What do you think?
Rate this book
The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry
Evolutionary science teaches that humans arose as a population, sharing common ancestors with other animals. Most readers of the book of Genesis in the past understood all humans descended from Adam and Eve, a couple specially created by God. These two teachings seem contradictory, but is that necessarily so? In the fractured conversation of human origins, can new insight guide us to solid ground in both science and theology? In The Genealogical Adam and Eve, S. Joshua Swamidass tests a scientific hypothesis: What if the traditional account is somehow true, with the origins of Adam and Eve taking place alongside evolution? Building on well-established but overlooked science, Swamidass explains how it's possible for Adam and Eve to be rightly identified as the ancestors of everyone. His analysis opens up new possibilities for understanding Adam and Eve, consistent both with current scientific consensus and with traditional readings of Scripture. These new possibilities open a conversation about what it means to be human. In this book, Swamidass
untangles several misunderstandings about the words human and ancestry, in both science and theology explains how genetic and genealogical ancestry are different, and how universal genealogical ancestry creates a new opportunity for rapprochement explores implications of genealogical ancestry for the theology of the image of God, the fall, and people outside the garden Some think Adam and Eve are a myth. Some think evolution is a myth. Either way, the best available science opens up space to engage larger questions together. In this bold exploration, Swamidass charts a new way forward for peace between mainstream science and the Christian faith.
untangles several misunderstandings about the words human and ancestry, in both science and theology explains how genetic and genealogical ancestry are different, and how universal genealogical ancestry creates a new opportunity for rapprochement explores implications of genealogical ancestry for the theology of the image of God, the fall, and people outside the garden Some think Adam and Eve are a myth. Some think evolution is a myth. Either way, the best available science opens up space to engage larger questions together. In this bold exploration, Swamidass charts a new way forward for peace between mainstream science and the Christian faith.
264 pages, Paperback
Published June 1, 2021
181 people are currently reading
2524 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews
December 9, 2019
Summary: A physician/scientist who studies genomics argues on the basis of genealogical science that the existence of a historic Adam and Eve, specially created by God, who are universal ancestors of us all, is not contradicted by evolutionary science.
I have always been troubled by wooden attempts to find a concord between the biblical accounts of origins and what the sciences of cosmology, geology, and evolutionary biology tell us about planetary and human origins. At the same time, I have been troubled at times by biblical scholars whose acceptance of evolution leads them to deny a historical Adam (and Eve). Both Jesus and Paul speak of the first couple as historical beings, with Romans 5:12-21 being a key text (in addition to Genesis 2:2ff). I find I am not alone in my concerns. On The Gospel Coalition website, respected pastor, Tim Keller, wrote of his own acceptance of evolution, and yet also his belief in a historical, specially created Adam and Eve and a historical fall. In response, Keller was sadly attacked by both those who take a theistic evolution stance and young earth creationists.
W. Joshua Swamidass, a physician and professor of laboratory and genomic medicine at Washington University, witnessed this discourse, and as part of an effort to foster what he calls "peaceful science" has advanced a hypothesis, which he elaborates in this book, that provides what he calls a "narrative" that would undergird Keller's assertions.
There are several things Swamidass assumes. He assumes a standard evolutionary account of the rise of life and evolution of homo sapiens. He assumes that genetically, we arise from a population, not a single couple. Yet he also assumes the possibility of the special creation of Adam and Eve, in the special setting of the garden, even as recent as 6,000 to 10,000 years ago although a greater time is also possible. Critically, they existed alongside a human population outside the garden and were genetically and reproductively compatible with that population (one of the first questions that arises when one reads Genesis is "who did Cain marry?").
From this he argues that by 1 AD it is possible genealogically (not genetically) that all human beings can trace their ancestry back to Adam and Eve, and that we can all be claimed to be universal descendents of Adam and Eve. A friend of mine researching genealogy mused in a recent Christmas letter how many ancestors we might have if we went back a thousand years. He was assuming 20 generations or 50 years to a generation. He figured it would have equaled the world population at that time. So that got me curious. Using the same assumption and a geometric progression, it appears that it would take approximately 33 generations to equal the current world population or roughly 1650 years. From a mathematical perspective, it appears to me, as well as to a number of scientists who reviewed Swamidass's work, including Nathan H. Lents, an admitted atheist, that if one accepts the premises of Swamidass argument, there is nothing in evolutionary theory to controvert the possibility of what he proposes.
One of the keys to this argument is the existence of a human population outside the garden. When most evolutionary scientists argued against universal descent from Adam and Eve, what they argued, on the basis of genetic evidence, that there is no support for common genetic descent from Adam and Eve. That is not what Swamidass argues. He simply argues for the possibility of Adam and Eve as common genealogical ancestors of us all. While he accepts the possibility that his hypothesis may not be true, he also contends that it shows there is no compelling scientific reason that one must deny a historic Adam and Eve as an impossibility, either for scientists or biblical scholars.
The second half of the book explored scientific and theological implications for this idea. He explores intriguing questions about what it means to be human both in science and theology. He discusses the problematic nature of theories of polygenesis in both science and theology, and how this has often been used in racist ways. He explores intriguing implications of why Adam and Eve were specially created in the garden when there were other human beings outside (a question this hypothesis especially raises). He also explores theories of the fall and human sinfulness, which raises the question of whether common genealogical descent from Adam is necessary for pervasive human sinfulness.
There are some unusual elements in the theological section. One was his idiosyncratic use of the "periscope of scripture" language, by which he means different tunnel vision views of reality. This is confusing because of the common use of "pericope" in biblical scholarship, a narrative or thought unit. He also takes a view of Genesis 1 and 2 as consecutive accounts (first the earth and its creatures including humans, then Adam and Eve), rather than the second being an expansion of the first. He also raises an interesting question about what the status of humans outside the garden was. Are they also in the image of God? And he accepts John Walton's understanding of the garden temple, also a disputed element. Plainly, there is more theological discussion to be had and this seems to be something Swamidass welcomes and even has facilitated (cf. online responses from theologians).
Both in the introductory chapter and in the concluding materials, we may discern some of what motivates this proposal. Swamidass sees a sad fracturing or splintering that has occurred between Christian and scientific understandings of beginnings that assumes no possible concord. Furthermore, there is significant splintering among young earthers, old earthers, and theistic evolution camps. Most would not be fully sympathetic with what Swamidass proposes, but he writes respectfully of all. He advocates for courage, curiosity, empathy, tolerance, humility, and patience among scientists and theologians.
I believe this book is a good faith effort that exemplifies these qualities. It involves professional courage to write, he exemplifies curiosity in the questions he both explores and opens up, empathy for points of tension, tolerance of different views, humility in his interactions with scientists like Jerry Coyne, an outspoken atheist. I pray for the grace of patience he will need to carry forth this conversation over time in an often contentious climate.
________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary advance galley of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
I have always been troubled by wooden attempts to find a concord between the biblical accounts of origins and what the sciences of cosmology, geology, and evolutionary biology tell us about planetary and human origins. At the same time, I have been troubled at times by biblical scholars whose acceptance of evolution leads them to deny a historical Adam (and Eve). Both Jesus and Paul speak of the first couple as historical beings, with Romans 5:12-21 being a key text (in addition to Genesis 2:2ff). I find I am not alone in my concerns. On The Gospel Coalition website, respected pastor, Tim Keller, wrote of his own acceptance of evolution, and yet also his belief in a historical, specially created Adam and Eve and a historical fall. In response, Keller was sadly attacked by both those who take a theistic evolution stance and young earth creationists.
W. Joshua Swamidass, a physician and professor of laboratory and genomic medicine at Washington University, witnessed this discourse, and as part of an effort to foster what he calls "peaceful science" has advanced a hypothesis, which he elaborates in this book, that provides what he calls a "narrative" that would undergird Keller's assertions.
There are several things Swamidass assumes. He assumes a standard evolutionary account of the rise of life and evolution of homo sapiens. He assumes that genetically, we arise from a population, not a single couple. Yet he also assumes the possibility of the special creation of Adam and Eve, in the special setting of the garden, even as recent as 6,000 to 10,000 years ago although a greater time is also possible. Critically, they existed alongside a human population outside the garden and were genetically and reproductively compatible with that population (one of the first questions that arises when one reads Genesis is "who did Cain marry?").
From this he argues that by 1 AD it is possible genealogically (not genetically) that all human beings can trace their ancestry back to Adam and Eve, and that we can all be claimed to be universal descendents of Adam and Eve. A friend of mine researching genealogy mused in a recent Christmas letter how many ancestors we might have if we went back a thousand years. He was assuming 20 generations or 50 years to a generation. He figured it would have equaled the world population at that time. So that got me curious. Using the same assumption and a geometric progression, it appears that it would take approximately 33 generations to equal the current world population or roughly 1650 years. From a mathematical perspective, it appears to me, as well as to a number of scientists who reviewed Swamidass's work, including Nathan H. Lents, an admitted atheist, that if one accepts the premises of Swamidass argument, there is nothing in evolutionary theory to controvert the possibility of what he proposes.
One of the keys to this argument is the existence of a human population outside the garden. When most evolutionary scientists argued against universal descent from Adam and Eve, what they argued, on the basis of genetic evidence, that there is no support for common genetic descent from Adam and Eve. That is not what Swamidass argues. He simply argues for the possibility of Adam and Eve as common genealogical ancestors of us all. While he accepts the possibility that his hypothesis may not be true, he also contends that it shows there is no compelling scientific reason that one must deny a historic Adam and Eve as an impossibility, either for scientists or biblical scholars.
