When I brought this to BioLogos attention last year and more recently, they were non-responsive. It appears that now that the text was silently edited in the last day or two to:
Population genetics measures the average population, not a minimum population; it measures the breeding population, not the census population; and current methods cannot speak to times more than 500,000 years ago. The conclusion that is most important for understanding where we come from as a species is unchanged: all the genetic evidence to date says that the average breeding population of our ancestors has been larger than a single couple for at least the last 200,000 years, and there is no plausible model affirming a single, unique pair of progenitors less than 500,000 years ago that also accounts for the data we see in the genes of people alive today.
Of course, these were still not the conclusions of the original series of articles. For example,
all the genetic evidence to date says that the average breeding population of our ancestors has been larger than a single couple for at least the last 200,000 years
was not one of the conclusions of the original article.The conclusions are changed, not unchanged.
I can also say with more certainty now that the other conclusion is plagiarized from my work:
unique pair of progenitors less than 500,000 years ago that also accounts for the data we see in the genes of people alive today
The note attributes this conclusion to an article written in 2014 by Dennis Venema. But this was not the conclusion to which BioLogos arrived in 2014 when this article series was written. Rather it was the conclusion of my work in 2017, which required demonstrating why every argument put forward in 2014 in the original article was incorrect. By attributing my conclusions to Dennis Venema, this appears to be a case of frank plagiarism.
The fix is easy. Retract the article, and the other articles associated with this note. Keep them online in original form with a note explaining what was wrong. The articles obviously and verifiably made conclusion-altering errors.
At this point, also, it looks like they are knowingly plagiarizing conclusions (keeping in mind the note on the original article from January 2020). A transparent apology would be appreciated.