Swamidass to Dr. Rana: Invitation to Engage on the Bridging Value of Integrating Primate Evolution with De Novo Adam


(George Brooks) #1

Fellow BioLogos readers:

Below is the link to an invitation extended to Dr. Rana by Dr. @Swamidass regarding a discussion of scenarios that engage and merge both Evolution (of humans from primates) and Special Creation (de novo Adam & Eve).

The actual text of the invitation is immediately below. It speaks for itself, so I won’t ruin it any further by commenting upon it.

Dr. Fazale Rana,

I would like to warmly invite you into dialogue into the article you just posted on population genetics. Many of your points are correct, as the case Dennis Venema made against a single couple genetic origin was flawed. However, since then, new work has emerged that simultaneously (1) walks back Venema’s overstatements of the evidence, and (2) shows that your model is not consistent with the DNA. Over the last several months many people have asked me how you are receiving the falsification of your model. I’m honestly curious myself.

Your recently reposted article from early 2017, for obvious reasons, does not address findings that came out at the end of 2017. Though you reposted that article in response to my work on TMR4A, your article’s critique applies to Venema’s work, but not mine. Moreover, there is an unlikely consensus forming around this evidence, including both Richard Buggs and Ann Gauger. At some point, it is my sincere hope that you eventually engage with us.

You regularly speak around the country about your take on the science of Adam, so let’s engage the best science to test your position. Otherwise, you might misdirect the Church. As a matter of integrity, invite you to dialogue with me on the science and genetics of Adam. This can be public or private, in person or in a forum. Let’s get to the bottom of this together.

As you know, I’ve given you this invitation in private, and you have given me no response. Questions continue to rise, and I think its time we talked.

MOD comment: @gbrooks9, I edited this because we do not need 10 different links to Swamidass’ website in one post. Thanks for your understanding. @Jay313


(George Brooks) #2

@Jay313:

Well, it does look “cleaner” … sometimes I care more about “convenience” than “elegant appearance”.

But just to clarify:

one link was to the invitation to discuss …

and the other link was to the article/paper that was to be discussed.

Just because I execute a posting poorly doesn’t always mean my intention was ill-formed.

But, hey, there’s lots of future for the whole issue…


(system) #3

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.