The second half of the book explored scientific and theological implications for this idea. He explores intriguing questions about what it means to be human both in science and theology. He discusses the problematic nature of theories of polygenesis in both science and theology, and how this has often been used in racist ways. He explores intriguing implications of why Adam and Eve were specially created in the garden when there were other human beings outside (a question this hypothesis especially raises). He also explores theories of the fall and human sinfulness, which raises the question of whether common genealogical descent from Adam is necessary for pervasive human sinfulness.
There are some unusual elements in the theological section. One was his idiosyncratic use of the "periscope of scripture" language, by which he means different tunnel vision views of reality. This is confusing because of the common use of "pericope" in biblical scholarship, a narrative or thought unit. He also takes a view of Genesis 1 and 2 as consecutive accounts (first the earth and its creatures including humans, then Adam and Eve), rather than the second being an expansion of the first. He also raises an interesting question about what the status of humans outside the garden was. Are they also in the image of God? And he accepts John Walton's understanding of the garden temple, also a disputed element. Plainly, there is more theological discussion to be had and this seems to be something Swamidass welcomes and even has facilitated (cf. online responses from theologians).
Both in the introductory chapter and in the concluding materials, we may discern some of what motivates this proposal. Swamidass sees a sad fracturing or splintering that has occurred between Christian and scientific understandings of beginnings that assumes no possible concord. Furthermore, there is significant splintering among young earthers, old earthers, and theistic evolution camps. Most would not be fully sympathetic with what Swamidass proposes, but he writes respectfully of all. He advocates for courage, curiosity, empathy, tolerance, humility, and patience among scientists and theologians.
I believe this book is a good faith effort that exemplifies these qualities. It involves professional courage to write, he exemplifies curiosity in the questions he both explores and opens up, empathy for points of tension, tolerance of different views, humility in his interactions with scientists like Jerry Coyne, an outspoken atheist. I pray for the grace of patience he will need to carry forth this conversation over time in an often contentious climate.
________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary advance galley of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
December 25, 2022
The basis for this book as stated by the author is an attempt to recover and perhaps expand upon the understanding of early humanity. A thesis is put forward after presenting scientific evidence that Adam & Eve could have been genealogical ancestors to all of today's humanity. Reading will most likely require the suspension of personal beliefs to understand the scope and breadth of what is being presented. The author is not asking for a 100% buy in, but a true investigation of what is presented against scientific and historic facts along with theology and ancient church tradition. It is a fascinating read which I believe deserves deeper study. This work is in alignment with much of the resent published research in line with historical theology such as Dr. Heiser, but not necessarily in agreement. Hopefully an individual's read of this book will encourage deeper biblical study and greater understanding of the scriptures.
April 12, 2021
Thought provoking! Much like John Walton’s books, I find that I am intrigued but want to continue to ponder this. Having grown up as a literal 7 day creationist, I still have some reservations about scientific data and “proof” of evolution, but I’m open to learning. If you are wrestling through issues of origin, I recommend adding this book to your conversation.
November 9, 2021
Another one for the “I shouldn’t have listened to this on audible” category. Dr. Swamidass loves his graphs, charts, etc. and if I must be honest, when the narrator references “Graph 2.3a in the online appendix” I just never had to heart to go pull it up…
So I’m sure I missed a healthy portion of this book. If this review peaks your interest, definitely pick up a physical copy.
BUT ONWARD.
Regardless of how many graphs I *didn’t* look at, and a healthy portion of this book went sailing right over my head; I was happy with the amount I was able to understand.
I grew up deeply formed by literal interpretations of scriptures and specific young earth readings of Genesis 1-11 (earth not being older than 6 - 7 thousand years). I have a specific memory from my high school apologetics class (in which the textbook was “The New Answers Book” by Ken Ham) in which I was taught that sin nature was a physical, genetic property that is based down through the blood of the father, because your blood doesn’t come from your mother, it comes from your father. So even through Eve sinned first, if Adam hadn’t sinned then humanity wouldn’t have fallen.
Now you might be confused by the above statement. You may think “wait what, that doesn’t even make sense.”
You would be correct.
I say all that to explain where my formation came from as I entered into this book.
Dr. Swamidass doesn’t not (ahem) take many of the positions my high school apologetics teacher would have. And while I will not delve into the science in this already much too long review, my biggest takeaway from the book was the realization that a literal reading of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is not married to biblical inerrancy.
By that I mean that to read the first 11 chapters of Genesis and come to the conclusion that they may not be a literal historical-documentary-style-replication of the origins of the universe does not mean that I am giving up on the authority of Scripture (or to paragraph Ken Ham, if you don’t believe the world was created in six literal 24-hour days 6 - 7,000 years ago then you’re calling Jesus a lier!).
To me this creates space to bring my questions to the text, and to come away from the text without those questions answered, but my faith being intact. Because, I think one of the biggest weakness with my formation, especially around Biblical Inerrancy is its fragility. It presents the Bible has a house of cards that, if you remove the foundation card, or if you even BREATHE on the foundational card, the whole house comes tumbling down and suddenly you’re deconstructing your way out of the faith.
Dr. Swamidass’ book helped to me understand that I’m not a bad Christian for wondering if evolutionary biology and the Christian origin story more compatible than I thought.
He helped me to understand that it’s okay to not have all the answers, and that I believe in a big mysterious God to works in ways I will never comprehend. And maybe that means the the universe is about 6,000 years old or maybe that means that Genesis 1 - 3 is a story about how Human and Life messed up the world.
If you’re still here, thanks for reading this accidental blog post, and if you happen to read the physical copy of this book send me some pics of those graphs, I bet they’re stunning.
So I’m sure I missed a healthy portion of this book. If this review peaks your interest, definitely pick up a physical copy.
BUT ONWARD.
Regardless of how many graphs I *didn’t* look at, and a healthy portion of this book went sailing right over my head; I was happy with the amount I was able to understand.
I grew up deeply formed by literal interpretations of scriptures and specific young earth readings of Genesis 1-11 (earth not being older than 6 - 7 thousand years). I have a specific memory from my high school apologetics class (in which the textbook was “The New Answers Book” by Ken Ham) in which I was taught that sin nature was a physical, genetic property that is based down through the blood of the father, because your blood doesn’t come from your mother, it comes from your father. So even through Eve sinned first, if Adam hadn’t sinned then humanity wouldn’t have fallen.
Now you might be confused by the above statement. You may think “wait what, that doesn’t even make sense.”
You would be correct.
I say all that to explain where my formation came from as I entered into this book.
Dr. Swamidass doesn’t not (ahem) take many of the positions my high school apologetics teacher would have. And while I will not delve into the science in this already much too long review, my biggest takeaway from the book was the realization that a literal reading of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is not married to biblical inerrancy.
By that I mean that to read the first 11 chapters of Genesis and come to the conclusion that they may not be a literal historical-documentary-style-replication of the origins of the universe does not mean that I am giving up on the authority of Scripture (or to paragraph Ken Ham, if you don’t believe the world was created in six literal 24-hour days 6 - 7,000 years ago then you’re calling Jesus a lier!).
To me this creates space to bring my questions to the text, and to come away from the text without those questions answered, but my faith being intact. Because, I think one of the biggest weakness with my formation, especially around Biblical Inerrancy is its fragility. It presents the Bible has a house of cards that, if you remove the foundation card, or if you even BREATHE on the foundational card, the whole house comes tumbling down and suddenly you’re deconstructing your way out of the faith.
Dr. Swamidass’ book helped to me understand that I’m not a bad Christian for wondering if evolutionary biology and the Christian origin story more compatible than I thought.
He helped me to understand that it’s okay to not have all the answers, and that I believe in a big mysterious God to works in ways I will never comprehend. And maybe that means the the universe is about 6,000 years old or maybe that means that Genesis 1 - 3 is a story about how Human and Life messed up the world.
If you’re still here, thanks for reading this accidental blog post, and if you happen to read the physical copy of this book send me some pics of those graphs, I bet they’re stunning.
February 9, 2020
Swamidass is one of those once in a lifetime voices who manages to completely reshape the conversation. He shows that, when it comes to understanding Adam and Eve in light of evolutionary science, both scientists and theologians have been going about it all wrong. Instead of emphasizing genetics, Swamidass argues that the focus should be on genealogy.
With this new focus in genealogy, Swamidass demonstrates that Adam and Eve could have been created, de novo, as recently as 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, and still be genealogical ancestors of all people on earth by the year AD 1. The only caveat is that at the time of Adam and Eve's creation there would have needed to exist people outside of the Garden with whom their descendants interbred.
The significance of this proposal is that it disproves the notion that an historical Adam and Eve are in conflict with evolutionary science. Instead, Swamidass has provided a model that preserves both the conclusions of evolutionary science and a recent special creation of Adam and Eve.
Swamidass spends much of the book arguing that this genealogical focus is more natural to the text than discussions of genetics and DNA. He also spends much of the book discussing the theological implications of his model. These discussions are highly speculative, something that Swamidass admits, but they are only presented as starting points for further research. While Swamidass is modest in his theological suggestions, I, for one, sincerely hope that theologians take note of and seriously engage with them.
It has been a long time since I have been so excited to read a book as I was for this one, and it did not disappoint. I'll be thinking about it for a long time. With that said, I highly recommend this book. In fact, if you're at all interested in the topic of Adam and Eve (especially in the context of science), I'd say this book is an essential text.
