Re: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity

From: jack syme <>
Date: Thu Feb 23 2006 - 20:24:33 EST

I am sure that Hugh Ross considers all living homo's fully human, and all
other modern homo sapiens fully human, in fact that is exactly what the
model says.

The problem with the RTB model isnt that Ross doesnt consider Neanderthal
"human" (or homo florensis for that matter) it is that he has Adam
specially created 100,00 years ago, with no genetic connection to earlier or
contemprary homo's.

This model helps solve some problems, but as in all the models leaves many
problems. Mainly that the RTB model ignores the biblical evidence for a
neolithic adam.

But, one thing that Hugh Ross wanted his model to be is falsifieable, and in
my opinion, the Templeton data has done just that. It will be interesting
to see if Ross responds to this data.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry M. Gray" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity

> Glenn,
> Regarding this and a previous post--you seem to regard me as an advocate
> of the so-called RTB model. I guess that's your non- neolithic Adam of
> 100,000 or 200,000 years ago. I'm not. I readily agree with you that
> these views have the similar problems with respect to the Genesis account
> (i.e. requiring a neolithic Adam) as your view. I'm not quite sure who
> you're talking about--David Wilcox and Hugh Ross, I guess. I'm quite
> content to let the OOA and MRH debate rage among the experts--perhaps
> we'll have a clear view someday--perhaps the Templeton paper will
> contribute to that clarity. Perhaps there's a way for both of them to be
> right. As I've said elsewhere, I don't think we ought to distort the
> science with scripture (or our interpretation of scripture) or vice
> versa.
> I want to respond again to your human/non-human issue. There is no "homo"
> alive today who is not fully human. There was no "homo" alive in Jesus'
> day who is not fully human. I think it's probably fair to say that there
> was no "homo" in 10,000 BC who is not fully human. Whatever the genetic
> connectedness between H. erectus, Neanderthal, and H. sapiens is, there
> has been only one species of "homo" for all of recorded history. Agreed?
> In one sense it doesn't matter if Hugh Ross denies the "humanity" of
> Neanderthal if he admits to the current unity of all humans. It may be
> that we all "predominantly" (i.e. the near-null hypothesis) descended
> from some common ancestor within the past 100-200,000 years or it could
> be that we descended from some common ancestor who goes back to 1 million
> years ago. Determining exactly when and how we become human is quite
> subservient to the more important claim that their descendants (of today
> and recorded history--the predominant stuff of Biblical revelation) are
> fully human.
> Glenn, the reason we go silent, if you will, is because we think your
> position is such a stretch. You want a neolithic civilization (i.e.
> what's described in Genesis) that goes back 500,000 to 1 million years
> ago that has left no trace in the anthropological/archeological
> record--there's only bone flutes, cave bear remains, etc. Sure, we could
> endorse a theory for which there is no evidence, but there seems to be
> some desperation in that.
> Your "amazement" about our rejection of your solution is not dissimilar
> to Dick Fischer's "amazement" about our rejection of his. I'd suggest
> that both of you have a serious reality distortion field around you if
> you can't see why people aren't flocking to your solution. Don't get me
> wrong here. I'm not suggestion that either of you should stop promoting
> your view, nor do I have anything better to offer, but let's face it,
> there is not a solution out there that doesn't have difficulties given
> our various commitments. That in itself may be evidence that some of our
> commitments are wrong--and, of course, some folks out there in ASA-land
> (Murphy, Seeley, Lamoureaux) are pushing in that direction.
> TG
> On Feb 23, 2006, at 3:03 PM, <>
> <> wrote:
>> Bill wrote and Jon Tandy endorsed,
>> >Terry said what I wanted to say -- only much better. Thanks,
>> Terry. It seems to me that since none of the
>> >interpretation/harmonization schemes is pefect, and they break
>> down at different points, it would be useful to catalog
>> >the major interpretation/harmonization schemes (including YEC)
>> together with where they fail. The result might be a large
>> >projectable chart that could be presented to a variety of
>> audiences to show the pitfalls and difficulties of trying to
>> >harmonize Scripture and science. Since it would gore everyone's
>> ox, perhaps it would be a useful teaching tool.
>> I almost added a response to Terry's comment to the last note. The
>> biggest thing I hear from people rejecting my views is not that my facts
>> are wrong, or that I have some awful illogicalness (like poling boats
>> upcurrent and uphill). I hear that the constant complaint that Adam is
>> too old to be believable and that he has to be neolithic. ) For some
>> reason we have come to believe that it is logical to have a
>> non-neolithic Adam of 100,000 years ago (who still can't hold the
>> genetic unity of mankind) but not logical to have a non-neolithic Adam
>> of 5 million years ago so that evidences of religion (which clearly do
>> not define humanity for a number of people) and genetics (which shows
>> that some of our genes are that old). We are willing to have the
>> chronologies stretched by double or more but then if one goes and simply
>> does more and moves Adam further back, the rubberband breaks and
>> suddenly what was viewed as logical is no longer viewed as ok? So, I
>> would try to make an observation here that offering something that fits
>> the observational data of science does not ensure success. And if
>> someone thinks my facts are wrong on something, I would love to be
>> corrected because I would rather have it right than avoid admitting I
>> was wrong.
>> And one other observation. When one tries to discuss evidence of an
>> older Adam, people go silent on this list like YECs do about geology.
>> It is truly amazing, but I think I found the evidence of antiquity
>> people don't want to accept on this side of the fence.
> ________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department
> Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, CO 80523
> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
Received on Thu Feb 23 20:26:22 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 23 2006 - 20:26:22 EST