Adam and the Genome 8: Chapter 4- What About Intelligent Design?

We continue our review of the book, Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science, by Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight . Today, Chapter 4.

In the late 1990s, Dennis was a PhD student at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, studying genetics and development.  Amazingly, his antievolutionary views were still intact.  One very pro-evolutionary professor maintained a bulletin board he called the “Crackpot’s Corner”.  Through that board Dennis became aware of Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box” and Behe’s notion of “irreducible complexity”.  Behe gave the definition as:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

Dennis found Behe’s argument straightforward and compelling.  There are many biochemical features of cells where numerous components are required to work to together to perform a function.  Take away one part, and the system no longer works. Therefore Dennis thought such systems were beyond the ability of evolution to produce in the first place.  They must have been directly created.  However, even Behe included one caveat:

Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin’s criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.

Often the eye is cited as an irreducible complex organ, and of course, the bacterial flagellum; which figured prominently in the Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. trial.  That was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.

Behe also published a second book in 2007, “The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.”  Again, Behe argued that there are structures that cannot be produced by successive slight modifications.  They must arise as unit or direct manufacture, or special creation.  Behe’s arguments for design are probability arguments. If the successive slight steps are too improbable then the most probable explanation is not evolution but design.

Dennis then gives a complicated and highly technical demonstration of how a new gene arose in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster, the common fruit fly; something that according to the irreducible complexity argument shouldn’t be able to have happened.  I’m not going to reproduce the argument here; you can buy the book or look online at the Biologos blog for a series of posts Dennis wrote that explain it.  Relieved, aren’t you?

Dennis then gives a second example of how the lineage leading to present day vertebrates experienced gene duplication en masse through what is known as “whole genome duplication event” (WGD).  A study was conducted comparing human genes to sea squirts (animals that are chordates but not vertebrates) and puffer fish for which all three species have the entire genome sequenced.  Dennis says:

The results of the study were dramatic: this subset of human genes is arranged in four groupings in the pattern predicted by the two WGD events.  In contrast, when the researchers looked at duplicated human genes not shared with sea squirts, they found that these paralogs (paralogs are genes related by duplication within a genome) were adjacent to each other on chromosomes, consistent with small duplications.  Therefore, the evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that many human paralogs are the result of two WGD events deep in our lineage’s past, but that some are the result of more recent, small duplications within the chromosomes.  

And here’s the rub: we know that these paralogs, whether recent or ancient, have greatly diverged from each other and acquired new functions.  Moreover, many of those functions are now absolutely essential for vertebrates.  If Behe’s argument is correct, none of this should have been possible.

A second major argument from the ID movement is that new biological information cannot be produced by evolutionary mechanisms.  In other words, evolution can affect change in existing structures but is incapable of producing new information.  This is put forth mainly by Stephen Meyer, whose proposition is that evolution cannot account for “specified complex information” we observe in living systems, and that ID is the only known cause for that information.  As such he argues, that ID is the best explanation for the information we observe in DNA.  One major argument within ID in general, and Meyer’s works in particular, is that stable, functional protein folds are exceedingly rare—so rare, the argument goes, that evolution is incapable of producing new ones.  In spite of Meyer’s arguments, however, geneticists have determined numerous mechanisms by which new genes and new functions come into being.

Two of the examples of new functions coming into being are the nylon-eating bacteria and the bacteria-evolved ability to grow aerobically on citrate in the Lenski experiments.  In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, which was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon manufacture. These substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935.  Not forty years after the introduction of nylon into the environment, we observe complex, specified biological information devoted to utilizing it.  Moreover, we can observe from the features of this information that it was easily produced through a well-known and probable series of mutation events.  The other example is from the Lenski experiments that have tracked genomic changes in E-coli over 25 years and some 50,000 generations.   Lenski and his colleagues concluded that the evolution of the citrate function in this one population arose due to one or more, earlier, possibly non-adaptive, “potentiating” mutations that increased the rate of mutation to an accessible level. The data suggested that citrate usage involved at least two mutations subsequent to these “potentiating” mutations.  In other words, complex specified information arose through evolutionary mechanisms.