With this new focus in genealogy, Swamidass demonstrates that Adam and Eve could have been created, de novo, as recently as 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, and still be genealogical ancestors of all people on earth by the year AD 1. The only caveat is that at the time of Adam and Eve's creation there would have needed to exist people outside of the Garden with whom their descendants interbred.
The significance of this proposal is that it disproves the notion that an historical Adam and Eve are in conflict with evolutionary science. Instead, Swamidass has provided a model that preserves both the conclusions of evolutionary science and a recent special creation of Adam and Eve.
Swamidass spends much of the book arguing that this genealogical focus is more natural to the text than discussions of genetics and DNA. He also spends much of the book discussing the theological implications of his model. These discussions are highly speculative, something that Swamidass admits, but they are only presented as starting points for further research. While Swamidass is modest in his theological suggestions, I, for one, sincerely hope that theologians take note of and seriously engage with them.
It has been a long time since I have been so excited to read a book as I was for this one, and it did not disappoint. I'll be thinking about it for a long time. With that said, I highly recommend this book. In fact, if you're at all interested in the topic of Adam and Eve (especially in the context of science), I'd say this book is an essential text.
February 7, 2021
This is a very brave book in many ways. Joshua Swamidass is a genetic scientist and an Evangelical Christian, and his book is a serious, thoughtful attempt to argue that what he calls the “traditional” story of Adam and Eve with what we know of human genetic history are compatible.
The first part deals with difference between “genetic ancestry” and “genealogical ancestry.” According to Swamidass, genetic ancestry has to do with DNA, while genealogical ancestry has to do with relationships that are not traceable through DNA, but which still are possible biologically speaking. The core of his argument is that we actually have many universal ancestors in the past at any given point in time, and that it is possible that around 6000 years or so, a couple was born who literally would be the ancestors of everyone living by 1 AD. This he says is compatible with what we know of genetics and is not really falsifiable through scientific evidence. (Our first identifiable genetic ancestors arose around 100,000 years ago, and they were not a couple.) From this, Swamidass extrapolates that somewhere in the Middle East, 6,000 years ago (or perhaps longer) God could have created a couple in a miraculous fashion (“de novo” as he puts it), who then became the ancestors of humanity at a certain point, whose offspring interbred with the population “outside the Garden” as it were.
The other parts of the book concern the theological repercussions of this thesis, as well as its implications for what it means to be human. Swamidass notes that “human” is not merely a biological category but requires metaphysical or theological assumptions to make sense. He is concerned to rescue what he calls the “traditional account” of Adam and Eve for theology. By this he means how most people have interpreted the Genesis story for most of history till recent centuries. He notes that his narrative is not a finished product but a starting point for discussion; for example, he notes the two creation accounts in Genesis are compatible with both a long term evolutionary development of biological homo sapiens (Genesis 1) AND with the idea of a de novo creation around 6-10 thousand years ago (Genesis 2).
I am no expert on the science of human genetics (I am a historian by training), and I had a very difficult time understanding his distinction between “genetic ancestry” and “genealogical ancestry.” For much of the book it seemed to me he was using the terms almost interchangeably—asserting in one breath that humans were linked somehow biologically but that genealogy (as opposed to genetics) somehow overcame the problem of how everyone living now could be descended from a single couple, when the genetic ancestry says otherwise. But his point, as I take it, is not that it is possible to prove we could have had a common ancestor born 6000 years ago, but that there is nothing in the scientific record that can disprove it. This is a weaker argument, but I think he is on firmer ground here. It won’t satisfy someone looking for hard evidence of a “first couple” but it establishes the important point that the “traditional” view of Genesis IS compatible with the scientific evidence as we have it. His book fails or succeeds on this point, I think.
I was most impressed both the humility and seriousness of the author, despite the excessively repetitive nature of his argument (his editor should have cut much, much more than he or she did). It was refreshing to read a book by someone who was NOT claiming to have solved every problem, philosophical, scientific or otherwise. His book is aimed, I think, more at conservative Evangelicals than anyone else, which appears to have been Swamidass’ background, but I think it would benefit those skeptical of his claims, as it demonstrates a desire to engage with science on its own terms. This is a courageous and in many respects rewarding attempt to tackle a difficult subject for traditional Christian believers. It would also benefit traditional Catholics who struggle with the implications of evolutionary theory, though it is a bit dense, especially the chapters on genetic ancestry. Swamidass is somewhat conversant with Catholic thinking on the subject, and very broad minded and fair in his treatment of theological issues. I heartily recommend it for anyone—skeptic or believer—interested in thinking about the relationship of religious faith with science on this topic.
The first part deals with difference between “genetic ancestry” and “genealogical ancestry.” According to Swamidass, genetic ancestry has to do with DNA, while genealogical ancestry has to do with relationships that are not traceable through DNA, but which still are possible biologically speaking. The core of his argument is that we actually have many universal ancestors in the past at any given point in time, and that it is possible that around 6000 years or so, a couple was born who literally would be the ancestors of everyone living by 1 AD. This he says is compatible with what we know of genetics and is not really falsifiable through scientific evidence. (Our first identifiable genetic ancestors arose around 100,000 years ago, and they were not a couple.) From this, Swamidass extrapolates that somewhere in the Middle East, 6,000 years ago (or perhaps longer) God could have created a couple in a miraculous fashion (“de novo” as he puts it), who then became the ancestors of humanity at a certain point, whose offspring interbred with the population “outside the Garden” as it were.
The other parts of the book concern the theological repercussions of this thesis, as well as its implications for what it means to be human. Swamidass notes that “human” is not merely a biological category but requires metaphysical or theological assumptions to make sense. He is concerned to rescue what he calls the “traditional account” of Adam and Eve for theology. By this he means how most people have interpreted the Genesis story for most of history till recent centuries. He notes that his narrative is not a finished product but a starting point for discussion; for example, he notes the two creation accounts in Genesis are compatible with both a long term evolutionary development of biological homo sapiens (Genesis 1) AND with the idea of a de novo creation around 6-10 thousand years ago (Genesis 2).
I am no expert on the science of human genetics (I am a historian by training), and I had a very difficult time understanding his distinction between “genetic ancestry” and “genealogical ancestry.” For much of the book it seemed to me he was using the terms almost interchangeably—asserting in one breath that humans were linked somehow biologically but that genealogy (as opposed to genetics) somehow overcame the problem of how everyone living now could be descended from a single couple, when the genetic ancestry says otherwise. But his point, as I take it, is not that it is possible to prove we could have had a common ancestor born 6000 years ago, but that there is nothing in the scientific record that can disprove it. This is a weaker argument, but I think he is on firmer ground here. It won’t satisfy someone looking for hard evidence of a “first couple” but it establishes the important point that the “traditional” view of Genesis IS compatible with the scientific evidence as we have it. His book fails or succeeds on this point, I think.
I was most impressed both the humility and seriousness of the author, despite the excessively repetitive nature of his argument (his editor should have cut much, much more than he or she did). It was refreshing to read a book by someone who was NOT claiming to have solved every problem, philosophical, scientific or otherwise. His book is aimed, I think, more at conservative Evangelicals than anyone else, which appears to have been Swamidass’ background, but I think it would benefit those skeptical of his claims, as it demonstrates a desire to engage with science on its own terms. This is a courageous and in many respects rewarding attempt to tackle a difficult subject for traditional Christian believers. It would also benefit traditional Catholics who struggle with the implications of evolutionary theory, though it is a bit dense, especially the chapters on genetic ancestry. Swamidass is somewhat conversant with Catholic thinking on the subject, and very broad minded and fair in his treatment of theological issues. I heartily recommend it for anyone—skeptic or believer—interested in thinking about the relationship of religious faith with science on this topic.
February 2, 2022
An eye opening and thoughtful treatment of the science vs religion debate about origins and ancient history. I’m not a fan of evolution, but not because of my faith, or anything the Bible has to say, but because I don’t really think it’s good science: too many assumptions. But, I do believe the universe is much much older than the literalists would have us think. I also think there’s a lot more going on in Genesis than meets the eye. (The way I always put it is if you could go back in time and explain the galaxy to Moses, he’d probably respond with: “Huh, COOL, let me tell you about God!”). Either way, I really enjoyed this book!
May 27, 2021
This is a book that I am happy to have read, and I also applaud the author for what he is trying to do, and the way he is going about it. The topic is Adam and Eve, thus the origin of mankind, from both a Christian and a scientific perspective. This of course means that there is controversy given the range of opinions that are dogmatically held to. The author starts from the perspective that one can trust both modern science as well as the Bible. While many think this is impossible, he presents a model that he believes (he may be right) can reconcile the two. He also writes in a non-dogmatic way, which is very refreshing (I am tired of authors knowing they are 100% right in this area). On this basis the book deserves five stars – well done Dr. Swamidass.
Unfortunately, there is more to say. The book itself is not well written. There is far too much repetition, and too much of the book is unexplained. Early on a figure/table is presented which is intended to describe different views on Adam and Eve, where a letter is provided for each view. Eventually a small portion of these letters is explained. But even though the figure/table is repeated, it is never fully explained (if this was a thesis, I would ask those sections to be re-written). Then, while the author graciously tried to be open to a range of scientific and theological views, he is suddenly dogmatic in areas that I cannot accept. For example, he believes that intelligence is only due to nurture and not genetics (Dr. Swamidass please read Freakonomics). He also believes that original humanoids (that is people outside of Eden) were kind and good without any conflict and suggests that all conflict only came through Adam. If this was the case, then why was Cain afraid? It also makes it hard to explain the viciousness of creatures like Chimpanzees, as one can see on nature documentaries. Now I am not claiming that things like this have supreme importance, but rather am surprised at his dogmatism in these areas where there is not general agreement. The final few sections on theology were also very dull, repetitive, and thus hard to read. As a result, it took me the same amount of time to read the first three quarters of the book (which were quite well written) as the last quarter (which was not). Thus my review is mixed.
