't agree Dick. Any number of studies
>>>>
>>>
> the any number seems to be same as the desired number of ancestors (2) :)
>
> 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>
>>>> 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>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There's really supposed to be a common ancestor in the last few thousand
>>> years for everyone in a remote tribe in the Amazon and for every Australian
>>> aborigine? Is this a statement about how thoroughly the modern world has
>>> penetrated every corner of the planet?
>>>
>>> Again, am I missing something?
>>>
>>>
>> I first learned about this several years ago from Glenn Morton on this
>> forum. I haven't taken the time to read the papers, but my impression was
>> that the conclusion was based on the observation that any individual has a
>> lot of ancestors only a few generations back. Likewise most individuals who
>> have descendants have very many after a few generations. Thus even taking
>> into account that not all the ancestors in such a calculation are distinct
>> and that descendants may mate with each other, it was concluded that one did
>> not have to go back to a time when the human population was extremely small
>> to find a common ancestor. Glenn pointed out that this didn't take into
>> account that some populations have apparently been isolated from everyone
>> else until quite recently.
>>
>
>
> I have to go with Glenn on this. It just seems unreasonable to insist that
> no population anywhere, no matter how small, has remained isolated the whole
> time.
>
> But, the essential point seems to me to be, so what? What is the
> implication of a recent common ancestor if most of us don't actually have
> any DNA from that ancestor? What are we supposed to have inherited, a soul?
>
> I should also point out that if you are looking for Adam and Eve, you have
> to find 2 most recent common ancestors that happen to be mates. Of course,
> if Eve is a clone of Adam, that problem is solved. (Sorry, Bernie. :)).
>
> Again, am I missing something here?
>
> Preston
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Feb 26 10:58:49 2009