RE: [asa] biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent?

From: George Cooper <>
Date: Tue Sep 02 2008 - 13:28:10 EDT



It is my understanding that MtDNA will not point likely point to an ultimate
first mother (ie Eve) but only to an "Eve" down a given MtDNA trail.
Confidence in this dating system seems fairly high. However, I get the
impression that the Y-chromosome method of dating is much less reliable. I
am especially weak in micorbiology, so, hopefully, someone here will address
this issue.


Since it is likely, IMO, that Cain married a Pre-Adamite woman, then their
vast lineage makes no difference to the Biblical account. Cain's great,
great..grandmother could have been out of Africa without any consequence.
This is more problematic in the Y-chromosome case since we should be
descendents of Cain.


Another possibility that allows the literal view is that a "living soul"
sprung forth in all new humans after the inaugural event of man's soul -
Adam from "dust". This seems a bit too ad-hoc even for me, but I won't rule
it out just yet.



David O said: The bigger problem for the recent representative model in my
mind is whether those aboriginal peoples, not to mention the widespread
neolithic cultures of the west and near east, were "human" prior to Adam.
Clearly, the unity of the human race -- the fact that every human being has
a unique dignity and responsibility precisely in virtue of being human -- is
fundamental to Biblical anthropology.


This is an important issue since these earlier races exhibited spiritual
behavior. If the Aborigines (and other hunter-gatherers such as in New
Guinea) are essentially the same today as they were 15,000 years ago, then
it is problematic to give them a spiritual existence out of the blue 6000
years ago, though this could have been the case. A better explanation
seems to me to be that the big migration from Africa was of mankind that
already had "living souls", so Adam would have had to predate this. This
does not match Dick's point that there is no evidence for any settlements in
S. Mesopotamia prior to 4800 BC. But, this does not necessarily mean
something much, much older will be found at much greater depths. An Ur
city limits sign would be a nice discovery worth dating. J


George "Coope"




From: [] On
Behalf Of Bethany Sollereder
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 9:51 AM
To: David Opderbeck
Cc: Merv;
Subject: Re: [asa] biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically


Certainly it seems like a lot of people are accepting the federal headship
model, which is a step forward from YEC, but still I think a misstep. Too
much concordism, not enough science. And as George said above, there are
good reasons to at least question the purpose and 'accuracy' of the
Another way around it is to find a mitochondrial Eve or a Y chromosome Adam.
I guess you can trace back mitochondrial DNA through women, back to "one"
about 150,000 years ago. The issue is that a similar process with men and
the Y chromosome only goes back about 50,000 years. So unless your
biological Adam and Eve lived 100,000 years apart, you end up with a bit of
a problem.


On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 7:19 AM, David Opderbeck <>

So in your educational / seminary travels, are evangelical / orthodox
protestant scholars starting to accept these various models as alternatives
that preserve essential orthodoxy?


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 2 13:28:52 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 02 2008 - 13:28:52 EDT