Unfortunately, there is more to say. The book itself is not well written. There is far too much repetition, and too much of the book is unexplained. Early on a figure/table is presented which is intended to describe different views on Adam and Eve, where a letter is provided for each view. Eventually a small portion of these letters is explained. But even though the figure/table is repeated, it is never fully explained (if this was a thesis, I would ask those sections to be re-written). Then, while the author graciously tried to be open to a range of scientific and theological views, he is suddenly dogmatic in areas that I cannot accept. For example, he believes that intelligence is only due to nurture and not genetics (Dr. Swamidass please read Freakonomics). He also believes that original humanoids (that is people outside of Eden) were kind and good without any conflict and suggests that all conflict only came through Adam. If this was the case, then why was Cain afraid? It also makes it hard to explain the viciousness of creatures like Chimpanzees, as one can see on nature documentaries. Now I am not claiming that things like this have supreme importance, but rather am surprised at his dogmatism in these areas where there is not general agreement. The final few sections on theology were also very dull, repetitive, and thus hard to read. As a result, it took me the same amount of time to read the first three quarters of the book (which were quite well written) as the last quarter (which was not). Thus my review is mixed.
April 15, 2025
Популяризацията на модерния креационизъм от хора като Кент Ховинд и Кен Хам наистина показва отново как протестантизма обикновено има пагубен ефект върху християнството. Самия младозем креационизъм даже не е консистентен с Битие, въпреки че пропонентите му твърдят как го тълкуват "буквално". Господ, дори взет само в контекста на Библията, създава света преди да се напише Битие от Моисей, следователно би трябвало да е ясно, че ако личната интерпретация на един протестант противоречи (и то очевидно) на реалния създаден от Бога свят, то не е грешен светът (и Бог) а интерпретатора.
Джошуа Суамидас (или както се превежда фамилията му) доста подробно тъпче две теми 1) не е невъзможно всички да сме наследници на една двойка по генеалогичен ход (тъй като по генетичен има голям шанс твоя пра-дядо да не ти е дал нищо, но това не го прави по-малко твой прародител) и 2) креационистката гледна точка, че Адам и Ева са единствените хора създадени преди 6000 години със сигурност е невъзможна.
XX и XXI век са първите векове, в които дори се отваря спорът, че Християнството не е съвместимо с науката, и то от двете страни. И двете страни грешат, атеистите все още лаладжийстват за абиогенезата, а радикалните фундаменталисти обикновено не само отричат простата биология, а също география (земята им е плоска), медицина (ваксините им отровни) и логика (пръскат ги самолетите). От време на време е хубаво да си припомним, че повечето хора с крайно шумни мнения обикновено нямат креденциалите да подкрепят тезите си.
Хубав бонус е как Джошуа обръща внимание върху обективния факт, че Християнството не подкрепя робството още от Битие, и това е важно да се помни, Адам и Ева бидейки наши общи прародители задължително означава, че расизма не само е малоумен, а грешен. (сега, културализмът от друга страна си е валиден още от Каиново време)
Джошуа Суамидас (или както се превежда фамилията му) доста подробно тъпче две теми 1) не е невъзможно всички да сме наследници на една двойка по генеалогичен ход (тъй като по генетичен има голям шанс твоя пра-дядо да не ти е дал нищо, но това не го прави по-малко твой прародител) и 2) креационистката гледна точка, че Адам и Ева са единствените хора създадени преди 6000 години със сигурност е невъзможна.
XX и XXI век са първите векове, в които дори се отваря спорът, че Християнството не е съвместимо с науката, и то от двете страни. И двете страни грешат, атеистите все още лаладжийстват за абиогенезата, а радикалните фундаменталисти обикновено не само отричат простата биология, а също география (земята им е плоска), медицина (ваксините им отровни) и логика (пръскат ги самолетите). От време на време е хубаво да си припомним, че повечето хора с крайно шумни мнения обикновено нямат креденциалите да подкрепят тезите си.
Хубав бонус е как Джошуа обръща внимание върху обективния факт, че Християнството не подкрепя робството още от Битие, и това е важно да се помни, Адам и Ева бидейки наши общи прародители задължително означава, че расизма не само е малоумен, а грешен. (сега, културализмът от друга страна си е валиден още от Каиново време)
April 10, 2022
Very thought provoking read! Swamidass describes the crossroads between evolutionary origins and creationists origins of humanity, while bringing up many good theological questions along the way. What does it truly mean to be human? What is the implications of inheritance of sin from Adam and the actions of our ancestors? Is there any evidence against a de novo creation of Adam and Eve? While a lot of what he discusses is very scientific, it is still easy enough for the average person to understand the concepts.
April 20, 2023
This is one of most interesting, well-written books I've ever read. The author is so intelligent and kind. Highly recommend--no matter your world view.
November 13, 2019
In this book, "The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science Of Universal Ancestry", S. Joshua Swamidass proposes that God could have created Adam and Eve de novo (i.e God literally took a scoop of dust and transformed it into Adam, put Adam to sleep and took a chunk of his side to make Eve) and that everyone is a descendent of that originally de novo created couple. This part of the hypothesis that Swamidass proposes is in line with the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve's creation and our relationship to them. However, Dr. Swamidass also proposes that there were homo sapiens who lived outside the garden of Eden that Adam and Eve's descendants interbred with once they were kicked out for disobeying God. These homo sapiens who lived outside the garden of Eden numbered in the thousands and came into being through the widely accepted and scientifically established evolutionary process. These humans evolved from lower hominids and share ancestry with the great apes such as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. This would explain why our genome is so similar to the genome of chimpanzees, gorillas, and so on. We look like we share genetic ancestry with them because we do.
When they (the evolved humans outside of the Garden Of Eden) interbred with the descendants of Adam and Eve, their genetic material was shared and mixed. This hypothesis enables us to affirm the traditional de novo view of the historical Adam and Eve, that everyone alive today can trace their ancestries back to them but it's also fully compatible with the mainstream scientific consensus of macro-evolution (or universal common ancestry) and the evidence from population genetics that says the number of people in the human population could never have been as low as just two. That's his hypothesis in a nutshell. In his book, he defends its scientific validity using peer-reviewed scientific facts and even builds on the unfinished work of prior scientists.
Swamidass correctly points out that the biblical authors had no concept of genetics. DNA hadn't been discovered yet, and it is only appropriate to interpret scripture the way the original author and audience would have understood it. Rather, Dr. Swamidass says, the biblical authors thought in terms of genealogies. Swamidass explains that asserting that Adam and Eve are our universe GENEALOGICAL ancestors isn't the same as asserting that they're universal GENETIC ancestors of all people. Swamidass argues that population genetics has only disproved the latter, but not the former, and this is important because the former is what the biblical authors were claiming.
For those who, like me, are committed to a historical Adam and Eve, and who, unlike me, think The Bible requires Adam and Eve to be de novo creations, and who also find the evidence for macro-evolution compelling, and just don't know how to integrate what they know from God's Word and God's World, this book will be a Godsend.
I myself do not believe that a de novo creation of Adam is required, as I explained in my blog post "Why There's No Conflict Between Evolution and A Historical Adam" , I do not believe that Genesis 2 is really making a claim about Adam and Eve's material origins. My interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 is the same as what John Walton lays out in his book "The Lost World Of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and The Human Origins Debate". That said, I find it valuable to have a hypothesis like The Genealogical Adam and Eve which would allow one to accept macro-evolution but also interpret Genesis 2 as making that claim. And moreover, while I find most of Walton's work on Adam and Eve compelling, I found his treatment of Acts 17:11 and a couple of other texts implying Adam gave rise to all mankind (at least at the time of the first century) less than persuasive.
In any case, I find The Genealogical Adam and Eve (GAE) hypothesis scientifically valid and scripturally acceptable. He doesn't have to force-fit science into The Bible or distort The Bible to fit the science. Nor is he proposing any esoteric scientific ideas, like what we might dub "creation science". If I were ever convinced that Genesis 2 did speak of material origins and not just archetypal aspects of Adam and Eve, Swamidass provides me with a nice fallback position. In any case, I think that, as with the miraculous birth of The Last Adam (Jesus), the miraculous birth of the first Adam (Adam) cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. And as to whether the historical Adam really did have parents or not, I'm now agnostic on the issue. I don't think that scripture compels me to embrace a de novo view of Adam and Eve's creation, but after reading Joshua Swamidass' book, I don't think science requires me to reject it either.
It is my deepest prayer that GAE will open doors for skeptics to take the claims of The Bible seriously and that it will open doors to Christians to take the claims of science seriously.
"The Genealogical Adam and Eve" will be available to purchase on December 10th of this year.
When they (the evolved humans outside of the Garden Of Eden) interbred with the descendants of Adam and Eve, their genetic material was shared and mixed. This hypothesis enables us to affirm the traditional de novo view of the historical Adam and Eve, that everyone alive today can trace their ancestries back to them but it's also fully compatible with the mainstream scientific consensus of macro-evolution (or universal common ancestry) and the evidence from population genetics that says the number of people in the human population could never have been as low as just two. That's his hypothesis in a nutshell. In his book, he defends its scientific validity using peer-reviewed scientific facts and even builds on the unfinished work of prior scientists.
Swamidass correctly points out that the biblical authors had no concept of genetics. DNA hadn't been discovered yet, and it is only appropriate to interpret scripture the way the original author and audience would have understood it. Rather, Dr. Swamidass says, the biblical authors thought in terms of genealogies. Swamidass explains that asserting that Adam and Eve are our universe GENEALOGICAL ancestors isn't the same as asserting that they're universal GENETIC ancestors of all people. Swamidass argues that population genetics has only disproved the latter, but not the former, and this is important because the former is what the biblical authors were claiming.
For those who, like me, are committed to a historical Adam and Eve, and who, unlike me, think The Bible requires Adam and Eve to be de novo creations, and who also find the evidence for macro-evolution compelling, and just don't know how to integrate what they know from God's Word and God's World, this book will be a Godsend.
I myself do not believe that a de novo creation of Adam is required, as I explained in my blog post "Why There's No Conflict Between Evolution and A Historical Adam" , I do not believe that Genesis 2 is really making a claim about Adam and Eve's material origins. My interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 is the same as what John Walton lays out in his book "The Lost World Of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and The Human Origins Debate". That said, I find it valuable to have a hypothesis like The Genealogical Adam and Eve which would allow one to accept macro-evolution but also interpret Genesis 2 as making that claim. And moreover, while I find most of Walton's work on Adam and Eve compelling, I found his treatment of Acts 17:11 and a couple of other texts implying Adam gave rise to all mankind (at least at the time of the first century) less than persuasive.
In any case, I find The Genealogical Adam and Eve (GAE) hypothesis scientifically valid and scripturally acceptable. He doesn't have to force-fit science into The Bible or distort The Bible to fit the science. Nor is he proposing any esoteric scientific ideas, like what we might dub "creation science". If I were ever convinced that Genesis 2 did speak of material origins and not just archetypal aspects of Adam and Eve, Swamidass provides me with a nice fallback position. In any case, I think that, as with the miraculous birth of The Last Adam (Jesus), the miraculous birth of the first Adam (Adam) cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. And as to whether the historical Adam really did have parents or not, I'm now agnostic on the issue. I don't think that scripture compels me to embrace a de novo view of Adam and Eve's creation, but after reading Joshua Swamidass' book, I don't think science requires me to reject it either.
It is my deepest prayer that GAE will open doors for skeptics to take the claims of The Bible seriously and that it will open doors to Christians to take the claims of science seriously.
"The Genealogical Adam and Eve" will be available to purchase on December 10th of this year.
March 9, 2023
This was a fascinating book. Biologist and professor Joshua Swamidass’s aim is to reconcile the traditional reading of the Genesis account with modern genetic DNA evidence that finds humans do in fact share a common DNA ancestry with modern primates.
Swamidass’s hypothesis is complex, but it has massive strengths in that it aligns with both the biblical text and modern scientific evidence. His basic premise is that originally God guided the process of evolution to create all living things including humanity. After this, somewhere between 10,000 and 6,000 BC God created Adam and Eve de novo, apart from the rest of creation, and placed them in a special garden. These two creation events relate to Genesis one and Genesis two respectively. After these creation events, the two different groups of humans interbred, and today we are left with the genetic record of both groups - one descended from primates, and one created de novo by God. Swamidass is very open as to the possible differences or similarities these two groups of humans may have had - but he makes a hypothetical case for their being exactly the same species. (I happened to be reading Harari’s Sapiens at the same time I read this and found it extremely interesting that he spoke of a sudden human intelligence explosion around the year 10,000 BC that science cannot explain - a possible intersection of the theory in this book.)
Swamidass is right at home in the scientific portion of the book. Though the style is extremely academic, which makes the read a bit heady, he posits the probability of this Adam and Eve as the genealogical ancestors of all modern humanity scientifically.
Throughout the book Swamidass is incredibly open and charitable toward alternate views. He also recognizes the questions and problems that his hypothesis creates and offers some possibilities on why God would have created Adam and Eve as a separate new creation apart from an existing humanity (one compelling example was a federal headship model similar to Christ and the virgin birth). He also goes through several of the opening chapters of Genesis and notes how there are humans outside the garden mentioned, and exile to the outside is a consistent theme (Genesis 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6).
I’m not completely sold on this theory yet. But I did find it compelling, and it has given me a lot to think on regarding human origins.
4.5 stars - rounded to 5
Swamidass’s hypothesis is complex, but it has massive strengths in that it aligns with both the biblical text and modern scientific evidence. His basic premise is that originally God guided the process of evolution to create all living things including humanity. After this, somewhere between 10,000 and 6,000 BC God created Adam and Eve de novo, apart from the rest of creation, and placed them in a special garden. These two creation events relate to Genesis one and Genesis two respectively. After these creation events, the two different groups of humans interbred, and today we are left with the genetic record of both groups - one descended from primates, and one created de novo by God. Swamidass is very open as to the possible differences or similarities these two groups of humans may have had - but he makes a hypothetical case for their being exactly the same species. (I happened to be reading Harari’s Sapiens at the same time I read this and found it extremely interesting that he spoke of a sudden human intelligence explosion around the year 10,000 BC that science cannot explain - a possible intersection of the theory in this book.)
Swamidass is right at home in the scientific portion of the book. Though the style is extremely academic, which makes the read a bit heady, he posits the probability of this Adam and Eve as the genealogical ancestors of all modern humanity scientifically.
Throughout the book Swamidass is incredibly open and charitable toward alternate views. He also recognizes the questions and problems that his hypothesis creates and offers some possibilities on why God would have created Adam and Eve as a separate new creation apart from an existing humanity (one compelling example was a federal headship model similar to Christ and the virgin birth). He also goes through several of the opening chapters of Genesis and notes how there are humans outside the garden mentioned, and exile to the outside is a consistent theme (Genesis 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6).
I’m not completely sold on this theory yet. But I did find it compelling, and it has given me a lot to think on regarding human origins.
4.5 stars - rounded to 5
May 30, 2020
I was part of a book club at to read through Joshua Swamidass’ The Genealogical Adam and Eve. Swamidass puts forth a hypothesis to reconcile both current evolutionary theory with the traditional account of a real Adam and Eve, by suggesting that Adam and Eve were created in a garden by God not too long ago, while normal evolutionary processes had already been working to bring forth a population of Homo sapiens outside the garden. He is pretty convincing in showing how it could be theoretically possible for Adam and Eve to become the genealogical ancestors of everyone today (or by 0 AD, to stay within some theological ideas of what “all humans on earth” entails) and that evolutionary theory cannot disprove this idea (because of the limits of genetic study - you may have no genes inherited from one of your great great great etc grandparents, as an example). He also has some interesting ideas of how Adam and Jesus might have further parallels in being a “new chance” for humanity to be in relationship with God, with a chance at eternal life, but where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. The book presumes a belief in evolutionary theory, but makes room for many different traditions to come together and talk more, where before it may have seemed like science and faith were mutually exclusive.
I think the book may have been twice as long as it needed to be, and the purpose of some of the chapters was not always clear to me. It definitely helped to have some great people to talk through the ideas. I’d recommend it for the intriguing idea, especially if you struggle with evolution vs Genesis, but with the caveat that I don’t think it’s super readable and could be improved with tighter editing.
I think the book may have been twice as long as it needed to be, and the purpose of some of the chapters was not always clear to me. It definitely helped to have some great people to talk through the ideas. I’d recommend it for the intriguing idea, especially if you struggle with evolution vs Genesis, but with the caveat that I don’t think it’s super readable and could be improved with tighter editing.
March 3, 2022
Dr. Swamidass presents challenging concepts to show that scientists and Christians do not necessarily hold conflicting beliefs. He states that the evidence in Scripture does not preclude evolution and that scientific evidence can, in concept, support the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. In this age of idealogical polarization, voices of faith and reason are needed. Dr. Swamidass offers one such voice.
So why only 3 stars? Unfortunately, this book reads like a symposium lecture. The inelegant writing is not particularly engaging and often makes difficult concepts more opaque. Writing science and theology for the layman is an art which Dr. Swamidass has not yet mastered. Regardless, he has something important to say.
So why only 3 stars? Unfortunately, this book reads like a symposium lecture. The inelegant writing is not particularly engaging and often makes difficult concepts more opaque. Writing science and theology for the layman is an art which Dr. Swamidass has not yet mastered. Regardless, he has something important to say.
December 7, 2019
This book is one of the best efforts I have seen of taking science and faith seriously regarding origins. The writing is a little repetitive at times, and as a scientist I would have liked to have seen more "raw data", but Swamidass's central message hits home: if we think about Adam and Eve as geneological ancestors (as opposed to genetic ancestors), they could be quite recent, and this is consistent with current population genetics.
April 30, 2024
Young earth creationists claim that, genetically, all humanity goes back to an original couple 6 to 10,000 years ago (with no one outside of the garden), this assertion is completely contrary to the scientific evidence. Christians who are theistic evolutionists often claim that Genesis 2 is largely a myth, which is well beyond what many fundamentalists can stomach. Is there a way to bring both groups together? Swamidass presents a path forward, that can (and has historically) been inferred from the biblical text itself, and is harmonious with scientific evidence.
