Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Adam, Eve, Richard Buggs, and Dennis Venema: Could Adam and Eve have existed?

Categories
Genetics
Human evolution
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Dennis Venema replies to Buggs, insisting that Adam and Eve could not likely exist. Geneticist Richard Buggs thinks that they could have.

Dennis VenemaFrom Venema at BioLogos:

The key here is that one individual can only have at most two alleles of any gene. A population reduction to one breeding pair would mean that at most, four alleles of a given gene could pass through the bottleneck – in the case where both individuals are heterozygous, and heterozygous for different alleles. The population would then have to wait for new mutation events to produce new alleles of this gene – a process that will take a significant amount of time. Since this would happen to all genes in the genome at the same time – a reduction to a maximum of four alleles – we would notice this effect for a long time thereafter as genetic diversity was slowly rebuilt across the genome as a whole.

Richard
Richard Buggs

So, a bottleneck to two individuals would leave an enduring mark on our genomes – and one part of that mark would be a severe reduction in the number of alleles we have – down to a maximum of four alleles at any given gene. Humans, however, have a large number of alleles for many genes – famously, there are hundreds of alleles for some genes involved in immune system function. These alleles take time to generate, because the mutation rate in humans is very low. This high allele diversity is thus the first indication that we did not pass through a severe population bottleneck, but rather a relatively mild one (estimated, as we have discussed, at about 10,000 individuals by current methods).

Image result for Adam and Eve public domain
Adam and Eve

Another effect that a bottleneck to two individuals would produce is that there would be no rare alleles after the bottleneck. All alleles would have a frequency of at least 25%. As the population expanded after such an event, those alleles would stay common, and only new mutations would produce less common alleles. What we observe in humans in the present day is that many alleles are rare – even exceedingly rare. The distribution of alleles in present-day humans looks like it comes from an old, large population – not one that passed through an extreme bottleneck within the last few hundred thousand years, which is when our species is found in the fossil record. Thus the observation that we have many alleles of certain genes and the distribution of allele frequencies both support the hypothesis that humans come from a population, rather than a pair. More.

Over to Buggs. This is getting to be fun…

See also: Adam and Eve and the Skeptics, Episode 2: Geneticist Richard Buggs replies

Adam and Eve debut at the Skeptical Zone: In other words, we don’t really know if they could have existed because the human race seems very improbable anyway. But it is high time the question was liberated from the Sunday armchair of theistic evolution, to say nothing of its occasional personal dramas.

Geneticist defends possible Adam and Eve in Nature: Ecology and Evolution

and

Geneticist: Adam and Eve could have existed

Comments
J-Mac @5, So, you don’t believe that the Bible has at least some influence of the Divine? Of course, I do. I especially have a lot of confidence in the metaphorical texts because nobody understands what they mean. So they are least likely to have been corrupted by jackasses along the way. But much of the rest of the Bible should be carefully weighed and filtered because it's prone to nonsense and contradictions. Most of texts clearly specified who their human authors were. Why should anyone insist they are the "inerrant word of God" unless that person has evil intentions. The apostle Paul, for example, is not my God, at least not to my knowledge. Whatever he wrote must be tested for truth and logic. If it were, even if you don’t believe it, what would be the proof of such influence IYV? The teaching is, "search and you will find." My understanding is that one cannot even do that unless one is called by God. I, for one, have searched and I have found some amazing things. But that's for another place and time. Conduct your own search.FourFaces
November 10, 2017
November
11
Nov
10
10
2017
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Otherwise, I must assume that this same denunciation applies to ALL species: each new species appears POOF! with a genetically diverse pool of AT LEAST 10,000 individuals on the first day ANY of the 10,000 exist.
I'm not sure you understand how speciation works. Species form when an ancestral population splits, so there are generally thousands of individuals (with plenty of genetic diversity) in a given split when speciation starts.mullers_ratchet
November 10, 2017
November
11
Nov
10
10
2017
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
"Since this would happen to all genes in the genome at the same time – a reduction to a maximum of four alleles – we would notice this effect for a long time thereafter as genetic diversity was slowly rebuilt across the genome as a whole." Again, these people are arguing about a "bottleneck" after the GROWTH of a large human population. We have good evidence for such a bottleneck that apparently DID reduce the total worldwide human population to some thousands of individuals. The original breeding pair of our NEW species must simply have lived a REALLY long time before that bottleneck. Otherwise, I must assume that this same denunciation applies to ALL species: each new species appears POOF! with a genetically diverse pool of AT LEAST 10,000 individuals on the first day ANY of the 10,000 exist.vmahuna
November 10, 2017
November
11
Nov
10
10
2017
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
@FourFaces So, you don't believe that the Bible has at least some influence of the Divine? If it were, even if you don't believe it, what would be the proof of such influence IYV?J-Mac
November 10, 2017
November
11
Nov
10
10
2017
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
J-Mac @ 4, The Bible is always right. You're kidding me? That's idolatry, IMO, the work of the Devil. Even the Bible teaches us to test all things. This includes the Bible itself. To me, the Bible is a research document for Christians and Jews. It consists of many books and texts from different eras that were bound together by humans. You can bet that the Devil had his filthy hands in there at one point or another. It is not a science book but it is ahead of science in many, many ways You'd be surprised how much revolutionary science is in the Bible. Most of the metaphorical texts, including the entire book of Revelation, are about disruptive scientific knowledge that will transform the world when they are decoded and revealed. This will happen in your lifetimes. Dean_from_Ohio @3, Be careful; Christian theology, and the forgiveness of your sin, require an actual Adam. Romans chapter 5 irrefutably makes this claim. Believe it or not. I certainly do not believe it. But be cool. Don't impugn my faith because I don't worship the Bible as "the inerrant word of God."FourFaces
November 10, 2017
November
11
Nov
10
10
2017
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
I am a Christian and I disagree with the claim that mankind descended from a single breeding pair. Then you not a Christian...You are a pseudo-christian like all theistic-evolutionists resembling Ken Miller, Dennis Venema and the rest of the so-called christians who sold Christianity for the sake of being called a scientist... I was very sadden to learn that even VJT sold himself to the so-called science... BTW: While most would probably not call me a Christian ( I don't care) I have learned one thing about Christianity over the years: The Bible is always right. My 14 y old son recently proved me wrong because he relied on the Bible... It is not a science book but it is ahead of science in many, many ways...IMV...J-Mac
November 10, 2017
November
11
Nov
10
10
2017
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
I am a Christian and I disagree with the claim that mankind descended from a single breeding pair. Even a cursory reading of Genesis reveals that it is a compilation of several books and genealogies. The Adam and Eve who gave birth to Cain and Abel were not the same Adam and Eve of the Garden of Eden. The Eden story is obviously metaphorical. The Adam of Eden was not an individual's name. It was a noun preceded by a definite article "the" to form "the Adam". It's comparable to saying "the French" or "the Chinese". It meant mankind or Adam-kind. In fact, there is strong reason to suppose that the original Adam-kind were both male and female. So I agree with Dennis Venema even though I disagree with BioLogos in general.FourFaces
November 10, 2017
November
11
Nov
10
10
2017
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply