(10-16-2015 04:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure what you are doing, but I'm not arguing with anybody. I'm just expressing why I believe what I believe. I really don't know what you or anybody else here believes, since I don't post here often.

Then let me help you see why I said that...

Quote:The concept of original sin is more than just what you said.

It is to you. It obviously isn't to me. You telling me that what I believe is wrong is is arguing with me... and you're only arguing opinion vs opinion... not fact vs opinion.

Quote:It is essential to the idea that man must be "redeemed" in order to get to heaven - to be reconciled with God. And where does that notion come from? What makes us think that man was once in a different relationship with God than he is now?

The Bible suggests that man was once in direct communication with God, and that he/she willfully did something they knew to be against his wishes. And the result of that willful act was this separation you refer to, which all future humans inherited (by virtue of their direct descent from the miscreants). Absent the Bible, why would we believe that this seminal event occurred?

So you're not arguing with me, you're just asking me to explain my opinion to your satisfaction?

You're essentially (once again as everyone who seems to share your opinion does) you're asking that I PROVE something to you that you already don't believe... that by definition can't be proven, and you want to use my inability (or unwillingness) to do so as 'proof' that it didn't happen.

You have challenged my interpretation... I have responded... My interpretation makes sense if you choose to believe. NO explanation will make sense if you choose to believe something else.

Quote:If "Adam and Eve" were merely two of many proto humans who had similar genetic mutations as our branch of the evolutionary tree evolved, the idea of a willful act of disobedience leading to a change in man's relationship with God loses a lot of its force.

This isn't just significant to literalists. It is significant to - critical to - the belief held by all Christians that redemption is necessary, and that Jesus is the (only) source of that redemption. Without this, the entire foundation of Christianity crumbles.

Nothing could be further from the truth... and once again, you seem to be an expert on something you pretty obviously don't believe... Our 'fall from grace' didn't have to happen with the FIRST two modern humans for it to have happened.... It didn't even have to happen to them 'together'. It just had to happen (a fall from grace). The story need only represent a fall from grace that the people of the time would understand, and not necessarily THE fall from grace.

The myriad of possibilities are endless.... and I'm not trying to convince you of 'the truth' nor am I questioning your beliefs or asking you to 'defeat' my hypothesis. I'm merely pointing out possible scenarios under which your opinion fails.

Quote:Personally, I think it is significant that most of the very people who considered the Bible to be their tribal sacred scripture did not share the Christian belief that we would at some point be redeemed.

Then what is the point in following ANY rules whatsoever? That's just silly to argue that Jews and Muslims and even Buddhists don't believe that 'how you live now' impacts what happens to you in the future. They all do.

and of course, a religion based on a redeemer will believe in redemption.

Your opinion here is only significant if 'the weight of public opinion' matters to a question of fact... and it doesn't.

Seriously, are you really surprised that 'man' would take a story about something that happened (not necessarily a factual news report, but explaining creation to a 5 year old) and over generations 'spin' it for his own ends or purposes? Come on.

I'm also not surprised that among billions of people that there will be thousands if not millions of different interpretations and 'ways of understanding' of a single event, much less thousands of events. The simple definition of 'living a good life' would have an unlimited number of different definitions... and thus an unlimited number of 'examples' of a good life.

Choose what makes sense to you, and let others choose what makes sense to them. If you have a problem with 'the end result' that is fine... but debating the definition of 'good' as if there is a single answer is pretty pointless.

Once again, I'm not debating you or anybody else, nor am I asking anybody to accept my beliefs as "true". I have no problem with what you choose to believe (unless of course, you try to impose the implications of that belief on me through political activity).

You say "it's silly to argue that..." and then inject something I didn't argue in the first place.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I don't think there is anything that needs to be proven. But you say "It [a fall from grace] just had to happen" at some point in time to validate the Genesis story. So what reason (understandable to ancient Hebrews or otherwise) do we have to posit that it happened at all? What reason do we have to posit that humans ever had a relationship with God that was different from that of all other creatures?