Swamidass first discusses the science behind genealogical ancestry. It is interesting to learn how even secular scientists can claim, that while humans existed and spread throughout the world for millions of years, they could still be connected with a couple around 6000 years ago as populations mix.
Both Genesis 2 literalists and theistic evolutionists can find some common ground, as long as they are open to the possibility of people outside the garden and Adam and Eve's descendants mixing with them.
Genesis 1 can be understood as the general creation of humanity (the people outside of the garden), while Genesis 2, can refer to a literal Adam and Eve, created with a special purpose and placed in a Garden between 6 and 10,000 years ago. As they and their descendants spread and mixed with the people around the world, they became the genealogical parents of all humanity.
Swamidass' proposal is compatible with scientific evidence--though ultimately cannot be proved one way or the other, and can allow the fundies to affirm many things that are so important to them.
I like how flexible his approach is, he mentions numerous evangelical dogmas (like that of original sin) that could still be proposed (though are not necessary) within the paradigm he gives. The sin of Adam would be different from the sin outside of the garden, and this sin could be said to have spread from Adam to all. The possibility of immortality came through Adam, but due to his sin, this tree of life was barred to all, resulting in death for all humanity.
Swamidass first discusses the science behind genealogical ancestry. It is interesting to learn how even secular scientists can claim, that while humans existed and spread throughout the world for millions of years, they could still be connected with a couple around 6000 years ago as populations mix.
Both Genesis 2 literalists and theistic evolutionists can find some common ground, as long as they are open to the possibility of people outside the garden and Adam and Eve's descendants mixing with them.
Genesis 1 can be understood as the general creation of humanity (the people outside of the garden), while Genesis 2, can refer to a literal Adam and Eve, created with a special purpose and placed in a Garden between 6 and 10,000 years ago. As they and their descendants spread and mixed with the people around the world, they became the genealogical parents of all humanity.
Swamidass' proposal is compatible with scientific evidence--though ultimately cannot be proved one way or the other, and can allow the fundies to affirm many things that are so important to them.
I like how flexible his approach is, he mentions numerous evangelical dogmas (like that of original sin) that could still be proposed (though are not necessary) within the paradigm he gives. The sin of Adam would be different from the sin outside of the garden, and this sin could be said to have spread from Adam to all. The possibility of immortality came through Adam, but due to his sin, this tree of life was barred to all, resulting in death for all humanity.
December 2, 2021
This has been a bittersweet reading. From the outset, I do want to state that I am perhaps the kind of people Swamidass is trying to pursue. A Reformed Confessional Christian. At the same time, my medical background allows me to appreciate most of the science behind it. For the sake of charity, and in accordance to his call to empathy (ch. 1), I will list the positives first. For the sake of courage and truth, which he also encourage his readers to show, I will least the negatives as well.
Positively, I need to honor the author’s intention of trying to uphold biblical inerrancy. Someone with his scientific qualifications could very easily dismiss Scripture altogether and just ‘go with the flow’ of scientificism. I believe his intent is loable. Furthermore, he provides goos insight and category distinctions we all should come to know if we are seriously thinking about this issue. In that sense, his explanation of the what Genealogical Ancestry is is perhaps the most valuable gem in this volume. His scientific research is rigorous. Everything he explains regarding science is well documented, even if, at the end there’s room for disagreement. I also appreciate the care with which he reaches scientific conclusions by using terms as «highly probable,» «unlikely,» etcetera.
It is also very good, that this volume will make you go back to Scripture to assess if what the author is claiming is right. Any time something make you read you Bible, that's a positive for me.
I would only wish that biblical-theological issues would have been dealt with with the same academic rigor as the scientific facts were. First, I believe there is an error of methodology. He presupposes «people out of Eden before Adam and Eve» from the start. Then assumes that Scripture is only silent about those (although, suggestive). Finally his hermeneutical method includes using scientific research to fill-in-the gaps.
Here’s the tricky thing, this is the question to answer: which gaps? There seems to be a conflation between general gaps of things not mentioned by Scripture regarding creation and the historicity of Adam and Eve (which is the central theme, as suggested by the title of the book), and the gaps created by Swamidass' presupposition that ‘there were people leaving outside the garden’. He deals only with the second set.
Thus, his theory is build up to dovetail perfectly with the gaps that his own presuppositions have created. This is key: if you can demonstrate biblically that those presupposition do not fit the proper interpretation of the Scriptural text, or even are not required by the text, then the whole argument falls. It becomes a house of cards.
All the science presented is subservient to the fact that there was indeed a group of people outside Eden before Adam and Eve, and that these were human beings.
However, is he able to demonstrate this from Scripture? No. At most, it is an argument from silence. In my opinion, a weak one. It does not deal with the most pressing questions on interpretation and theology. Regarding interpretation, «silence» is his claim. Scripture does not say there weren’t, and science is compatible with the possibility of people being there, therefore, it must be true. Regarding theology, the most important questions such as that of common dignity are not even raised. There are discussions regarding the «openness» of historical and even confessional theology. Again, tradition almost never denies the possibility of men outside Eden, therefore, «it fits within Orthodox Theology.»
Sadly the most important biblical and theological claims are not as well exegeted or documented as the scientific data is. Thus, there is a huge disparity with the way he deals with science and Scripture. In the aim of trying to uphold Scripture with science, (surely unintentionally), he has make Scripture subservient to scientific research.
Still, I believe the first section is worthy of our most serious attention. And because of that, this resource might be a good addition to your library, especially if you are interested with the modern trends of theistic evolution.
Positively, I need to honor the author’s intention of trying to uphold biblical inerrancy. Someone with his scientific qualifications could very easily dismiss Scripture altogether and just ‘go with the flow’ of scientificism. I believe his intent is loable. Furthermore, he provides goos insight and category distinctions we all should come to know if we are seriously thinking about this issue. In that sense, his explanation of the what Genealogical Ancestry is is perhaps the most valuable gem in this volume. His scientific research is rigorous. Everything he explains regarding science is well documented, even if, at the end there’s room for disagreement. I also appreciate the care with which he reaches scientific conclusions by using terms as «highly probable,» «unlikely,» etcetera.
It is also very good, that this volume will make you go back to Scripture to assess if what the author is claiming is right. Any time something make you read you Bible, that's a positive for me.
I would only wish that biblical-theological issues would have been dealt with with the same academic rigor as the scientific facts were. First, I believe there is an error of methodology. He presupposes «people out of Eden before Adam and Eve» from the start. Then assumes that Scripture is only silent about those (although, suggestive). Finally his hermeneutical method includes using scientific research to fill-in-the gaps.
Here’s the tricky thing, this is the question to answer: which gaps? There seems to be a conflation between general gaps of things not mentioned by Scripture regarding creation and the historicity of Adam and Eve (which is the central theme, as suggested by the title of the book), and the gaps created by Swamidass' presupposition that ‘there were people leaving outside the garden’. He deals only with the second set.
Thus, his theory is build up to dovetail perfectly with the gaps that his own presuppositions have created. This is key: if you can demonstrate biblically that those presupposition do not fit the proper interpretation of the Scriptural text, or even are not required by the text, then the whole argument falls. It becomes a house of cards.
All the science presented is subservient to the fact that there was indeed a group of people outside Eden before Adam and Eve, and that these were human beings.
However, is he able to demonstrate this from Scripture? No. At most, it is an argument from silence. In my opinion, a weak one. It does not deal with the most pressing questions on interpretation and theology. Regarding interpretation, «silence» is his claim. Scripture does not say there weren’t, and science is compatible with the possibility of people being there, therefore, it must be true. Regarding theology, the most important questions such as that of common dignity are not even raised. There are discussions regarding the «openness» of historical and even confessional theology. Again, tradition almost never denies the possibility of men outside Eden, therefore, «it fits within Orthodox Theology.»
Sadly the most important biblical and theological claims are not as well exegeted or documented as the scientific data is. Thus, there is a huge disparity with the way he deals with science and Scripture. In the aim of trying to uphold Scripture with science, (surely unintentionally), he has make Scripture subservient to scientific research.
Still, I believe the first section is worthy of our most serious attention. And because of that, this resource might be a good addition to your library, especially if you are interested with the modern trends of theistic evolution.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 13, 2025
A fascinating eye opening read! Although this book was hard to follow at times (both how it was written as well as the dense amount of information), it ultimately opened my mind to a broader scientific and theological understanding of Genesis and creation. While you more than likely won’t agree with everything this book offers in its hypothesis in one way or another, the sentiment and appeal to broad understandings of this topic is exactly what we need in both the scientific and Christian community.
January 5, 2024
This was such an intriguing book filled with so many thought experiments. I probably retained about 2% of this book lol. I had questions going into it and left with even more. I know nothing!!!
Docking 2 stars bc it’s incredibly repetitive and reads (listens) like an essay which is what he’s probably going for but nonetheless ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Docking 2 stars bc it’s incredibly repetitive and reads (listens) like an essay which is what he’s probably going for but nonetheless ⭐️⭐️⭐️
April 19, 2021
Overall, it was very thought provoking and enjoyable. I gave it only three stars because of the redundancy throughout. The book could have been much shorter but just as effective, in my humble opinion.
