There is no evidence for or against the de novo creation of Adam and Eve within a larger population. This finding is secular, an evidential claim independent of whether or not we believe de novo creation actually occurred or not. It follows from our test of the genealogical hypothesis.
1. The absence of evidence does not demonstrate one way or another if Adam and Eve were de novo created. We cannot tell from evidence either way.
2. There are five ways how Adam and Eve could have arisen, which we can consider independently on their merits.
3. Adam and Eve, however, do not likely pass us all DNA. Reproductive compatibility, moreover, requires genomes nearly identical to ours. For these two reasons, we should understand them to be monophyletic with us.
4. Did God intend for their lineage to interbreed with the people outside the Garden? Many objections are resolved if God intended for their lineage to interbreed with a larger population.
5. Another set of objections arise about God’s deception, if Adam and Eve are de novo created. These objections do not apply if God intended for them to interbreed with a larger population.
The scientific questions of the genealogical hypothesis are, thus, resolved. Remaining objections are not grounded in evidence, but in theology and philosophy. This presages a shift. A new exchange will soon begin about the meaning of human.
THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
There is no evidence for or against Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all. Genetic ancestry gives us a tunnel-vision view of the past. Genetics is a streetlight, revealing our immediate genealogical ancestry, but not much more. Genetics is a telescope, giving us a powerful view of our history. Adam and Eve, however, fall in a gaping blind spot, hidden from our view. If they are real people in a real past, we expect them to be universal ancestors, but we cannot find evidence to prove or disprove them. They could have been de novo created outside our view.
Like a drop of water in the ocean, Adam and Eve’s genome quickly disappears (fig. 7.1). For this reason, we do not expect there to be evidence one way or another. Is the “absence of evidence” evidence that Adam and Eve do not exist?
If someone were to assert that there is an elephant on the quad, then the failure to observe an elephant there would be good reason to think that there is no elephant there. But if someone were to assert that there is a flea on the quad, then one’s failure to observe it there would not constitute good evidence that there is no flea on the quad. The salient difference between these two cases is that in the one, but not the other, we should expect to see some evidence of the entity if in fact it existed.6
From a scientific point of view, we do not expect there to be evidence of the de novo creation of Adam, so the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We had thought the de novo creation of Adam and Eve was an elephant, but it was a flea. Looking out into the scientific “quad,” we see no evidence either way for or against the de novo created Adam and Eve within a larger population. Adam and Eve are outside the streetlight. The genetic evidence does not tell us one way or another.
Some are convinced that Scripture teaches Adam and Eve were created by a direct act of God. If there are people outside the Garden, there is no evidence against their confession. Others do not believe Scripture teaches Adam and Eve were specially created, without biological parents. Others still do not believe Scripture is to be trusted about these things. The evidence is neither for nor against the de novo creation of Adam and Eve.
Figure 7.1. Adam and Eve, in a larger population, are very unlikely to be genetic ancestors of everyone today. This figure shows a subset of their genealogical descendants. In this figure, half of the people have only one parent depicted. In these cases, the undepicted parent is from outside the Garden, not a descendent of the progenitor couple. Adam and Eve’s genomes rapidly disappear, like a drop of water in the ocean.
FIVE ORIGINS OF ADAM AND EVE
In the genealogical hypothesis, we suppose that Adam and Eve were created by a direct act of God, without parents, but of the same biological type as people outside the Garden. There was nothing remarkable about their genes or genomes; their genome is not what makes them special. For a moment, let us step back from this, looking at the range of views that have been considered.
A. Chosen. Adam and Eve were selected from a larger population for specific purpose by God, much like Abraham was selected by God. They had biological parents, and God did not make them biologically special in any way.7
B. Chosen and spiritually refurbished. Adam and Eve were selected from a larger population, and God miraculously gave them new spiritual abilities or qualities that others did not have. There were no genetic differences, however, that made them especially important or distinct.
C. Chosen and physically refurbished. Adam and Eve were selected from a larger population, and God miraculously gave them new biological abilities that defined them as truly human.
D. De novo created the same. Adam was created from nonliving material by a direct act of God, and Eve was created from Adam. There were no genetic differences, however, that made them especially important or distinct. In this sense, they were created within a population.
E. De novo created distinct. Adam was created from nonliving material by a direct act of God, Eve was created from Adam, and with biologically important distinctions from those outside the Garden that were meant to be spread to all of them.
These models are grouped in important ways. Adam and Eve might be biologically the same as everyone outside the Garden (A, B, D) or they could have been different in important ways (C, E). Adam and Eve might have biological parents (A, B, C) or they could have been de novo created (D, E).8 Adam and Eve may be merely chosen from a larger population (A), or God could have created something new within them (B, C, D, E). Here, I want to explore these options from an evidential point of view. What might be most valuable to theologians is not of primary concern right now, nor is determining what Scripture does or does not tell us.
Figure 7.2. The genetic evidence for Adam and Eve rapidly dissipates, like a drop of water in the sea (left). Genealogical ancestry spreads in an explosion across the globe, rapidly becoming universal (middle). A genetic refurbishment might conceivably spread across the globe, though there is no evidence for this, and it would not reach every one of Adam and Eve’s genealogical descendants in all history (right).
ADAM AND EVE ARE MONOPHYLETIC
Were Adam and Eve biologically distinct (C, E)? The genomes of Adam and Eve would need to be similar to those of the people outside the Garden, very similar. Too many changes and they would be reproductively incompatible with the people outside the Garden.
It is conceivable God made Adam and Eve with some important biological differences. Only small changes are needed to produce large changes to an organism. However, these differences would not propagate to each and every one of their genealogical descendants. Their genealogical lineage would quickly spread across the globe till they were ancestors of everyone in a few thousand years. Their genetic ancestry, however, would dilute and dissipate. If their genetic differences were meant to pass to all of the genealogical descendants, then ongoing miracles are required. Speculative and exotic biological mechanisms (such as gene drives) have been proposed to overcome the need for ongoing miracles. There is no evidence of such mechanisms in human biology.
Adam and Eve are most likely genetic ghosts that pass us no DNA. This is not a loophole, or an unlikely event. Genetic ghosts, instead, are the most likely fate of a couple interbreeding with others in a larger population. If Adam and Eve exist, they are most likely undetectable in our genomes. Whatever genetic differences there were in Adam and Eve, therefore, were not what make us human.
There is one loophole, outside our scope, which might alter the analysis in part. If Adam and Eve are ancient, perhaps more ancient than one hundred thousand years ago, the evidence might not rule out a smaller population for short periods of time. In this scenario, it would be possible
that we all received DNA from them. Even if Adam and Eve did pass on DNA, we would not be able to identify this DNA as theirs. Moreover, different populations might receive different parts of their genomes, so we might not all receive the same DNA from them. To trace Adam and Eve’s genetic lineage, we would need archaeologically verified remains of them or their direct genetic descendants. Needless to say, finding such verifiable remains does not seem to be possible. At this point, regardless, we are far outside the range of a recent Adam and Eve. There are questions here to explore, but they are outside our scope.
Setting aside the out-of-scope loophole, Adam and Eve are likely genetic ghosts. If they existed, they pass us no identifiable DNA. Perhaps some of us inherit DNA from them, but their DNA is indistinguishable from that of their neighbors. We cannot, therefore, reconstruct their genomes, except to note that they were reproductively compatible with those outside the Garden.
For this reason, also, we know they were essentially the same biological type as us. If they existed, they were important, but not because they passed special DNA to all of us.
DID GOD INTEND INTERBREEDING?
Unless Adam and Eve are very ancient, before Homo sapiens arise, their offspring interbred with other lineages. From a biological point of view, it is easy to see how God could have engineered genetical incompatibility between Adam and Eve’s lineage and the people outside the Garden. Why then was Adam and Eve’s lineage able to interbreed with others? Why were they reproductively compatible with those outside the Garden? Why was interbreeding even possible? There are several responses possible.9 The question of God’s intention seems an important detail to track as we sort through the options.
Perhaps, on the one hand, God did not intend for Adam and Eve’s lineage to interbreed with others. Why were they, nonetheless, reproductively compatible?
■ God did not tinker or create their genomes (A, B), and interbreeding was possible, but not intended, by God.
■ If God physically refurbished Adam and Eve (C), he tinkered with their genome but not to such an extent as to prevent interbreeding. He could, however, have tinkered more, preventing interbreeding if he disapproved of it. Why not tinker more?
■ God’s work of creation conflicts with his intention, it seems, if they were created de novo (D, E). The moral failure of interbreeding might be understood as a consequence of the Fall, but not reproductive compatibility. Why were their offspring fertile?10
The first path might work (A, B). It may be no different than God’s intention for Israel to separate themselves from Gentiles, though they surely interbred. Some support has, at times, been claimed for this by appealing to passages about Nephilim (Gen 6:1-4). The other two paths seem troubled (C, D, E), but they are not analogous to bestiality, as some have suggested. Fertile offspring demonstrates that interbreeding was not bestiality as it appears in Scripture or today, which never produces viable offspring. This is, instead, some other category of unintended interbreeding.11 Moving past the bestiality objection, the second and third paths still seem troubled; and this trouble might be why some gravitate toward “chosen from” (A, B) instead of “de novo created within” (D, E) a larger population. There is, however, another possibility.
Perhaps, on the other hand, God intended for Adam and Eve’s lineage to interbreed with others, and this is why they were reproductively compatible. After they fell, interbreeding might have been forbidden for a time (Gen 6:1-4), but God’s original intention, before the Fall, would have been for interbreeding.
■ God chose them from a larger population without physically changing them (A, B). God’s intention for their lineage to interbreed with this larger population would explain why he did not tinker with their genomes.
■ God chose them from a larger population and physically refurbished them (C). God’s intentions of interbreeding might explain why he left them reproductively compatible, and perhaps even why he created them in this manner.
■ God created them de novo (D, E). He created them, we can infer, with the intended purpose of producing a new lineage that can interbreed with others.
None of these final three paths seem particularly troubled. They give space, moreover, for all five ways of understanding Adam and Eve’s origin (A, B, C, D, E). Questions remain. If God made them with something biologically distinct (C, E), these distinctions did not come to all of us, which raises questions about why God would make them biologically different. If there were people already on earth, this raises questions about why God would de novo create a new couple (C, E). These are good questions, but the answers are in theology, not science. For the moment, however, there is value in the inference that the people outside the Garden are reproductively compatible because God intended them to interbreed with Adam and Eve’s lineage.
THOSE OBJECTIONS OF DECEPTION
There is no evidence for or against the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. This is a surprising finding. It unsettles understanding of evolutionary science of which most have been convinced for decades, if not centuries. Evolutionary science, it seemed, demonstrates that Adam and Eve share common ancestry with the great apes. This conclusion, however, is rooted in a misunderstanding. Perhaps they were de novo created within a population that arose by common ancestry with the great apes. Both de novo creation and evolution could be true at the same time. Affirming one does not entail rejecting the other. With such a large shift in understanding, it is expected that there will be many objections.
Some rightly object that absence of evidence does not demonstrate that Adam and Eve were, in fact, de novo created. I agree. There are many hypotheses that are false, but also not in conflict with the evidence. For example, there is no genetic evidence against a unicorn on the other side of the moon. Certainly, such a magical unicorn does not actually exist. Warrant for believing the de novo creation of Adam and Eve would have to arise from evidence outside genetics. In this case, it will come down to whether we think Scripture is trustworthy, and what we think it is telling us. Suppose, for a moment, that Scripture is trustworthy and does teach us that Adam and Eve were de novo created. There is nothing in science that unsettles this teaching. It comes down to how we understand Scripture. Do we trust it? What does it teach? Evidence from science, however, does not tell us one way or another.
Some object that God is deceptively hiding Adam and Eve from us, because evidence for their existence does not appear in our genomes. This objection is rooted in misunderstanding of the science of ancestry. Other than de novo creation itself, no miraculous action is posited here. Genetic ghosts arise merely as a consequence of the normal operations of the world. We thought otherwise, that evidence for Adam and Eve would be clearly visible. We were wrong. God is not hiding Adam and Eve. Just like most of our ancestors, their existence is expected to leave no signature in our genomes.
Some object that God is deceptively planting a false history of common descent in our genomes. This objection, also, arises from scientific misunderstanding. Under this hypothesis, we do actually share common ancestry with the great apes. This is not a false history, but the true history of those outside the Garden. The appearance of common descent cannot be deceptive if it is true.
Some persist further, objecting to the deceptive appearance of common ancestry specifically in Adam and Eve’s genome. This is a strange objection. No one has ever sequenced Adam and Eve’s genome. We cannot conceive how they might do so. Who then is being deceived? Entering the thought experiment of the objection anyway, if we somehow could sequence their genomes, we would likely conclude that Adam and Eve shared common ancestry with the great apes, even though they had no parents. Still, if there is an alternate explanation for their genome, which does not require deceit, then this objection does not apply. There is such an explanation. God might have intended for Adam and Eve’s lineage to interbreed with the people outside the Garden. With this purpose in mind, it is not deceitful that their genomes were similar to ours. This explanation explains the data just as well.
/>
Some press this objection to deception even further still. It would appear to Adam and Eve’s neighbors that this new couple in their midst had biological parents, because everyone has biological parents. However, Adam and Eve did not have parents. The mere fact that God created them in an unusual way, it is argued, is deceptive. A good and honest God would not do such a thing. The logic of this extension, consistently applied, would require rejecting all miracles. Consistently applying this logic requires us to conclude God was deceptive when Jesus rises from the dead, because this miracle creates the appearance that Jesus did not die on the cross. God would be deceptive when Jesus creates wine from water, because it would contain evidence of a false history of aging in barrels and being squeezed from grapes. God would be deceptive in the Virgin Birth also, because an out-of-wedlock pregnancy misrepresented Mary’s past to Joseph. Pressing the objection this far results in absurd reasoning. Even if these miracles did not happen, we shouldn’t reject them for this reasoning. At its core, pressing the objection down this path requires denying a basic reality: the world is not always as it seems. God makes no promise that first impressions match reality. Science, itself, often demonstrates first impressions are incorrect. If and when miracles happen, God is not deceptive when he operates outside the natural order.
The Genealogical Adam and Eve Page 9
