I’ve done several articles recently more or less motivated by the Genealogical Adam hypothesis, and Joshua Swamidass has asked me to put links to them, and to his own article at Peaceful Science, which is mainly about the science of the thing. I will do this below the fold, as well as linking to various others I did between 2011 and 2015, considering “matters arising” from treating the idea of a historical Adam as the forbear of all living men, though not the sole original ancestor.
I hope you’ll forgive the fact that these pieces arise from thoughts as they have occurred to me, rather than being a systematic development of Genealogical Adam, which must await some further, more comprehensive, work.
This piece looks at the physical evidence for the plausibility of a garden of Eden in the Ancient Near East at a specific time and site: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/05/11/testable-hypotheses-about-a-historical-eden/. This more recent one continues the historical and geographical theme on the coastline and river-courses in ancient times: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/08/21/more-on-the-scientific-dating-of-adam/
This discusses the physical nature of a garden of Eden in such a context, and the relationship with the goodness of creation: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/05/22/what-a-historic-eden-means-for-understanding-goodness-in-creation/
This notes the surprising absence of the mention of pagan deities in Genesis, and speculates on possible reasons: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/05/25/where-are-all-the-pagans-in-genesis/
This one considers the role of the genealogies in the Bible once one escapes from the genetic mindset, yet still considers Adam as a real person: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/07/07/genealogies-and-adam/
This one explores the centrality of the doctrine of original sin to historical Christianity, and how it may be understood (and still be orthodox) under Genealogical Adam: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/08/09/original-sin-and-the-genealogical-mrca-view-of-adam/
The Bible contains no definition of “man”. This explores a likely understanding of it in Genesis in the light of anthropological considerations, and its development into the New Testament: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/08/11/what-is-man-no-really/. Continuing that theme, this piece considers just how woefully inadequate it is to understand “man” in a purely biological sense: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/08/14/what-it-means-to-be-created-human/
And this article looks at the hints in the Bible that the writer of Genesis always assumed that other people were in the world at the time of Adam: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/08/18/humanity-beyond-adams-line-in-genesis/
The older articles cover an even more disparate set of subjects, but all of them having in mind at least the possibility of the “Genealogial Adam” hypothesis being correct. Here is another on original sin: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2015/11/30/tentative-thoughts-on-original-sin/
These three critique other models for a historical Adam: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2013/10/31/models-for-a-historic-adam-2/
This one responds to a challenge from Ted Davis of BioLogos about maintaining belief in a historical Adam in the light of modern science: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2013/01/19/ted-daviss-challenge-to-evangelical-thinkers/
Here I examine the nature of the imago dei with special reference to genealogical Adam: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2012/06/01/imago-dei/
To many, the idea of Adam’s line intermarrying with “non-Adamic man” smacks of bestiality (when it doesn’t suggest racism). This debunks that view: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2011/11/28/adam-and-the-yuk-factor/
David N Livingstone wrote a useful book on the history (much of it unfortunate) of the idea of “non-Adamic man”. Here are some thoughts gleaned from it: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2013/02/11/gleanings-from-adams-ancestors/
This is a different treatment of the nature of man concentrating on his unique creation by God (whether or not one supports an evolutionary biological origin for him): http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2013/03/28/what-is-man/
And finally, this one is an early attempt to show just how misleading it is to consider “Y-Adam” and “Mitochondrial Eve” as in any way relevant to the question of the biblical Adam and Eve: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2011/11/04/y-abdullah-and-mitochondrial-yvonne/
I hope this provides a useful primer in some of the ways in which “Genealogical Adam” might play out.