October 8, 2020
A literal Adam & Eve has been the last bastion of creationists and a favored weapon of anti-theists. Evolution decisively proves there was no literal Adam & Eve, therefore, no original sin, therefore, no need for Jesus. Enter Joshua Swamidass. In Genealogical Adam & Eve (GAE), Swamidass argues that a fully literal account of Adam & Eve - rib and all - is compatible with common ancestry of humanity with the other primates. The key insight is that while genetic ancestry dilutes, genealogical ancestry compounds. Modern genealogical science suggests that the family trees of everyone alive today could converge as recently as 4,000-10,000 years ago. Swamidass then argues there is no evidence ruling out the existence of a couple created de novo by God at that convergence. Thus, while the genetic evidence effectively rules out a single human pair as the sole genetic ancestors of everyone alive today*, the existence of a single pair as the genealogical ancestors of everyone actually falls out almost as a mathematical necessity.
With this foundation, Swamidass proceeds to outline numerous areas of theological reflection once thought to be ruled out by science. As he is not a theologian by training, he is tentative and acknowledges the potential pitfalls of his speculation. Naturally, this is where I had the most concern with themodel as some speculations seem contrived to me. Since he acknowledges weaknesses himself and they aren’t central to the model anyway, it’s hard to fault the book for that. The writing is repetitive to the point of mild annoyance. Just about every chapter recaps “there is no evidence refuting the idea of a de novo created Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all”.
Innovative and winsomely argued, GAE represents a peaceful meeting ground no matter your theological or scientific beliefs. Despite the book’s weaknesses, I think this genealogical model has effectively neutralized the last serious theological objections to evolution (although most anti-evolution arguments are mediocre, anyway).
*Elsewhere, Swamidass has argued the genetic evidence may not be so decisive and a universal genetic bottleneck of two humans is possible at 500kya (see: PeacefulScience blog "Heliocentric Certainty Against a Bottleneck of Two?" https://discourse.peacefulscience.org...)
With this foundation, Swamidass proceeds to outline numerous areas of theological reflection once thought to be ruled out by science. As he is not a theologian by training, he is tentative and acknowledges the potential pitfalls of his speculation. Naturally, this is where I had the most concern with themodel as some speculations seem contrived to me. Since he acknowledges weaknesses himself and they aren’t central to the model anyway, it’s hard to fault the book for that. The writing is repetitive to the point of mild annoyance. Just about every chapter recaps “there is no evidence refuting the idea of a de novo created Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all”.
Innovative and winsomely argued, GAE represents a peaceful meeting ground no matter your theological or scientific beliefs. Despite the book’s weaknesses, I think this genealogical model has effectively neutralized the last serious theological objections to evolution (although most anti-evolution arguments are mediocre, anyway).
*Elsewhere, Swamidass has argued the genetic evidence may not be so decisive and a universal genetic bottleneck of two humans is possible at 500kya (see: PeacefulScience blog "Heliocentric Certainty Against a Bottleneck of Two?" https://discourse.peacefulscience.org...)
December 31, 2021
I grew up as a young earth creationist. Ken Ham came and talked to my homeschool group level of young earth creationist. My first Bible was a KJV Defender’s Study Bible with study notes by Henry Morris level of young earth creationist. Went to a university that had a mandatory class on “creation studies” level of young earth creationist. But as I got older, I began to notice some holes in the theory. Not scientifically, because I wasn’t a scientist, but theologically. I began to realize that several conservative evangelical thinkers were much less dogmatic on the nature of origins—or even (gasp!) dogmatic about alternative views of creation. As I moved into seminary, I began to see more and more evidence for an old earth but evolution…EVOLUTION? I had a harder time with that. Eventually, I settled for contentment in the mystery. God created. That’s what the Genesis account is really saying. How did God create? Well…it’s much less clear.
The Genealogical Adam and Eve presents a case for theistic evolution that remains true to a literal Adam and Eve created as recently as six thousand years ago. As such, he pulls together two incredibly disparate streams of thought and attempts to tie them together. Can the anthropology of young earth creationism be reconciled with evolutionary biology? Computational biologist S. Joshua Swamidass gives it his best effort and the result is surprisingly compelling.
Undergirding The Genealogical Adam and Eve and Swamidass’s hypothesis that there is no scientific evidence against universal ancestry is an irenic tone and a compassionate spirit. Swamidass, having grown up as a young earth creationist, is sensitive to the desires of many YECs to faithfully interpret Scripture. His hypothesis is not dissimilar to YEC in many ways, as it holds to de novo creation, a recent Adam and Eve, and a universal ancestor. At very least, Swamidass offers readers a theological corrective, encouraging progressive theologians to not be so quick to reinterpret their theology in light of science. Where once science closed the doors to a universal creator, it now seems more amenable to least considering the possibility. (Conversely, it’s also worth noting that Swamidass is the leading scholar promoting this theory and the science behind it is still relatively new, so the caution against adjusting theological interpretation to fit scientific theory applies in this direction as well.)
The Genealogical Hypothesis
Simply stated, the hypothesis has six premises:
1. They lived recently in the Middle East. Perhaps as recently as 6,000 years ago (the earliest promoted by YEC), but the precise date is not necessary. “Recently” is a relative term when considering billions of years.
2. They are genealogical ancestors of everyone. By 1 AD, Adam and Eve are a couple from whom all humans then living descend. It’s unclear (to me) why Swamidass chooses this rather arbitrary date. If there’s a reason for it, I read over it.
3. They are de novo created. That is, God created Adam and Eve via a direct act. Swamidass believes that humanity existed outside the Garden of Eden, created through evolution, but God creates Adam and Eve as a specially created couple.
4. Interbreeding between their lineage and others. Because of the genetic difficulties with tracing human population back to a single pair and scientific evidence that humanity evolved as a population, Swamidass holds that, post-Fall, the descendants of Adam and Eve interbreed with humanity outside the Garden.
5. No additional miracles. The de novo creation of Adam and Eve is God’s only intervention.
6. The two findings of evolutionary science. The people outside the Garden share common descent with the great apes and the size of their population would never dip down to a single couple.
When The Genealogical Adam and Eve ventures to build a theological narrative around its hypothesis, it separates Genesis 1 and 2 into two distinct creations: Genesis 1 represents a poetic account of the creation of the universe; Genesis 2 represents a much later account of the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. In this theory, millions of years of evolution pass to the point that humans—however they might be defined—have evolved. In the middle of this, God supernaturally creates a Garden and two humans. After the expulsion from Eden, into the world outside the Garden, the children of Adam and Eve interbreed with the humans outside the Garden. (Swamidass suggests that the problem of where Cain got a wife and what in the world Nephilim are find some resolution in this model.) By the time of Jesus, all humans alive are genealogical descendants of Adam and Eve.
From a scientific perspective, the genealogical evidence appears convincing. Swamidass references his own peer-reviewed academic work often and notes how various organizations and scientists have taken note of his work. It seems clear that, from a genealogical perspective, a relatively recent Adam and Eve is not only scientifically possible, but probable. However, I’m also not a scientist, so I may be more easily swayed than someone with experience in the area. At very least, The Genealogical Adam and Eve presents a compelling case in terms of universal humanity and the next decade will see if his work is corroborated.
In terms of theology, Swamidass goes to great lengths to connect some major claims of young earth creationism with current scientific evidence. However, YECs will still be disappointed that The Genealogical Adam and Eve clings firmly to evolutionary theory, an old earth, and a regional (not global) flood. The weakest theological element is Swamidass’s separation of Genesis 1 and 2 into two distinct creation events. This is not the overall consensus of biblical scholars and would be a very minority position. More work needs to be done in this area for Swamidass’s hypothesis to have theological merit. Nonetheless, Swamidass offers a unique perspective that forces the three main positions (young earth, old earth, and theistic evolution) to reevaluate their positions.
The Genealogical Adam and Eve is a seminal work on universal humanity that strengthens the relationship between Christian theology and science, making the case Scripture and evolution do not need to held in contradiction. It’s a thoughtful, compassionate work that breaks new ground in what, frankly, had become a tired argument among entrenched groups. Swamidass also reminds us that, regardless of Adam’s historicity or place in history, our faith is ultimately in the Second Adam—Jesus Christ.
The Genealogical Adam and Eve presents a case for theistic evolution that remains true to a literal Adam and Eve created as recently as six thousand years ago. As such, he pulls together two incredibly disparate streams of thought and attempts to tie them together. Can the anthropology of young earth creationism be reconciled with evolutionary biology? Computational biologist S. Joshua Swamidass gives it his best effort and the result is surprisingly compelling.
Undergirding The Genealogical Adam and Eve and Swamidass’s hypothesis that there is no scientific evidence against universal ancestry is an irenic tone and a compassionate spirit. Swamidass, having grown up as a young earth creationist, is sensitive to the desires of many YECs to faithfully interpret Scripture. His hypothesis is not dissimilar to YEC in many ways, as it holds to de novo creation, a recent Adam and Eve, and a universal ancestor. At very least, Swamidass offers readers a theological corrective, encouraging progressive theologians to not be so quick to reinterpret their theology in light of science. Where once science closed the doors to a universal creator, it now seems more amenable to least considering the possibility. (Conversely, it’s also worth noting that Swamidass is the leading scholar promoting this theory and the science behind it is still relatively new, so the caution against adjusting theological interpretation to fit scientific theory applies in this direction as well.)
The Genealogical Hypothesis
Simply stated, the hypothesis has six premises:
1. They lived recently in the Middle East. Perhaps as recently as 6,000 years ago (the earliest promoted by YEC), but the precise date is not necessary. “Recently” is a relative term when considering billions of years.
2. They are genealogical ancestors of everyone. By 1 AD, Adam and Eve are a couple from whom all humans then living descend. It’s unclear (to me) why Swamidass chooses this rather arbitrary date. If there’s a reason for it, I read over it.
