This “Big Tent/Genealogical Adam” thread was inspired, of course, by the now infamous exchange between Drs. @DennisVenema and @RichardBuggs .
About half way through this thread, @Chris_Falter makes a good comment to @Swamidass, and Venema comments in turn:
The first link is Chris Falter writing to you, @swamidass:
Venema’s response:
@Swamidass then reacts to Venema’s reaction, and as far as I can tell, Swamidass was never answered:
.
.
.
A key quote is: “. . . 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.”
Joshua then concludes with: “I was surprised when he [McKnight] disagreed with [“Geneal.Adam”] on scientific grounds… He 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?”
“…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?”
As I said, there doesn’t appear to have ever been an answer to these questions…
.
.
.
However, In the recent thread on Venema’s podcast interview …
… Venema seems to be endorse the general concept of Genealogical Adam. Am I wrong about that? Did anyone get a different “feel” on this last part of the interview?
At some point it would be good to see the two professors come to some “meeting of the minds”.