“Over the course of my personal journey away from ID, I came to an uncomfortable conclusion: ID seemed strong only where there was a lack of relevant evidence.  Though ID proponents strenuously deny the charge, I came to view ID as a God-of-the-gaps argument… Moreover, as I reflected on what the Scripture says about creation, I came to view ID as counter to its witness.  In Romans 1 Paul declares that observing creation bespeaks a creator.  This was something that any first-century individual could observe and deduce, though they be Jew or gentile, slave or free.  Importantly, Paul was not speaking to unexplained features of the created order, but rather to its functional integrity and glory.  The idea that one would need a DNA sequencer or an electron microscope to discover unexplained phenomena and thereby declare the cosmos as the work of the Creator is far removed from what Paul is saying.  Creation reveals the Creator, and we are without excuse.  Learning more about how that creation works only deepens our wonder.  To paraphrase Bonhoeffer, Paul calls us to see God in what we know, not in what we don’t know—and as science reveals ever more about creation, we know more and more about how God chose to bring his creation into being.”

I am inclined to agree with Dennis, here.  Too many Christians view evolution and design as opposites.  If it evolved, God’s not involved.  Evolution is a way atheistic scientists explain away God so they don’t have to acknowledge him.  After all, Richard Dawkins famously said: “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”.  Dennis’ point is that why couldn’t evolution be God’s chosen design to bring biodiversity to the earth.  You never hear Christians griping about embryonic development as atheistic.  If they can accept a natural biologic process was the means of creating them personally, then why not a natural biologic process to create the species as a whole?

Still, I admit I was intrigued by the ID movement for a time.  Part of the problem with theistic evolution is that it tends to be long on the evolution part and short on the theistic part.
There used to be a number on commenters in the early days of Biologos that took them to task for this.  One of the critics was Jon Garvey, a medical doctor in the UK.  Jon still blogs at The Hump of the Camel .  Lots of food for thought on Jon’s blog.

To Biologos’ credit, they took that criticism to heart.  It is part of the reason they coined the term “evolutionary creationist”.   As they now say in their “What We Believe” section:

“We believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life over billions of years. God continues to sustain the existence and functioning of the natural world, and the cosmos continues to declare the glory of God. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Deism that claim the universe is self-sustaining, that God is no longer active in the natural world, or that God is not active in human history.”

The ID movement to their credit were trying to suss out the degree to which God sustains the world through the natural laws.  How much “tinkering” is God required to do?  That question has been around at least since Leibniz took Newton to task for asserting God “tinkered’ with the orbits of the stars, comets, and planets:

“Sir Isaac Newton and his followers have also a very odd opinion concerning the work of God. According to their doctrine, God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion.”

Leibniz, first letter to his friend Caroline of Ansbach, in Alexander 1956, p. 11

Biologos also states in that same section:

“We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as “natural laws.” Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history.”

That’s a great statement, and I fully agree with it.  But it does raise the question; how do we know that is true?  The natural laws we examine by use of methodological naturalism i.e. we do science.  But go back up to Dennis’ quote above: “Moreover, as I reflected on what the Scripture says about creation, I came to view ID as counter to its witness.  In Romans 1 Paul declares that observing creation bespeaks a creator.”  How do we examine and affirm the miracles, the supernatural direct involvement of God in creation and human history.  What is the real apologetic?  Well, oddly enough, I agree with Behe and ID; it’s a probability argument.

I find the Anthropic Principle, or “Fine Tuning” persuasive.  The observation that life would not be possible anywhere in the universe if the values of various physical constants differed by small amounts.  I know most atheists and skeptics and not a few Christians don’t find it persuasive, but I do.  Bear with me; let’s look at a “Poker Analogy”.  Suppose I take a deck of cards; I tell you that unless I shuffle them and deal you a royal flush of hearts (one try) you’ll die– and then I do just that…  The way I see it is that there are 3 competing explanations:

1. If I didn’t deal that way, you’d be dead, and we wouldn’t be talking about it, so no big deal.
2. There are an infinite number of universes, in most of them you died, but there is an infinitely large subset in which you lived.
3. The dealer cheated so that you would live.

Most skeptics hold to the first two—I hold to the third as the most probable explanation.

