An Invitation to Dr. Fazale Rana


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #1

Just posted this on his page, https://www.facebook.com/fuzrana/posts/10216287239284425


Dr. Fazale Rana,

I would like to warmly invite you into dialogue on 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.

Heliocentric Certainty Against a Bottleneck of Two?


When Will Dr. Rana Respond?
(S. Joshua Swamidass) #7

@AJRoberts kindly gave me highly relevant information about the history and diversity of the RTB view of Adam: Engaging the RTB Model Zoo


Engaging the Zoo of RTB Models
An Invitation to Dr. Fazale Rana
(S. Joshua Swamidass) #8

@AJRoberts clarifications means this assessment should be changed.

I do have the data to do this, but want to work with @AJRoberts and Rana in private first, to get us all on the same page about how these analyses work. It is outside their primary training, so this will take a little time. Rana and I are planning to talk end of summer.

It is possible that their model might be sustainable, because interbreeding with Neanderthals might add diversity to the human lineage. Remember…

Turns out that I have found a study that does this. Obviously, they did not compute TMR4A in the Homo sapiens specific lineage. That would give us the ability to determine if the current RTB model (which includes interbreeding with Neanderthals will be.

From my conversation this last week with @AJRoberts and Rana, they are very interested in getting this straight. It is just a matter of making the time. I expect it will happen. RTB supports might be hopeful to see some validation, or a definitive push away from RTB #2 to some undetermined RTB #3.


Should RTB/OEC's Tweak Model in Light of New Data and if so How?
(Mark M Moore) #9

So you do not think that their model has been falsified yet? As in there is still a crack in the shutting window or there is still a reasonable chance? If the latter, what might be a better way for me to phrase that sentence?


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #10

I cannot predict what the data will show. It is up in the air.

However, it is critical to note:

  1. The existing RTB model is no longer a sole-genetic progenitor model, but it is an Ancient Genealogical Adam model.
  2. There is openness at RTB to bringing Recent Genealogical Adam models into their camp.

I would at this time focus on encouraging them to:

  1. Work with Peaceful Science (as they currently plan to do) in order to test their model.
  2. Bring Genealogical Adam into their tent.

I expect they will be receptive to both moves, especially if they are encouraged to make that shift by OEC’s like yourself. RTB is an important organization, and they are acting honorably. Give them some encouragement and some time.


Should RTB/OEC's Tweak Model in Light of New Data and if so How?
(Mark M Moore) #11

Fantastic news. I qualified the statements on the other post.

When you write…

Do you mean that (A) they admit non-human hominids had some admixture with the descendants of Adam and Eve or (B) that Adam was not the sole original male human being around when he was created? (or “C” something else?)


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #12

They say Neanderthals are beasts.


(Guy Coe) #13

A totally unnecessary stance.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #20

25 posts were split to a new topic: RTB and the Genealogical Adam


(Guy Coe) #21

I’m happy to clarify.
It’s totally unnecessary to insist that hominids like the Neanderthals were brutes, when you read the accounts sequentially. Joshua wants to keep that door open; I find that unnecessary, as well --and he already knows that.
I’m just advocating for what I see, personally, as a clearly superior model for a GA understanding.
I don’t expect easy or undisputed agreement. Others continue to see it differently, and that’s fine by me; we’re all still working to clarify our views.
Cheers!


(system) #22

(system) #23