Re: [asa] Dawkins on the fossil record

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Tue Dec 15 2009 - 17:23:33 EST


Thanks for your input on this question. I do have a question for you, if you
don't mind. Given below.

broader phylogenetic and chronological terms and that I am thinking
> more "can this be unequivocally ruled out" than "is it very likely".
> It's probably impossible genetically to get a single pair as the sole
> ancestors of all modern humans unless that single pair is
> significantly more apelike than modern humans. Thus, an "Adam and Eve
> as physical ancestor of all modern humans" model is very difficult to
> maintain. However, if one is willing to accept Adam and Eve as rather
> furrier and smaller brained than us, one could produce a scenario that
> is not absolutely ruled out by the genetic data. I'm not sure that
> one can genetically rule out Glen's idea of Adam and Eve being at an
> australopithecine grade and living a bit over 5 million years ago, for
> example; the difficulty is more on the genealogy end.

Now, when you say "a single pair as the sole ancestors of all modern
humans", do you mean this in the sense of the pair being the sole "humans",
and then their offspring interbreeding with each other, etc?

If so, does anything change if what's considered to take place is that there
was a "single pair" who bred with each other, and their offspring didn't
breed with themselves, but with the greater population the single pair
originally came from?

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 15 17:23:55 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 15 2009 - 17:23:55 EST