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

Preston said: The trouble I see with this is, what of the people, say, 3000
years ago, who were not direct descendents of this supposedly theologically
important pair who lived 6000 years ago?

I respond: I don't see why they couldn't be. I also don't see why 6000
years ago is the magic date (could be farther back).

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

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Preston Garrison <pngarrison@att.net>wrote:

> 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
>
> The trouble I see with this is, what of the people, say, 3000 years ago,
> who were not direct descendents of this supposedly theologically important
> pair who lived 6000 years ago? Did they not have moral responsibility or
> souls or whatever it is we are talking about?
>
> I think they had consciences on the Kamachatka Peninsula and in Tierra del
> Fuego 3000 years ago, whether they were direct descendants of any particular
> recent pair or not. And remember too, that in those simulations you quote,
> those MRCAs were not in the Middle East; they were in the Far East.
>
> This all makes me recall what I once heard someone call "gasping at
> straws." :)
>
> If there was a pair who were so theologically and genealogically important
> and it was related to conscience or a sense of a need to put clothes on,
> whatever the temperature might be, they lived a lot longer ago than 6000
> yrs, and they weren't the only Homo sapiens around at the time.
>
> On the other hand, I'm just a scientist, and an obscure and unemployed one
> at that. I haven't been to seminary, so maybe I just don't know.
>
> Is there a way to have a virtual beer together? I think I have an idea for
> an internut business, about 10 years too late.
>
> P.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 27 10:41:22 2009