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

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Swamidass

This also distinguishes her effort here from the dishonestly inherent to one-sided polemics.

gbrooks9 wrote:
So, if a “first pair” actually works brilliantly… if you place the pair at 400 kya … would you then begin work to convince Young Earth Creationists that their Adam & Eve don’t fit in the first 6000 years or even the first 10,000 years … and that they would have to reconcile their view of Genesis to a 400 kya time frame?

swamidass responds:
You are missing the point @gbrooks9. She is not a YEC. She is an OEC, and she will probably be on your side in moving YECs into a different timeline.

@Swamidass,

Didn’t you read any of this thread? Or this post in particular?:

New book explaining why EC is wrong

Thank you for the heads-up, @Bill_II ! Here are the Editors, including our recent visitor, Ann Gauger. Bill, in your opinion, which criciticm of the book draws the most blood… or comes closest to breaking the skin? [image]

The thread deals with this book:
“Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique Edited by J.P. Moreland”

Despite her extensive involvement with this book, as far as I have been able to determine, Dr. Gauger, (@agauger) , at no time, attempted to rectify the Young Earth position by explaining that humanity is much, much, much older than 6,000 or even 10,000 years.

So, what exactly convinces you that Dr. Gauger is not a YEC?

The concerns I raise are essentially the very same concerns raised by @Jonathan_Burke:

@Jonathan_Burke

jonathan_burke writes:
The fact that she refuses to accept evolution, keeps on arguing against evolution, and makes arguments which are palpably in contradiction to the evidence (“Is There Enough Time For Humans to have Evolved from Apes? Dr. Ann Gauger Answers”, “Is Evolution True? Laying Out the Logic”, “Is Evolution True? Laying Out the Logic, Part 2”), indicates that her willingness to adjust her beliefs on evidence is not as robust as you are trying to depict it.

Swamidass writes:
“That engagement with scientific data is exactly what we should admire.”

jonathan_burke counters:
Again, this is a highly selective description of her “engagement with scientific data”. The way she engages scientific data is not a method we should admire.