RE: [asa] New Evidence for Two Human Origins

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Wed Oct 03 2007 - 16:54:06 EDT

I have his book and have exchanged emails with Mayer. I encouraged him
to join ASA and he did. He and I for various reasons take the
genealogies at full face value. We differ on whether the man in Genesis
1 and 2 are the same. He sides with Peter Ruest thinking they are
different, Adam 1 being generic man and Adam 2 (Scofield's old term)
being Adam. Quoting one of the sub headings: "The Hebrew Word, Adam
Cannot Refer to the pre-Adamites of Genesis 1."


And we pretty much agree about almost everything else. I would love to
see some genetic evidence but neither he nor I have any. We both fall
on racial mixing between the pre-Adamic and the Adamic race somewhere
around Noah. He uses life span probabilities to show that subsequent
patriarchal generations died pretty close to what their theoretical life
spans would have been in light of mixing.


Of course I agree that his approach does resolve some of the
difficulties we have discussed on this list for low these many years.
It's refreshing to see someone else pushing in the same direction. And
his conclusions were independent of mine.


Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History




-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Terry M. Gray
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:53 PM
To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: Re: [asa] New Evidence for Two Human Origins




What exactly is the evidence?


If we are to believe Carol Hill's recent PSCF article at


then the genealogies aren't meant to be taken literally.


I guess this question goes out to Dick Fischer as well. Is there any

biological evidence for such a theory? No need to rehash the

historical arguments.




On Oct 2, 2007, at 7:18 PM, Mountainwoman wrote:


> Gary T. Mayer's new book "New Evidence for Two Human Origins:

> Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science" offers a

> relatively novel (as least to me) approach to resolving science and

> the Bible. He accepts descent of a pre-Adamic race of humans that

> existed in the Middle East contemporarily with God's special

> creation of Adam and Eve (the Adamic race).


> He bases his case primarily on the decline in life spans recorded

> in Genesis, using a 929-year average potential life span for the

> Adamic race and a 60-year average life span for the pre-Adamic

> race. He then develops various plausible scenarios of potential

> life spans resulting from mixed marriages within the genealogies

> recorded in Genesis, assuming that potential life spans of the

> offspring equal the average of those of the parents. He

> demonstrates that these scenarios, arrived at from his dual origin

> thesis, fit the gradually reduced lifespans given in the Genesis

> genealogies quite well.


> His case for the validity of this approach is based on Matt

> Ridley's "Genome: the Autobiography of a Species in 23

> Chapters," (HarperCollins, 1999), p. 204: "Aging is turning out to

> be one of the things that is under the control of many genes. One

> expert estimates that there are 7,000 age-influencing genes in the

> human genome, or ten percent of the total."

> My question to the ASA Discussion Group is whether this is a

> plausible solution to the problem of resolving what we know from

> science with what is written in the book of Genesis.


> Paul Bruggink (ASA Member)

> Clarington, PA




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




To unsubscribe, send a message to with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 3 17:00:26 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 03 2007 - 17:00:27 EDT