You have to be much more precise in your language. That is not what I am saying.
The claim is not about the the origins of Homo sapiens, but whether they go below 10,000 in the last 300 kya. Everyone who thinks that Homo sapiens arise later than 300 kya will say that they dip below 10,000. That is just an obvious statement.
Whether they arise as a population or not depends on how we define them. Whether or not this has anything to do with Adam and Eve (which think not) depends on how we define the “adams” of scripture.
No. That is not it.
For example, Dennis has argued that “humans” = Homo sapiens, and they arise about 200 kya ago. That means they do not exist at 250 kya. That means their population count at 250 kya is ZERO, which is less than 10,000. So the population count of humans is then less than 10,000.
This is just one scenario where they dip down to zero as we look back in time.
Its about if we are using reverse or forward time. It’s common in population genetics to talk reverse time, which means we start in present with a high population and it “dips” as we go back in the past. Another direction insensitive way of making the same claim is that “humans never have less than 10,000 members”. That is just false.
It’s not a semantic game. It’s just taking a claim seriously and seeing if it is supported in the evidence or not. It’s worth asking, also, why @DennisVenema is no longer defending that claim. The reason, it seems, is that it is not defensible.
It matters if there is a sharp theological or cultural transition at some point. Remember we are talking about Adam and Eve too, so at the core the theological question is whether or not Adam and Eve existed and if their is a sharp theological transition that comes about because of them. Ultimately, we are going to be dependent on our understanding of Scripture and theology to definitively answer these questions. Science does rule out some possibilities (it seems) but it certainly does not answer them.
That is true! In context with Dennis, we clarified his meaning, but perhaps others take a different meaning.
Using your definition, we just do not know from science. The question is underspecified because there are so many ways to understand “human”, and we both agree that our ancestors include at some point ancestors that are not “human.” At any generation, or the first generation, was there just a single couple of “human”? There is no way to know from science. It is certainly not settled, as there is raging debates about what “human” is in anthropology, and they are not considering things like “The Image of God” and “souls” and a historical Adam etc. From a purely biological point of view we cannot answer the question. Neither can we come to consensus when taking theology into account.