Adam & Eve and Evolution Reconciled? I thought it was interesting. The basic premise = apparently you can have the usual scientific paradigms regarding a very old earth, evolution (or at least gradualism) and also Genesis 2 with the creation of Adam & Eve. The first does not displace the second, instead the second occurs at some point while the first is going on. Actually, I had heard this idea before in some other sources, but this is the first time it has been put forth by a qualified scientist, peer reviewed, and verified--as a possibility not as a fact. I.e., it is plausible and cannot be disproved, but it also need not be accepted. Anyhow, this is an article from USA Today: https://news.yahoo.com/upcoming-book-leaves-scientific-possibility-110020688.html And a long quote from the article to let you know what is going on: "Swamidass is not peddling pseudoscience. Indeed, earlier this year, he and I teamed up on the pages of Science to rebut claims by evolution critics. In addition, "The Genealogical Adam and Eve" went through a rigorous process of open peer review, involving scholars from many diverse disciplines and even some secular scientists, including myself and Alan Templeton, a giant in the field of human population genetics. Invited to find fault in his analysis, we couldn’t, partly because the hypothesis is so narrow, but also because it appears to be correct. Surprising though it seems, it is scientifically tenable that, among our billions of other ancestors, we could all be descendant from a single human couple who lived in the past 10,000 years. In fact, as Swamidass carefully explains, this is almost certainly the case according to current estimates of the so-called identical ancestors point, a time in the past when all family trees converge into one common pool of universal ancestors. There are two clear reasons why this astonishing hypothesis is compatible with science. First, Swamidass acknowledges the undeniable scientific truth that the human population evolved from ancestor ape species and shares common descent with all living things. He is a defender of, not a dissenter from, modern evolutionary theory. Second, according to Swamidass, Adam and Eve could have been a special creation whose progeny slowly interbred with the human population that already existed outside the Garden of Eden — people who had descended through the normal evolutionary process. Some scholars have claimed that the Bible itself hints at the existence of these people when it speaks of the “Nephilim.” As interbreeding between the Nephilim and the offspring of Adam and Even continued, the “seed of Adam” could easily spread to all of humanity over thousands of years, and this universal ancestry would leave no genetic footprints. Therefore, as long as one reads the book of Genesis in a way that allows that the evolutionary tree of life existed alongside the Garden of Eden, and that humans derive their ancestry from both sources, modern science might actually be silent on the issue of Adam and Eve. The effect of this new realization is that Christians, Jews and Muslims can effectively move the Adam and Eve story from the column of miracles that science has soundly disproved — such as a recent global flood — to the column of miracles that science cannot disprove, like the virgin birth of Jesus." Another article with a lot more book reviews: https://www.ivpress.com/the-genealogical-adam-and-eve Quoting from one of the very numerous positive reviews from believers, non-believers, scientists and theologians: "This is one of those rare books that changes the conversation. With equal parts candor, humility, passion, and precision, Swamidass engages an incredibly controversial topic at the junction of biology and theology: the origin of human beings. Through the effective use of two key distinctions—the difference between genealogical and genetic ancestry, and the multiple meanings of 'human' across divergent areas of inquiry—he reorients and expands the space of possibilities while maintaining faithfulness and rigor with respect to traditional exegesis and contemporary scientific knowledge. The book's primary virtue is not that it offers the strongest version of a particular position or provides answers to every question. Instead, its strength lies in how Swamidass demonstrates that there is more to talk about in conceptualizing what counts as a position or an answer in the first place, and that the tenor of those conversations should be peaceful rather than fractious. A definitive achievement. Tolle lege." Cordially, S&S PS--I think the 10K yr timeline posited is too short and unnecessarily restrictive.