Here’s another: Carbon is made inside stars. How? Nuclear Fusion. One way:

He4 + He4 + He4 → C12

Unlikely (3 He have to meet.) Another way:

Step 1:    He4 + He4 → Be8
Step 2:    He4 + Be8 → C12
Better, but the rate for the 2nd step is too low, unless… Fred Hoyle (an atheist) made an anthropic argument. We’re here, so somehow C¹² gets produced. What would help is an unknown energy level of Carbon.  Hoyle predicted the level on the basis that we are here. The state was later discovered.  Hoyle also reported that his atheism was “greatly shaken” by the discovery that carbon just manages to form and then just avoids complete conversion into oxygen.

“A superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as the chemistry and biology.”  (Fred Hoyle, Astrophysicist, The Universe: Past and Present Reflections”, Ann. Rev. Ast. and Astrophys. 20, 1982, p. 16.)
Testify, Brother Fred, testify, uhhhh huh… can I get a witness?

Speaking of witness; what about the resurrection?  It is attested in four, count ‘em, four historical documents as well as the letters of Paul.  Not good enough for you?  The resurrection from the dead is so improbable that almost any other explanation is considered more likely, you say?  But what is the probability of explaining the actions of the apostles and the first Christians in another way?   Many will die for what they believe to be true; who is willing to die for what they know to be a lie?  The probability sword cuts both ways.  Many reputable historians, not even Christian, acknowledge that the apostles and early disciples sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them.  That belief was the most probable explanation for their behavior.  Historical verification is a regression to the most probable explanation.  I think the apostles were probably right.  And I accept the unbroken testimony of the Church from the beginning to today as truth.

But what about you, today, Mike?  Are you just a “fideist”?  Well, let me tell you two stories.  The first is the story of my friend, Tara Hendrickson.  Tara had kidney disease.  It was killing her.  She is a Christian, and prayed for healing; but it didn’t seem to come.  She had one kidney removed.  Then the remaining kidney started to fail.  She was put on the waiting list for a replacement, but it was obvious it wasn’t going to come in time.  She was at a church service being conducted by a visiting minister with a reputation for healing gifts; but she didn’t go up for prayer.  She was tired and sick and ready for death to take her.  Then the minister said, “There’s somebody here who’s given up and is ready to die; but the Lord wants to you to trust him just one more time.”  So she went up and was prayed for.  She felt better, the remaining kidney seemed to be working, then she felt better still, she went to her doctor and he did a CT scan and she had TWO, count ‘em, TWO functional kidneys. Here is an excerpt of the letter from her doctor:

If you email Chaplain Mike and request it, he’ll send you the complete pdf file.  So, let me ask you, what’s the probability there is some other explanation other than a miracle?  Did she naturally grow a new kidney?  Can you look a miracle in the face and still doubt?  Sure you can.  Didn’t Jesus say, in Luke 16:30-31 “And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.  And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”  How about Matthew 28:16-17, “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.  And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.”  

Story number two.  In July of 2005 I had an intestinal obstruction; basically nothing was passing and the pipes were backing up, so to speak.  I went to the ER and was admitted.  They put an NG tube down my nose into my stomach (God, how I hate that procedure!!) and kept me pumped out.  After 3 days I seemed to get better so they sent me home.  I walked around for a whole year feeling run down and poorly most of the time.  The next summer the obstruction returned and I went back to the hospital, same damn NG tube again.  They ran a CT scan and the surgeon said my appendix looked “funny” (exact quote) and he wanted to take it out.  Well, after four hours of surgery, I came to and found out my appendix had burst—A YEAR AGO!!  Yeah, I walked around for a year with an untreated burst appendix.  So you tell me, what’s the probability that I would contract sepsis and die vs. the probability that I would survive?  Lucky break?  Remarkable coincidence?

Oh, one more thing.  I used to ride with a Christian motorcycle group; we’d do jail and prison ministry.  We had some friends in north Georgia that did a similar thing.  Sometimes, on labor-day weekend, we’d take a trip through the Smokies and visit them.  The leader of that church in Georgia also did prison ministry and he would publish a newsletter for the inmates he ministered to.  I told him my story and he published it in his newsletter.  A women incarcerated in the Georgia State prison for women told him, after reading that newsletter, that she was awakened one night in her cell in July 2005 and she said Jesus told her to pray for “Michael” who was having “stomach trouble”.  Coincidence? A women in a prison in Georgia, a man in a hospital in Indiana.  What’s the probability that she had the name, the symptoms, and the time right?

