Genetic Study Confirms Dr. Craig's Model | Reasonable Faith Podcast

A recent study provides strong evidence in support of Dr. Craig's book on the historical Adam.
For more resources visit: www.reasonablefaith.org
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg

[@Onthewayover]

I don't know much about this topic as a whole, but I'm really glad for the confirmation (not proof, as the video states) of Dr. Craig's hypothesis! If I'm understanding the video correctly, to find genetic evidence of a bottleneck over 500,000 years ago, averaging less than 1300 breeding individuals over a hundred-thousand-year time period, and then genetic evidence for a speciation event occurring around the time of Heidelberg Man, aligns incredibly well with a hypothesis from his recent, and often misunderstood, book exploring the question of human origins. You're an inspiration, Dr. Craig. Congratulations!

[@bengreen171]

do not be misled. Craig is misrepresenting the study. His model is not confirmed, because the study shows a bottleneck of about 1280 breeding individuals, not 2 individuals - which is what Craig needs to make his model work. Also, Homo sapiens is far younger than the 800,000 year old bottleneck - so the supposed 'speciation event' did not occur within the time frame of the bottleneck.

[@sdr4701]

Congratulations William!

[@vikodavid7]

Glad to hear scientists confessing the truth that they deny in their hearts. Good job for pushing hard dr. Craig

[@Ididntaskforahandleyoutube]

I'm sorry, what do we know in our hearts that we're denying? Please provide a logical response. -an Evolutionary Biologist Oh, we've known about the bottleneck for decades. Bottlenecks have happened millions of times to millions of species in the history of this planet. It's even happening now. I have no idea why they're treating this as amazing new science.

[@carlossardina3161]

@@Ididntaskforahandleyoutube Genuinely curious, have we known about the human bottleneck that was discussed in the video for decades?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

they aren't, it';s idiots like craig lying about what science actually says. one day it will dawn on you what a nut job craig has become in his obsession with mythological gods.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@carlossardina3161 who cares, the point is we weren't "god did it" creatures, we evolved from whatever the first life was, god is not necessary for ANYTHING, and you keep forgetting even if god were a thing HE doesn't allow ANY evidence of his existence (my free will would go down the the toilet) so people who try to prove god;s existence are the DUMBEST SNAILS ON THE PLANET, even by their own lights. craig just wants to sell books these days, even he doesn't believe the adam and eve crap.

[@bengreen171]

@@carlossardina3161 yes. If you are so curious, why not try looking for articles or papers discussing it. I did a quick search and the second result, after one about this recent study, was from 2009.

[@AlefNullSet]

Dr. Craig, do you have a cat that tips over your books, such as on the shelf behind your right shoulder?

[@rafikgl]

Amazing Dr. Craig

[@Phill3v7]

Is the study linked?

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I affirm a relatively recent Adam, but always enjoy hearing Dr. Craig’s perspective.

[@markvincent9757]

There is room for you. I at one time thought that too. However, with all the developments past to present I encourage you to investigate

[@Mentat1231]

Just out of curiosity, how recent? I'm personally unsure which model makes most sense to me.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

@@Mentat1231 I take the genealogies literally and place Adam at around 4000 BC.

[@Mentat1231]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Oh wow! Ok. Thank you. And I think it's cool that you're still open to entertaining a perspective like Craig's, despite that. Best wishes.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

@@Mentat1231 I’m not entirely sure that commits me to a Young Earth. I used to hold to something like Josh Swimidass- a young Adam but not entailing that Adam was at the genetic fountainhead of the entire human race. This would involve seeing Genesis 1 and 2 as sequential not synoptic. But exegetically I don’t think that is sustainable anymore. Just a clever way to avoid the clear implications of the text to me. But are there possibilities for seeing more time in Genesis 1? Maybe. Still thinking on the subject. But I find myself gravitating to YEC-simply because the text drives me that way. But I’m open and still studying. The science seems to go in the opposite direction of my exegesis. 😂 still studying

[@GraniteChief369]

What about the Mt Toba catastrophe 70,000ya that left only 3,000 to 10,0000 humans alive on the planet?

[@bassmanjr100]

I'm confused how Adam and Eve going back 500,000 years matches up with Genesis. Did Adam's immediate descendants begin to build cities and call upon YHVH? Genesis says they began farming as well.

[@alessandroarsuffi9227]

Though I don't believe Mr Craig is right on this point, I may suggest that corruption and sin turned humans into brutes who abandoned these technologies very early.

[@thestraightroad305]

What does Josh Swamidass have to say about this? Dying to find out!!

[@LocoFan611]

My problem with Dr. Craig's interpretations is that he relies, I think too strongly, on "Science's" interpretations of scientific data. This applies to both his discussions about cosmology and biology. I empathize with his attempts to fit Biblical descriptions with standard science. We do have to deal with the fact that scientists have a bias against data and interpretations that support creation. Ttheir methods for dating have problematic assumptions (starting concentrations of isotopes and constant decay rates), and as they note - very small sample sizes of paleolithic individuals (think of taking a narrow sample of modern humans, from particularly small persons to football linebackers or power-lifters,or the range of dog breeds.) We need also consider devolution and the effects of in-breeding on altering populations. As Dr. Craig notes, it may be that the so-called non-homo-sapien groups were still "humans" who interbred. Can we infer just from fossilized skeletal remains everything necessary to know if a pug could breed with a mastiff - or that they are variations within the same species, differentiated by different limitations in their genetic lines? There is no way to legitimately accommodate the creation account with this scientific interpretation without putting the rest of scripture at risk. Instead of scripture being read in the light of science, science needs to be read in the light of scripture. Alternative scientific explanations that are shunned by the scientific community may provide better insights into historic events than what we receive from "authorized" science.

[@bengreen171]

you seem to be under the impression that every scientist in the world is somehow lying to hide the true conclusions of all the trillions of data points we have. Do you think that is a rational position to take? Do you walk down the street thinking literally everyone is lying to you? What do you think is more likely - that every biologist and geologist, archaeologist, cosmologist, physicist and chemist is lying to you, or that maybe they know more about this than you do. If I told everyone that you're an 80 year old woman from New Guinea who owns three pet elephants - you'd wonder why someone who doesn't know you has the gall to insist they know better than you do yourself. And yet you seem to think you know more about science than actual scientists do.

[@TheRonBerg]

That's nice to hear and interesting and all, unfortunately dr Craig's model seems to be up against at least two unsurmountable odds: firstly, according to scriptures Cain built a city, which is just unthinkable at the time-depth that Craig postulates. Secondly, Adam and Eve, then Cain and Abel are clearly capable of talking like we do, but such capacity for articulated speech can hardly be older than 200-250k years at most. I'm sorry but I just don't see how Craig's model can be maintained as it is, unless he wants to pick-and-choose from scriptures and project our language faculty back to an unthinkable time period.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

it's tripe anyway, there is no god and naturalism can account for anything a god can, without the nonsense of magic. or voodoo, which is all religion amounts to.

[@bassmanjr100]

I tend to agree. The way I read Genesis, Adam appears around the time of simple farming and language. Anything beyond 50,000 ago seems wrong. I also see no point in trying to bring very ancient humans (if that is what they are) into what I would consider a Biblical relationship with God. God could have interacted with them differently than he does with us post Adam.

[@alessandroarsuffi9227]

You know there's still a possible explanation: Adam discovered herding and agriculture, but in a few generations the technology went rapidly lost as humans became brutes because of sin and it took them many thousands years to rediscover it. That may also be true of City building, especially if cities were not made of bricks but perishable materials that leave no archaeological records. To be fair, I don't believe it myself, but I tend to look at all pros and cons for every theory I listen to.

[@TheRonBerg]

@@alessandroarsuffi9227 I commend you for your willingness to look at pro's and con's, but to me that sounds way too contrived.

[@alessandroarsuffi9227]

@@TheRonBerg it's possible. As a matter of fact, we can't know for sure. Anything before the invention of writing is confusing as it cannot be documented. As far as archaeologists and geneticists may do their best to interprete the data, I guess that stones and DNA as documents are not as clear as a piece of writing. In the end, we only have to trust the Bible as it is and admit that we are all descended from Adam and Eve, whoever they were and whenever they lived.

[@1ChasingRays]

I'm sure there is dissent. None of this aligns with pagan cult bells found in coal.

[@lizadowning4389]

What do you get when a creationist philosopher like Low Bar Bill--who has no clue on population genetics--starts 'interpreting' a study in population genetics? ... "Oh, look, it confirms my hypothetical model of Adam and Eve" :)

[@bengreen171]

Craig is completely misrepresenting the study, and the field of human descent in general to make out that 'science' has confirmed his 'model' - as if to imply that he's some sort of groundbreaking thinker whose ideas are only now being confirmed by researchers. The claims he makes are simply not born out by the data.

[@CorbinTheChristian]

You said a whole lot without really saying anything at all

[@bengreen171]

@@CorbinTheChristian ok. How about the specific detail that the study doesn't come anywhere near to implying that it is possible that the human population got down to as few as two breeding individuals. The fact Craig claims that the 1280 figure is an average, and therefore opens the door to there being a time when the population could have fallen to two, is a complete misreading of the study. The figure of 1280 is not an average, it's a 'lowest approximation'. If the researchers had found it was possible, let alone plausible that the population could have been as low as 2 - then the study would have led with that as the headline. So what are the options here? Why did Craig get this so wrong?

[@bengreen171]

@@CorbinTheChristian you seem to have no response. I take it you were honest enough to admit to yourself that my points are valid. cheers.

[@CorbinTheChristian]

@@bengreen171 not even remotely

[@bengreen171]

@@CorbinTheChristian right - so you can defend your objection can you? Or are you just responding to me to show that you're offended that Craig is being shown up for the fraud he is?

[@AndyReichert0]

doesn't "climate driven bottleneck" sound a lot more like the flood?

[@seeqr9]

Definitely doesn’t seem like it couldn’t.

[@0megalpha]

😂

[@Deck1014]

I was asking myself that question. Could a global flood mimic some kind of “climate driven bottle neck”? I don’t know if these researchers had an answer to that question in this particular research or if they even could answer that question.

[@somerandom3247]

No. Sounds more like an ice age to me.

[@extract8058]

@@somerandom3247 would the flood be the precursor or the aftermath of the ice age?

[@imikewillrockyou]

Even if that were true, and it isn't, there is no possible way they could know that. The origin of human beings remains a mystery. The remains of extremely ancient humans are "scarce" because we simply were not here. If I were to take the Eden model as a metaphor, and I do, the place called Eden is not here on earth. Earth is the place metaphorically called "East of Eden", the land of good and evil, a completely different realm. However long ago that was, that's how we got here.

[@CorbinTheChristian]

Not even close

[@imikewillrockyou]

@@user-rd8vm3lh2p No it doesn't, the reason I know it's not true has no dependence on genetics, the entire theory is a scam, they just make things up out of nothing. Scientists have no idea how we got here, that bacteria slowly turns into people over time is laughable kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqOVmaWIn9l8atEsi=9OVpXiwSlCtWqK1K

[@gregjones2217]

Craig is so debunked as to be a laughingstock in the science community.

[@Counterpoint_Apologetics]

This is about as laughable as it gets. Hypothesis not based on scripture. Also there is a lot more information than that and the bottle neck was not that long ago. SMH

[@markvincent9757]

You're right by not direct reference. However, there is an inference. But it does confirm the real biblical Adam and Eve.

[@bengreen171]

he's lying. This information is neither new nor a confirmation of his model.

[@Mentat1231]

The study is indeed new and it fits very well with Craig's model. Why do you say someone is lying??

[@ricksonora6656]

That’s a very emotional claim. What do you find so threatening?

[@BC-te9ow]

Ok. Do explain how and links please.

[@markvincent9757]

Prove it

[@bengreen171]

@@Mentat1231 how does this new study fit with Craig's model of human beings descending from just 2 individuals? He's lying because we've known about bottlenecks in human evolution for years. I just googled it and the second thing I found was a study from 2009. Craig is pretending that his model has come before any knowledge of the bottleneck was available in order to give the appearance of a scientific theory - one with predictive power. But this is clearly not the case, and as I said, his model is not confirmed by this new study, since the study puts the bottleneck before the divergence of various species - sapiens, denisovans and neanderthalensis. Craig does not think that humans can be different species, and yet, if he wants to place Adam and Eve at 800,000 years ago, he would have to admit that their ancestors evolved into three different species at least. Craig is attempting to legitimise his fantasy by trying to associate it with actual science. He's a liar.

[@navigator687]

Now that Dr. Craig has illumined the true meaning of scripture after 2000 years, I believe he deserves to have his own denomination of Christianity as well! The secular scientists can be the archbishops, and the other academics can be the regular old priests. Thank God for finally giving us these godless scientists, anthropologists, and historians who can now exposit scripture for us, something those pesky church fathers, mired in hellenistic philosophy, could never do! Thanks Kevin and Dr. Craig, and thanks secular academia for giving me my new awesome religion (even though you generally hate God and Christ, haha)!

[@seeqr9]

You’re ridiculous. The Bible isn’t a science book any more than it’s a cook book. You think God is going to pat you on the head for being overzealous with your traditions? You really think the early church fathers or the biblical authors would fully agree with each other let alone you when it comes to scientific facts? This is just silly and to call those who disagree with you “God haters” is sickening and hateful.

[@Mentat1231]

This is a remarkably uncharitable comment. Is this how you recommend Christians should address each other?

[@JesusChristWayTruthLife777]

Do you subscribe to the traditional geocentric model of the solar system? No? Hmm. You need some epistemic humility.

[@ricksonora6656]

You imply that Craig follows the scientists. The fact is, these scientists followed Craig. As for the church fathers, many of them were disturbed by difficulties in Genesis and accepted the metaphorical interpretation that many Jews believed. As for the newness of Craig’s interpretation (it’s actually ancient, just more detailed): Because they are new, would you throw out the Solas, believers’ baptism, dispensationalism, the rapture, the KJV & all modern translations, and layman access to the scripture, just because they aren’t 2000 years old? Or, if you’re Catholic, throw out all the councils and “traditions” invented in the last 1000 years? The age of an interpretation is a nonsensical argument.

[@navigator687]

@@ricksonora6656 if you watch Craig’s material, you know he follows the scientists. No, your interpretation is not ancient. And yes, actually I would throw all of those things out, because they are not what any of the early church believed. The protestant religion is an invention which is why it continues to evolve to this day. 2000 years after Christ and you still don’t know what to believe. The age of an interpretation is a nonsensical argument only to someone with an unstable mind. Any sane person can comprehend that God gives his people a scripture for them to understand and follow. He doesn’t give it for everyone to misunderstand for 2 millennia until godless, atheists scientists show up to explain it to them. The fact that this is shocking to you shows how disconnected you are from the religion of the bible.