I can't think of any reason why we should either accept or reject those premises. I can, however, think of reasons why any society would make up such stories as a way to encourage behaviors and beliefs in its children that further its likelihood of surviving and thriving as a society/culture/tribe. That is what I believe the Genesis stories to be. That's not a bad thing to be. It just isn't useful in furthering one's understanding about the nature (or even existence) of God, or the possibility of some form of afterlife.

(10-16-2015 08:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 03:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure what you are doing, but I'm not arguing with anybody. I'm just expressing why I believe what I believe. I really don't know what you or anybody else here believes, since I don't post here often.

Then let me help you see why I said that...

Quote:The concept of original sin is more than just what you said.

It is to you. It obviously isn't to me. You telling me that what I believe is wrong is is arguing with me... and you're only arguing opinion vs opinion... not fact vs opinion.

Quote:It is essential to the idea that man must be "redeemed" in order to get to heaven - to be reconciled with God. And where does that notion come from? What makes us think that man was once in a different relationship with God than he is now?

The Bible suggests that man was once in direct communication with God, and that he/she willfully did something they knew to be against his wishes. And the result of that willful act was this separation you refer to, which all future humans inherited (by virtue of their direct descent from the miscreants). Absent the Bible, why would we believe that this seminal event occurred?

So you're not arguing with me, you're just asking me to explain my opinion to your satisfaction?

You're essentially (once again as everyone who seems to share your opinion does) you're asking that I PROVE something to you that you already don't believe... that by definition can't be proven, and you want to use my inability (or unwillingness) to do so as 'proof' that it didn't happen.

You have challenged my interpretation... I have responded... My interpretation makes sense if you choose to believe. NO explanation will make sense if you choose to believe something else.

Quote:If "Adam and Eve" were merely two of many proto humans who had similar genetic mutations as our branch of the evolutionary tree evolved, the idea of a willful act of disobedience leading to a change in man's relationship with God loses a lot of its force.

This isn't just significant to literalists. It is significant to - critical to - the belief held by all Christians that redemption is necessary, and that Jesus is the (only) source of that redemption. Without this, the entire foundation of Christianity crumbles.

Nothing could be further from the truth... and once again, you seem to be an expert on something you pretty obviously don't believe... Our 'fall from grace' didn't have to happen with the FIRST two modern humans for it to have happened.... It didn't even have to happen to them 'together'. It just had to happen (a fall from grace). The story need only represent a fall from grace that the people of the time would understand, and not necessarily THE fall from grace.

The myriad of possibilities are endless.... and I'm not trying to convince you of 'the truth' nor am I questioning your beliefs or asking you to 'defeat' my hypothesis. I'm merely pointing out possible scenarios under which your opinion fails.

Quote:Personally, I think it is significant that most of the very people who considered the Bible to be their tribal sacred scripture did not share the Christian belief that we would at some point be redeemed.

Then what is the point in following ANY rules whatsoever? That's just silly to argue that Jews and Muslims and even Buddhists don't believe that 'how you live now' impacts what happens to you in the future. They all do.

and of course, a religion based on a redeemer will believe in redemption.

Your opinion here is only significant if 'the weight of public opinion' matters to a question of fact... and it doesn't.

Seriously, are you really surprised that 'man' would take a story about something that happened (not necessarily a factual news report, but explaining creation to a 5 year old) and over generations 'spin' it for his own ends or purposes? Come on.

I'm also not surprised that among billions of people that there will be thousands if not millions of different interpretations and 'ways of understanding' of a single event, much less thousands of events. The simple definition of 'living a good life' would have an unlimited number of different definitions... and thus an unlimited number of 'examples' of a good life.

Choose what makes sense to you, and let others choose what makes sense to them. If you have a problem with 'the end result' that is fine... but debating the definition of 'good' as if there is a single answer is pretty pointless.

Once again, I'm not debating you or anybody else, nor am I asking anybody to accept my beliefs as "true". I have no problem with what you choose to believe (unless of course, you try to impose the implications of that belief on me through political activity).

You say "it's silly to argue that..." and then inject something I didn't argue in the first place.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I don't think there is anything that needs to be proven. But you say "It [a fall from grace] just had to happen" at some point in time to validate the Genesis story. So what reason (understandable to ancient Hebrews or otherwise) do we have to posit that it happened at all? What reason do we have to posit that humans ever had a relationship with God that was different from that of all other creatures?

I can't think of any reason why we should either accept or reject those premises. I can, however, think of reasons why any society would make up such stories as a way to encourage behaviors and beliefs in its children that further its likelihood of surviving and thriving as a society/culture/tribe. That is what I believe the Genesis stories to be. That's not a bad thing to be. It just isn't useful in furthering one's understanding about the nature (or even existence) of God, or the possibility of some form of afterlife.

It isn't useful if that's all you think it is. But if you have faith, it is quite useful.

Its also a huge stretch for you to claim that is all it is. People try to understand their existence and place in the Cosmos. Societies don't just invent stories that nobody believes. They try to make sense of how they got to that point.

I'm an unapologetic literalist through and through on the Word of God.

There are passages that are allegories, and Jesus taught in parables, just as was prophesied that He would in the OT. But the vast majority of the Word is literal and means what it says.

God made man from the dust of the earth. We all know the body decays and turns back into dust. Our physical bodies are literally made of earth and star dust.

There is an interesting divide in Christian circles on this too and this thread has illustrated that. Some take parts to be literal, but other huge sections to be allegory of some sort. The problem I have with allegorizing most of the Bible is you essential make it say what you want at that point. It can say "Water is wet", and some will give you an hour long diatribe on how that actually means water is dry.

I've noticed many of these people accept that virtually every prophecy of Jesus came PHYSICALLY true, but somehow all remaining prophecies are all allegory and can't be taken literally at all. I don't buy that logic and the more I dig into the details with those people the more I find they really are just ignoring most of the OT and not even trying to study most of it. I often like to walk through the OT prophecies of Christ with them and point out how if we were discussing these before Christ was born, they would be arguing most of the prophecies are allegories and not literal. "The Messiah is NOT going to be betrayed, tortured and nailed to a tree...that HAS to be allegory!!!" Yet virtually all those prophecies came LITERALLY true, even many that read like poetic allegories. They had spiritual truth, but manifested in a very physical manner.

Consider the divide in Christianity on the Millennial reign. Its a prefect example of this. It prophesied this literally hundreds of times, with countless physical details of peoples, places, cites, agriculture, government, land grants and building projects. Yet some still chose to say there is no millennial reign and all those verses are just allegory, even though the vast majority of verses are total gibberish if not taken literally. But if you really dig deeper with most of those people, you find they willing ignore most of the OT and prophecy.

They will often tell you how they don't have a clue what a certain set of passages (past or future prophecy) is suggesting, but they DO know that your more literal interpretation is dead wrong. Of course they never can explain WHY the literal interpretation is so wrong, but they are sure of it anyway. That is a troubling position to take "just because" imo. As Christians, we should have some scriptural doctrine to hang our doctrinal reasoning on.

Replacement theology is another perfect example. Easily understandable when allegorizing certain scripture and ignoring countless others, but it completely falls apart when reading the entire text more literally. Israel and Jerusalem are meant to return and be standing in the latter days. As a people, they will continue to reject Christ until the last days, but the nation is propped up and rebuilt by Gentile Christian nations. As Paul tells us, the rejection and desolation of Israel is NOT final or eternal, it is "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in".

Claw's Law: It is impossible to distinguish a genetic change made by evolutionary processes from one made via genetic engineering.

(10-16-2015 08:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:Personally, I think it is significant that most of the very people who considered the Bible to be their tribal sacred scripture did not share the Christian belief that we would at some point be redeemed.

Then what is the point in following ANY rules whatsoever? That's just silly to argue that Jews and Muslims and even Buddhists don't believe that 'how you live now' impacts what happens to you in the future. They all do.

and of course, a religion based on a redeemer will believe in redemption.

You say "it's silly to argue that..." and then inject something I didn't argue in the first place.

What did I miss then?

You said they didn't believe in redemption... Of course redemption (for Christians) comes through Jesus and the new Testament, ... which most of them don't believe in (at least not in the same way) but all of these other religions believe that what you do in this life impacts 'what is next'. That's not significantly different enough from 'redemption' to be meaningful to me.

They all believe in penance or 'sacrifice' for sins.

Quote:I'm not asking you to prove anything. I don't think there is anything that needs to be proven. But you say "It [a fall from grace] just had to happen" at some point in time to validate the Genesis story.

Nope, I didn't say anything like that. It's pretty clear from the comment above that you've made up your mind, despite a lack of proof, and you aren't interested in any other opinions.

You are arguing your 'faith' as fact. Yes, I've said 'you're asking me to prove' and you're not... but you ARE eliminating the possibility that you are wrong. Welcome to 'faith'.

Quote:So what reason (understandable to ancient Hebrews or otherwise) do we have to posit that it happened at all? What reason do we have to posit that humans ever had a relationship with God that was different from that of all other creatures?

This is what I mean by 'you're asking me to prove'. You're claiming that the lack of evidence that something DID happen is somehow evidence that it didn't. The 'special' relationship between humans and other humans... plus the 'smarter' animals is different from our relationship with simple cell creatures and plants. More significantly, why does a special relationship between man and God preclude a 'differently' special relationship between God and Dogs?

Quote:I can't think of any reason why we should either accept or reject those premises. I can, however, think of reasons why any society would make up such stories as a way to encourage behaviors and beliefs in its children that further its likelihood of surviving and thriving as a society/culture/tribe. That is what I believe the Genesis stories to be. That's not a bad thing to be. It just isn't useful in furthering one's understanding about the nature (or even existence) of God, or the possibility of some form of afterlife.

Fine. That is your religion/faith/belief.

(10-16-2015 10:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ... so let's not get into arguments over semantics.

We aren't arguing over semantics. You have some gross conceptual errors about how evolutionary theory and the world works. Let's correct those, upgrade your level of knowledge, and then we can have an intelligent and informed discussion.

(10-16-2015 10:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  \]
My parents were both 'modern' humans as were there parents as were theirs as were theirs etc etc etc.... but at SOME point, only one was.

Wrong.

Homonid species haven't suddenly appeared in single generations.

Let's use small numbers, since you're at the very least an athlete and most probably an academ.

Suppose you have two generations, and each generation is only .001 (1/100th) different from the previous. So if the first generation is 1, the second generation is 1.001 - pretty close to the original. If you do that 1000 times, the last generation would be a 2 - certainly distiguishable from the first generation 1. But if you ever look at any consecutive generations, they are only a tiny fraction apart. There never in that ingenerationl schism between ancient and modern that you have claimed.

(10-16-2015 10:31 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Correct. It's called the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all people and it's existence isn't really disputed.

Cool story, bro'.

Every organism on earth has a MRCA with every other organism.If it's your cousin, the MRCA is a grandparent. If we're looking at humans and chimpanzees, its about 6-12 million years ago (depending on who you talk to). If it's you and a sea sponge, you may have to go back a couple billion years ago.

But when you go back, you cant say that once you hit that MRCA, that everything on one side is a sea sponge, and everything else is a modern human as was implied in the original post. The MCRA concept is irrelevant to the Adam/Eve mythology hypothesis.

(10-16-2015 11:22 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  I'm an unapologetic literalist through and through on the Word of God.

Do you believe in Santa Claus?

(10-17-2015 06:38 PM)Pellet Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 11:22 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  I'm an unapologetic literalist through and through on the Word of God.

Do you believe in Santa Claus?

No, and I don't believe in arrogant, condescending trolls either.

(10-17-2015 06:48 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  No, and I don't believe in arrogant, condescending trolls either.

And yet you believe in other completely ridiculous stuff.

Run along and let the adults have a conversation.

(10-17-2015 06:59 PM)Pellet Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 06:48 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  No, and I don't believe in arrogant, condescending trolls either.

And yet you believe in other completely ridiculous stuff.

Run along and let the adults have a conversation.

Bless your heart

(10-17-2015 06:24 PM)Pellet Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 10:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ... so let's not get into arguments over semantics.

We aren't arguing over semantics. You have some gross conceptual errors about how evolutionary theory and the world works. Let's correct those, upgrade your level of knowledge, and then we can have an intelligent and informed discussion.

You seem to think that only evolutionary forces can shape genetic content. That simply isn't true. Selective breeding and the full spectrum of genetic engineering can accomplish much more in fewer generations than evolution.

The assumption that none of that ever happened in man's history is a big assumption. You will say there is no evidence of it. I will say there is a book about it. That's evidence. Someone, God, claims to have done it.

You can see a genetic change, but you can't see what caused it. Go to the store and buy a tomato. Tell me how that tomato came into existence. You can't. Yet every tomato in your supermarket is a product of deliberate design.

And don't tell me the lack of hard evidence of the manipulation means it didn't happen. We have scores of domesticated breeds of dogs, horses, and cattle that we know were bred in the past. Yet we have no idea who did it or what the base breeding stock was.

Those things happened much more recently than the appearance of man. The arrogance of assuming there was no breeding or other genetic manipulation in the appearance of man is simply the over-reaching pride of modern science. Science doesn't know how man's genes came to be. Science is simply proclaiming themselves to be correct. That is no different than a literal Bible believer claiming to be correct. Neither of them can show us any actual evidence of what was done and by what exact mechanism. All either side can point to is the result - man. That proves nothing.

(10-17-2015 06:24 PM)Pellet Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 10:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ... so let's not get into arguments over semantics.

We aren't arguing over semantics. You have some gross conceptual errors about how evolutionary theory and the world works. Let's correct those, upgrade your level of knowledge, and then we can have an intelligent and informed discussion.

Let's put away the condescending bull****. You aren't impressing anyone.... especially not me.

As I've said, the story is written for a 1000 BC audience... and you are CLEARLY putting a modern interpretation on it. I'm not going to argue with you about what a BC audience would understand, but I'm confident that 'the History of Man' would be well above his pay grade.

(10-17-2015 06:32 PM)Pellet Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 10:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  \]
My parents were both 'modern' humans as were there parents as were theirs as were theirs etc etc etc.... but at SOME point, only one was.

Wrong.

Homonid species haven't suddenly appeared in single generations.

And did I say they did?

No. Of course I didn't. More about this later.

Quote:Let's use small numbers, since you're at the very least an athlete and most probably an academ.

Suppose you have two generations, and each generation is only .001 (1/100th) different from the previous. So if the first generation is 1, the second generation is 1.001 - pretty close to the original. If you do that 1000 times, the last generation would be a 2 - certainly distiguishable from the first generation 1. But if you ever look at any consecutive generations, they are only a tiny fraction apart. There never in that ingenerationl schism between ancient and modern that you have claimed.

Scientists have clearly differentiated between species... and even to 'modern' humans. While they can't point to (using your weak example) Human 1.3, They certainly can differentiate between Human 1.0 and 2.0. Unless you have a memo from God or even the authors of Genesis, I don't think you have a CLUE as to which one of those iterations they're talking about. You assume it is 1.0 because that is your interpretation of the scripture. It isn't mine. Oh, and actually the person likely most qualified to speak on that issue WOULD be an academ.

Following your example above... If 'Modern Human' is defined as Human 1.45... then the point where my 1.45 relative mated with human 1.44 would be the point I am talking about. It depends on how you define 'modern'. I'm not wrong simply because you made assumptions.

My suspicion is that (using a stupid, but common example) that Homo Sapiens didn't consider Homo Floresiensis to be 'in the image of God' (even though they existed at the same time) any more than early Europeans considered African or American Indians to be their equals.... This would especially be true of 'leaders'/descendants of God. As I said, the bible very clearly starts by talking about two people who have children, but those children marry people who aren't their brothers and sisters... so where did THEY come from? There is your evolution and myriad of family lines... but the STORY focuses on two people. Again as I have repeatedly said... I don't think that just because they're talking about two people means that there were only two people. I just don't think that describing evolution was in any way significant to understanding the will of God, especially to a BC audience.

This is a political board on a sports forum. Consider it the 'Leisure Learning Unlimited' of the educational spectrum. I'm not interested in having a 'technical' discussion about genetics and evolution with someone whose credentials on the subject are anonymous. I'm having a 'general', cocktail party discussion... which is why I said I'm not interested in semantics... especially something as impossible to know as the origins of man. It should have been obvious. More to the point, however is that nothing you've said is inconsistent with anything I've said.... You've merely filled in the many holes I've left with your own assumptions about what I think or what I mean.

Since you like math, let me help you a little.... You've started from 1 and moved forward... which presumes you know the starting point and that the story in the bible is literal, but you don't... and I don't believe it is. THAT is why you think I don't understand... because you've started at the wrong end of the discussion. What you KNOW is where we are today... and if you start regressing from here in an attempt to FIND that single point, you enter a long history of 'high probabilities'. Now certainly we have lots of historical data points, but they all involve an unknown series of 99% probabilities and logical assumptions.... put enough of those together and you approach zero, not 99%.

FTR, I was an athlete, yes... but I walked onto the team before earning a scholarship. I tutored Comp Sci classes. There are certainly plenty of people more intelligent than I, but there are also plenty who aren't.

Either evolution happened or whatever deity you believe in created the evidence of evolution occurring. I'm not exaggerating when I say that every single piece of biological evidence points towards the theory of evolution occurring, and I wish the depressingly large amount of Americans who think that being Christian requires that they don't believe in evolution would realize that's not the case. There are literally two creation stories told in the Bible, I don't know how much more obvious it can be that it's just a parable.

(10-18-2015 01:47 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Either evolution happened or whatever deity you believe in created the evidence of evolution occurring. I'm not exaggerating when I say that every single piece of biological evidence points towards the theory of evolution occurring, and I wish the depressingly large amount of Americans who think that being Christian requires that they don't believe in evolution would realize that's not the case. There are literally two creation stories told in the Bible, I don't know how much more obvious it can be that it's just a parable.

If I selectively breed dogs to make a new breed of dog, is that evolution? I'd tend to say no because it isn't naturally occurring. But I am curious as to other's opinions.

Now. When people selectively breed themselves, is that evolution? It doesn't matter, but I am curious as to other's opinions.

(10-17-2015 07:35 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Bless your heart

You've elected to live your life in willful ignorance, and no amount of evidence will change that.

(10-18-2015 10:15 AM)Pellet Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 07:35 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Bless your heart

You've elected to live your life in willful ignorance, and no amount of evidence will change that.

In ignorance of what? Refusing to deny the existence of a Creator?

Feel free to prove to the rest of the word that there is no God.

Oh that's right, YOU CAN'T.

(10-17-2015 06:32 PM)Pellet Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 10:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  \]
My parents were both 'modern' humans as were there parents as were theirs as were theirs etc etc etc.... but at SOME point, only one was.

Wrong.

Homonid species haven't suddenly appeared in single generations.

Let's use small numbers, since you're at the very least an athlete and most probably an academ.

Suppose you have two generations, and each generation is only .001 (1/100th) different from the previous. So if the first generation is 1, the second generation is 1.001 - pretty close to the original. If you do that 1000 times, the last generation would be a 2 - certainly distiguishable from the first generation 1. But if you ever look at any consecutive generations, they are only a tiny fraction apart. There never in that ingenerationl schism between ancient and modern that you have claimed.

There could well have been a significant change even if it was only .001. We share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Yet the difference is vast.

(10-17-2015 06:38 PM)Pellet Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 10:31 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Correct. It's called the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all people and it's existence isn't really disputed.

Cool story, bro'.

Every organism on earth has a MRCA with every other organism.If it's your cousin, the MRCA is a grandparent. If we're looking at humans and chimpanzees, its about 6-12 million years ago (depending on who you talk to). If it's you and a sea sponge, you may have to go back a couple billion years ago.

But when you go back, you cant say that once you hit that MRCA, that everything on one side is a sea sponge, and everything else is a modern human as was implied in the original post. The MCRA concept is irrelevant to the Adam/Eve mythology hypothesis.

It in fact demonstrates that we all came from a single person. So it is relevant.