So here’s what I think.  I think the fact we have evolved a mind that comprehends the vastness and majesty of this universe, a mind that ponders the mystery of this existence, the existence of God, and we argue about God and speculate and wonder.  That we are living beings that love, and have art and music, and we reason and that reason provides us with a true view of reality… all that to me is prima facie evidence that we and the universe we inhabit were intelligently designed.  That we are here and we comprehend it is the apologetic.

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

He is Risen.

He is Risen, Indeed.

• • •

Other posts in the series:

• Adam and the Genome, part 1
• Adam and the Genome, part 2
• Adam and the Genome, part 3
• Adam and the Genome, part 4
• Adam and the Genome, part 5
• Adam and the Genome, part 6
• Adam and the Genome, part 7

Adam and the Genome 7: Chapter 3- Adam’s Last Stand? (Part 3)

We continue our review of the book,, by Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight. Today, Chapter 3- Part 3

As Christians become increasingly familiar with the argument for common descent and begin to understand it, they, not unreasonably, begin to wonder where Adam fits in.  Where in the phylogenic tree did the man Adam exist?  As I hope you dear readers are starting to see, science is good at answering some questions (and sometimes good at raising more questions than it answers), it is simply unable to weigh in on the historicity of Adam and Eve as individuals.  What science can conclude is that if they were historical, they were not the sole parents of all humanity, but part of a larger population.  Beyond that, science cannot say.

When modern humans first arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago, there were other hominin species alive who had migrated out of Africa prior to our species coming into being.  Homo erectus was already widespread in Africa and outside it.  The ancestors of Neanderthals had left Africa at least 100,000 years before our species arose and had spread to the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.  Modern humans left Africa in significant enough numbers to leave evidence of that migration about 50,000 years ago.  The ones that stayed behind became the ancestors of present day sub-Saharan Africans, and the rest of us derive from that smaller emigrating group of an estimated 1,200 more or less.  As they left, they encountered the other hominin species that had left previously.

What were the nature of those encounters?  Well, since the advent of paleogenomics, we know that Neanderthal DNA is nearly identical to our own yet just outside the range of present day variation.  They are our “kissin’ cousins”, and apparently some “kissin’” went on, if you know what I mean, and I think you do, as some modern humans have 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA in their genomes. As Dennis says:

“Of course, this raises the whole “species question” again: if humans and Neanderthals interbred, then aren’t we just members of the same species?  Recall that attempting to demarcate species is and attempt to draw a line on what is in fact a continuous gradient.  So we “sort of” are the same species, because we did interbreed to a limited extent, and some present-day members of our species, yours truly included, descend in part from Neanderthal stock.  Are dogs, coyotes and wolves the same species or distinct?   What about lions and tigers?  It’s a similar question.  As a species, then, we had to shift our Facebook relationship status to “it’s complicated” when it comes to Neanderthals.”

The recent discovery of the “Denisovans” complicates that relationship even further.  The DNA sequencing on a specimen from the Denisova cave in Siberia revealed a hominin neither Neanderthal nor us.  They share a more recent ancestor with Neanderthals then they do with any other species.  Present-day humans of Asian and Oceanic descent inherit 3-5% of their DNA from the extinct Denisovans.  Further, Denisovans contain DNA from yet another hominin species.  Some speculate that might have been Homo erectus, but we’ve yet to find intact DNA from Homo erectus, so it remains speculation.

So, as Figure 3-7 shows, not only is hominin evolution a branching bush, but there are cross-connections as well.  Sometime between 500,000 and 300,000 years ago, the common ancestral population of Neanderthals and Denisovans leave Africa, later splitting into two species.  As humans leave Africa 50,000 years ago they encounter Neanderthals in the Middle East and breed with them.  As this human population expands into Asia, they encounter Denisovans and interbreed with them.  The result is that present-day sub-Saharan Africans lack Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA, Europeans have Neanderthal, but not Denisovan DNA, and Asian/Oceanic people have both.  So what does this have to do with Adam and the Bible?  Nothing, absolutely nothing, and that is the point. Obviously, the bible authors had no idea of any of this, nor could they even have imagined it, any more than they could have comprehended quantum theory or plate tectonics or space travel.  So stop trying to CONCORD the scriptures with modern science, it simply can’t be done.  Why not just take the point of the narrative as THE POINT God is inspiring the authors to make.  The ancient understanding of science is BESIDE THE POINT.