3. They are de novo created. That is, God created Adam and Eve via a direct act. Swamidass believes that humanity existed outside the Garden of Eden, created through evolution, but God creates Adam and Eve as a specially created couple.
4. Interbreeding between their lineage and others. Because of the genetic difficulties with tracing human population back to a single pair and scientific evidence that humanity evolved as a population, Swamidass holds that, post-Fall, the descendants of Adam and Eve interbreed with humanity outside the Garden.
5. No additional miracles. The de novo creation of Adam and Eve is God’s only intervention.
6. The two findings of evolutionary science. The people outside the Garden share common descent with the great apes and the size of their population would never dip down to a single couple.
When The Genealogical Adam and Eve ventures to build a theological narrative around its hypothesis, it separates Genesis 1 and 2 into two distinct creations: Genesis 1 represents a poetic account of the creation of the universe; Genesis 2 represents a much later account of the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. In this theory, millions of years of evolution pass to the point that humans—however they might be defined—have evolved. In the middle of this, God supernaturally creates a Garden and two humans. After the expulsion from Eden, into the world outside the Garden, the children of Adam and Eve interbreed with the humans outside the Garden. (Swamidass suggests that the problem of where Cain got a wife and what in the world Nephilim are find some resolution in this model.) By the time of Jesus, all humans alive are genealogical descendants of Adam and Eve.
From a scientific perspective, the genealogical evidence appears convincing. Swamidass references his own peer-reviewed academic work often and notes how various organizations and scientists have taken note of his work. It seems clear that, from a genealogical perspective, a relatively recent Adam and Eve is not only scientifically possible, but probable. However, I’m also not a scientist, so I may be more easily swayed than someone with experience in the area. At very least, The Genealogical Adam and Eve presents a compelling case in terms of universal humanity and the next decade will see if his work is corroborated.
In terms of theology, Swamidass goes to great lengths to connect some major claims of young earth creationism with current scientific evidence. However, YECs will still be disappointed that The Genealogical Adam and Eve clings firmly to evolutionary theory, an old earth, and a regional (not global) flood. The weakest theological element is Swamidass’s separation of Genesis 1 and 2 into two distinct creation events. This is not the overall consensus of biblical scholars and would be a very minority position. More work needs to be done in this area for Swamidass’s hypothesis to have theological merit. Nonetheless, Swamidass offers a unique perspective that forces the three main positions (young earth, old earth, and theistic evolution) to reevaluate their positions.
The Genealogical Adam and Eve is a seminal work on universal humanity that strengthens the relationship between Christian theology and science, making the case Scripture and evolution do not need to held in contradiction. It’s a thoughtful, compassionate work that breaks new ground in what, frankly, had become a tired argument among entrenched groups. Swamidass also reminds us that, regardless of Adam’s historicity or place in history, our faith is ultimately in the Second Adam—Jesus Christ.
October 23, 2021
The first half is a bit heady with a dive into genetics from an analytical and generational point of view. If you muscle through that you’ll be rewarded with some very thought provoking theology theories. I found it very enjoyable!
October 14, 2021
Not necessarily an easy read for a non-scientist, but worth grappling with some of the more scientific concepts. What seems on the surface counter-intuitive is expertly broken down by Swamidass and reconstructed logically and soundly. Swamidass explains in great detail what seems so obvious to me now: the difference between genetics and genealogy.
Furthermore, for a computational biologist, Swamidass shows a strong grasp of theology. This book is a great contribution to both modern science and theology. I highly recommend it to anyone and everyone, regardless of your stance on science and religion - especially as the exciting field of genetics hurtles towards unprecedented revolution.
Furthermore, for a computational biologist, Swamidass shows a strong grasp of theology. This book is a great contribution to both modern science and theology. I highly recommend it to anyone and everyone, regardless of your stance on science and religion - especially as the exciting field of genetics hurtles towards unprecedented revolution.
August 2, 2021
A book that ultimately is about building bridges rather than burning them down. Swamidass' hypothesis on Adam and Eve is a gift to the discussion on origins within the church and scientific community. If accepted, his hypothesis enables people from multiple backgrounds to be able to come to the same table, laying weapons aside, and dialogue together. As Swamidass' repeats throughout the book, this is merely the start of the conversation. He does not presume to know all the answers, but feels his theory can be held by both heavy scriptural literallists and those who fully embrace an evolutionary perspective. This is a book for those wearied by debate, those doubting the integrity of scripture, and those hoping for a way to move the discussion forward with humility and respect.
August 27, 2021
What I enjoyed about this book was how Swamidass invites back into the mystery of Genesis, his thesis is not an answer to the conflict of Evolution vs Creationism but an invitation to ponder on the things we don‘t know.
I for one have been very challenged in the way I have interpreted Genesis 1-11 and how I have dismissed other views different to my own. I look forward to seeing the responses from other Theologians and Scientists to this work and diving deeper into the mystery of the Garden and what was outside it!
I for one have been very challenged in the way I have interpreted Genesis 1-11 and how I have dismissed other views different to my own. I look forward to seeing the responses from other Theologians and Scientists to this work and diving deeper into the mystery of the Garden and what was outside it!
August 14, 2021
This one will make you think. His proposals are promising, but I think it will take some time to see what biblical scholars and theologians do with it. Maybe it goes somewhere. Maybe it just stimulates some new thought. Either way, very stimulating, and it adds something new to the discussion.
August 18, 2021
Very interesting read and it was insightful to me. It talks about evolution, science, and Adam and Eve and how it all ties in.
September 17, 2021
The Genealogical Adam and Eve is really a revolutionary book. I am a Christian who only relatively recently accepted evolutionary science, but I felt like many of the ways theologians tried to get around some of the difficulties of evolution and a historical Adam and Eve weren’t completely satisfactory. However, Swamidass’ thesis is that we can keep the traditional creation account; including a recent Adam and Eve,de novo created in the Middle East, who were the ancestors of all humanity today. The only addition we need to make is people outside of the garden of Eden to interbreed with Adam and Eve’s descendants. This account is completely compatible with, though not able to be proven by, modern science and is a complete game-changer for the church today.
Some important quotes:
“Ajit Varki puts it: ‘Humans are . . . unusual in our [cognitive] abilities and these abilities were already present 70,000 to 100,000 years ago in Africa. That means that all the mental abilities to do calculus, astrophysics, symphonic music, and philosophy, and theology, and Veritas Forums was already there.’” (128).
“With universal descent in mind, Genesis 1 still geographically universalizes the narrative among biological humans in AD 1 by way of descent from Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve are farther back in time, their descendants might also be geographically universalized by the time of Abraham or Moses too” (147).
“The Persian Gulf Oasis seems to match the description of the Garden in Genesis. Till about twelve to ten thousand years ago, the seas were hundreds of feet lower. Surprisingly evocative of the Genesis account of the Garden, the Persian Gulf was dry land, irrigated by four rivers, without rain, but with fresh water springing up out of the ground. As seas rose globally, the Persian Gulf was submerged under the ocean, and ancient settlements appear along its current shores.” (167). Info from: Jeffrey I. Rose, “New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis,” Current Anthropology 51 (2010): 849-83, https://doi.org/10.1086/657397.
1. Six thousand to twelve thousand years ago, when permanent settlements associated with agriculture arise across the globe,
2. About fifty thousand to one hundred thousand years ago, with the rise of behaviorally modern humans, a chronological subset of Homo sapiens as a whole,
3. About one hundred fifty thousand to three hundred thousand years ago, with the rise of anatomically modern humans, also known as Homo sapiens,
4. About five hundred thousand to seven hundred thousand years ago, with the common ancestor of Neanderthals, Homo sapiens, Denisovans, and other hominins no longer among us,
5. About 2 million years ago, with the rise of the Homo genus, including many hominins no longer found among us.
Some important quotes:
“Ajit Varki puts it: ‘Humans are . . . unusual in our [cognitive] abilities and these abilities were already present 70,000 to 100,000 years ago in Africa. That means that all the mental abilities to do calculus, astrophysics, symphonic music, and philosophy, and theology, and Veritas Forums was already there.’” (128).
“With universal descent in mind, Genesis 1 still geographically universalizes the narrative among biological humans in AD 1 by way of descent from Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve are farther back in time, their descendants might also be geographically universalized by the time of Abraham or Moses too” (147).
“The Persian Gulf Oasis seems to match the description of the Garden in Genesis. Till about twelve to ten thousand years ago, the seas were hundreds of feet lower. Surprisingly evocative of the Genesis account of the Garden, the Persian Gulf was dry land, irrigated by four rivers, without rain, but with fresh water springing up out of the ground. As seas rose globally, the Persian Gulf was submerged under the ocean, and ancient settlements appear along its current shores.” (167). Info from: Jeffrey I. Rose, “New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis,” Current Anthropology 51 (2010): 849-83, https://doi.org/10.1086/657397.
1. Six thousand to twelve thousand years ago, when permanent settlements associated with agriculture arise across the globe,
2. About fifty thousand to one hundred thousand years ago, with the rise of behaviorally modern humans, a chronological subset of Homo sapiens as a whole,
3. About one hundred fifty thousand to three hundred thousand years ago, with the rise of anatomically modern humans, also known as Homo sapiens,
4. About five hundred thousand to seven hundred thousand years ago, with the common ancestor of Neanderthals, Homo sapiens, Denisovans, and other hominins no longer among us,
5. About 2 million years ago, with the rise of the Homo genus, including many hominins no longer found among us.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews