Adam, Eve and Population Genetics: A Reply to Dr. Richard Buggs (Part 1)

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

This seems to be mixing issues. Partly my fault. So sorry about that.

@DennisVenema

Lynn has the correct sense of things. I too am not really interested in grammatical hair-splitting! Nor do I see a need to revise the book. “Descending from just two people” is talking about populations and genetics, not genealogy. Yes I was aware of the genealogy issue - that is why “only” is in there. In other places, I’m careful to say we don’t descend “uniquely” from just two people, etc

Adam and Genome’s final theological point is against a genealogical Adam. Its sounds like you will continue to leave no mention of the fact that genealogical universal ancestors are common and recent. That leaves key information out. I’m not sure that is upfront given what we all know now.

Also genealogical science is part of population genetics. Moreover the the theological section focuses on genealogical ancestry, not genetic ancestry. Intentionally excluding established and relevant science is not going to serve readers. It’s certainly not upfront.

@DennisVenema

@Swamidass has done a lot of nice work on this idea, and it’s a valuable contribution to the conversation. He is also motivated to bring unity to the church wherever possible, and for that he has my respect.

Thanks for the kind words. I hope you at least make mention of it. Yes, Scott McKnight (and you) do not think its important or taught in Scripture. I respect that, and being convinced this way I see why its not important to you. However, its only plausible to take that position for theological reasons, not scientific.

@Lynn_Munter

If McKnight did and disagrees with your genealogical Adam on the grounds of it, I will be extremely surprised:

I was surprised when he disagreed with it on scientific grounds too. He is seems to think it is pseudoscience. No surprise, on the other hand, because there is no mention of it in Adam in the Genome. How could he know unless scientists are upfront with him?

However, it is a side issue to this thread. Sorry about raising it here.

---

Much more importantly, however, is how you plan to rework the sections involving the claims that @RichardBuggs have raised. Clarifying how you plan to revise those sections would be interesting. It seems worth revising both to fix some of the errors, and also for clarity. Any thoughts on that yet?