When presenting genomic data to evangelical audiences, Dennis frequently gets questions about Mitochondrial Eve and sometimes Y-Chromosome Adam.  Mitochondrial Eve is an ancestor to every living human, likewise Y-Chromosome Adam is an ancestor to every living male.  Wait, what? If we descend from a population how can that be true?  The answer is that they are both true.  It has to do with how mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA are inherited.

Mitochondria are the components of a cell that performs energy conversion.  The have their own genomes distinct from the usual chromosome set that are called nuclear genomes because they are found in the cell’s nucleus.  In humans we have the nuclear genome consisting of 23 pairs from the mother and 23 pairs from the father and the mitochondrial genome.  Mitochondria are passed down only through eggs, as a result this snippet of DNA is passed down only from mothers to their children, not from fathers.

Similarly, the Y-chromosome has its unique pattern of inheritance; from father to son, and only to sons, since inheriting a Y-chromosome determines the offspring will be male.  These two forms of DNA, then, have a different pattern of inheritance from regular chromosomes, which can be passed on by either mothers or fathers to offspring of either gender.

Y-chromosomes hit a dead end if a male has only female offspring, and mitochondria hit a dead end if females have only male offspring.  So if we examine a pedigree, as before, shown in Figure 3-8, we can now trace mitochondrial and Y-chromosome variation.  We can see that the four children of generation III will inherit the mitochondrial DNA of their mother, who in turn inherited it from her mother (individual I-1).  The four children have only one ancestor from generation I for their mitochondrial DNA: their maternal grandmother.  Neither their maternal grandfather (I-2), paternal grandfather (I-3), nor paternal grandmother (I-4) contributes mitochondrial DNA to generation III.  Similarly, the two boys in generation III have only one ancestor in generation I for their Y-chromosome; their paternal grandfather.  The Y-chromosome of their maternal grandfather (I-2) has not been transmitted to generation III (nor II because this man had only daughters).

In contrast, you will recall that all four grandparents contributed regular chromosomal DNA to generation III, and that the DNA diversity in this generation requires at least four ancestors.  These children descend uniquely from one man (for their Y-chromosome DNA), one women for their mitochondrial DNA, but at least 4 ancestors for their regular chromosomal DNA.  This, in microcosm, is exactly why all humans can descend from one Mitochondrial Eve for our mitochondrial DNA, and one Y-Chromosome Adam for our Y-chromosome, and 10,000 other ancestors for our regular chromosomal DNA.  Both mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are prone to being lost in a lineage over time because of their gender-specific inheritance patterns.  The population bottlenecks that we passed through as species also likely contributed to the loss of many mitochondrial and Y-chromosome lineages.  Regular chromosomal DNA, on the other hand, is much more resistant to loss because it can be passed down to offspring of either gender by parents of either gender.  Y-chromosomes require and unbroken line of male ancestors; mitochondrial DNA requires an unbroken line of female ancestors; but regular chromosomes simply require an unbroken line of ancestors to be passed on.   Dennis notes:

“Unfortunately, many antievolutionary organizations like to promote Mitochondrial Eve, and Y-Chromosome Adam without explaining these issue.  Typically, it enough for them to state that they are respectively the common female ancestor for all women and the common male ancestor for all men, to claim (or merely imply) that these data are consistent with Adam and Eve being the SOLE parents of all humans, and to leave it at that.  Thus, for their case to seem plausible, they count on their audience not completely understanding how these types of DNA are inherited—or perhaps they misunderstand it themselves.”

Of course, and especially since the 2011 cover article in Christianity Today, certain evangelical Christians have attempted to rebut the genomic evidence that humans descended from a population rather than a pair.  Their attempts are mostly arm-waving appeals to “speculation” and “evolutionary assumptions” and have yet to rise to the level that actual genetic scientists take seriously.  For example:

“Stephen Meyer, a Discovery Institute leader of the intelligent design movement, (claims that) Biologos leaders are using an unsubstantiated and controversial claim to urge pastors and theologians to jettison a straightforward reading of Genesis about the human race arising from one man and one woman.  They think ‘the science’ requires such a reinterpretation, but apart from the speculative models that make numerous question-begging assumptions, the science does no such thing.”

Biologos has a number of series of posts that critique Meyer and allow him to respond.  It’s a nice back and forth and non-acrimonious to boot, so kudos to both parties for not flaming each other. But as far as making a compelling case against the genomic science, Dennis again quotes young earth creationist scholar, Todd Wood:

“The population reconstructions are complex and not easily understood by lay-people right now.  So creationist responses lag behind the current science, and the best your typical creationist can do is cast aspersion on the science.  Until we have a creationist well-trained in modern theoretical population genetics, I think we will continue to have only unsatisfactory answer to these ancestral population reconstructions.”

Well, this is the point that Dennis ends the chapter.  I know it was “eyes-glazing-over” technical, but, as someone commented recently, it can’t be helped; sometimes reality is complex.  It is my opinion that before you can “pooh-pooh” the science, you have to at least make an effort to understand it based on what the scientists themselves say.  In other words, don’t base your judgement on the science on “creationist” critique, read it for yourself.  That is why I took the time to break this chapter into 3 parts.  It doesn’t look good, as a scientific proposition, that Adam and Eve, alone, are the first couple of the whole human race.  And now you know, at least dimly, the reasoning behind that.  That the genetic science will be refined in the future, I have no doubt, but overturned completely; it’s not going to happen.  So, from a genetics standpoint, it is Adam’s Last Stand.

However, I am going to go off on a tangent of my own (Dennis did not cover this) and speculate how Adam might be saved, in a manner of speaking.  I’m going to do that by introducing the concept of Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA).  In genetic genealogy, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of any set of individuals is the most recent individual from which all the people in the group are directly descended.  In a 2004 article in Nature, Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph T. Chang presented a paper on “Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans”.  You can read the article here.   Here is the abstract of the article:

 If a common ancestor of all living humans is defined as an individual who is a genealogical ancestor of all present-day people, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for a randomly mating population would have lived in the very recent past. However, the random mating model ignores essential aspects of population substructure, such as the tendency of individuals to choose mates from the same social group, and the relative isolation of geographically separated groups. Here we show that recent common ancestors also emerge from two models incorporating substantial population substructure. One model, designed for simplicity and theoretical insight, yields explicit mathematical results through a probabilistic analysis. A more elaborate second model, designed to capture historical population dynamics in a more realistic way, is analysed computationally through Monte Carlo simulations. These analyses suggest that the genealogies of all living humans overlap in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular, the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors.

Got that?  I didn’t think so. 

Anyway, what they are basically saying is that, based on reasonable modelling, it is scientifically possible that a common ancestor to all of humans could have existed just several thousand years ago.  Now, how reasonable is that supposition?  Well, it is YALE and M— I — (FREAKING) T!!!  In fact, Adam of the Bible could very well have been the ancestor of all Israel.  Now, to be sure, he was not the only human alive at the time.  But Genesis hints that there were other people around.  Where did Cain get his wife?  How did he found a city?  Who was he afraid would kill him as he wandered away?  It would explain the genealogies, which, according to biblical anthropologist Alice C. Linsley, were not genealogies at all but rather King’s Lists. (As an aside spend some time on Alice’s blog to get a refreshing look at the real history the bible chronicles.)

As Alice says in her article, “Are Adam and Eve Real?” :

…it is not necessary to insist that Adam and Eve are the progenitors of all humanity. Instead we may understand them as the first ancestors of the people who gave us Genesis. This concept of the first ancestors or heads of tribes and clans is found throughout the Bible. Midian is the head of the Midianites; Jacob is the head of the Israelites, and Lot is the head of the Moabites.

That makes sense to me.  And it preserves the essential truth of what the Bible is trying to convey to us.  But the Bible conveys this truth in the context of the views of ancient men, not in some woodenly, empirical, modernist mind set.  If you can’t get shed of that modernist mind set, then you aren’t really a conservative theologian, because the only thing you are conserving is a modernist mind set, and you are setting that up as the be-all and end-all of thought.  God chose to convey His truth to us through the medium of ancient writings; if you have a problem with that, then your problem is with God, not those of us trying to be faithful interpreters of what the ancients were trying to say.

• • •

Other posts in the series:

• Adam and the Genome, part 1
• Adam and the Genome, part 2
• Adam and the Genome, part 3
• Adam and the Genome, part 4
• Adam and the Genome, part 5
• Adam and the Genome, part 6