# An Invitation to Dr. Fazale Rana **URL:** \ **Category:** Peaceful Science\ **Created:** [June 5, 2018, 7:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332 "2018-06-05T19:59:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2018, 7:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332/1 "2018-06-05T19:59:30Z")

Just posted this on his page, [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/fuzrana/posts/10216287239284425) > **[An Invitation to Dr. Fazale Rana - Peaceful Science](http://peacefulscience.org/invitation-to-rana/)** > > I warmly invite Dr. Fazale Rana of Reasons to Believe to a conversation about his work on the science of Adam. * * * 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?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/heliocentric-certainty-against-a-bottleneck-of-two/61) ---

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2018, 3:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332/7 "2018-06-11T15:53:32Z")

@AJRoberts kindly gave me highly relevant information about the history and diversity of the RTB view of Adam: [Engaging the Zoo of RTB Models](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/engaging-the-rtb-model-zoo/378) > [@Engaging the Zoo of RTB Models](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/engaging-the-zoo-of-rtb-models/378/1): > > It seems _Peaceful Science_ can help them in three ways: > > 1. Make known the full range of positions at RTB, and help adjudicate what is most plausible according to the evidence. This would be a better than relying on purely internal RTB processes. > 2. Do the genetic analysis to test the genetic plausibility of RTB #2 model, and other models that included Neanderthal interbreeding. If some thing could work that would be great. And I just got the data required to do the analysis. > 3. It might be helpful for some if the bestiality aspect of the model wasn’t there. We can help resolve that. We could help them work out a better theological framework, that could remove the bestiality in their model. > > I think this would be the best way to help them going forward. What do you think? ---

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2018, 11:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332/8 "2018-06-17T23:53:36Z")

> [@Should RTB/OEC's Tweak Model in Light of New Data and if so How?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/should-rtb-oecs-tweak-model-in-light-of-new-data-and-if-so-how/413/1): > > One of the things that has been clear to many of us around here is that [the current RTB model for humanity has been falsified](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/rtbs-model-and-smalley/283) by [the work](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/heliocentric-certainty-against-a-bottleneck-of-two/61/16) of our host. @AJRoberts clarifications means this assessment should be changed. > [@Engaging the Zoo of RTB Models](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/engaging-the-zoo-of-rtb-models/378/1): > > ## RTB Model #2 > > Then there was a change, that @otto pointed too, where Rana and Ross came appreciate and accept the evidence for Neanderthal-Sapien interbreeding. This means that RTB #1 is not really their current model, and we need to careful about not misrepresenting them. They changed the model in **Edition 2** of their book, to include Neanderthal-Humans interbreeding as bestiality. > > > 1. Humans = Homo sapiens. > > 2. Neanderthals are more close mentally to Apes, and are beasts without intelligence. > > 3. Homo sapiens must arise _ **less than** _ 100 kya, from a single couple > > 4. Homo sapiens interbreed with Neanderthals, and this is bestiality. > > 5. A lost record of cities and agricultures > > **It is possible that this could be consistent with the evidence** , but we need do some work to test it, by computing the TMR4A time within the Sapien specific lineage. 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… > [@Heliocentric Certainty Against a Bottleneck of Two?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/heliocentric-certainty-against-a-bottleneck-of-two/61/4): > > All the population size estimates (which are geometric averages over a time window) all include **Homo sapiens + others** , as far as I know. As far as I know, no one has found a way to figure out what the ratio is between the two population is; nor has anyone asked the question in a research study. 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. ---

**Author:** ![anon46279830](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@anon46279830](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/anon46279830)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2018, 11:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332/9 "2018-06-17T23:58:11Z")

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? ---

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 12:07am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332/10 "2018-06-18T00:07:17Z")

> [@anon46279830](#): > > 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? 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. ---

**Author:** ![anon46279830](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@anon46279830](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/anon46279830)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 12:11am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332/11 "2018-06-18T00:11:33Z")

Fantastic news. I qualified the statements on the other post. When you write… > [@swamidass](#): > > The existing RTB model is _ **no longer a sole-genetic progenitor model** _ , but it is an Ancient Genealogical Adam model. 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?) ---

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 3:29am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332/12 "2018-06-18T03:29:08Z")

> [@anon46279830](#): > > they admit non-human hominids had some admixture with the descendants of Adam and Eve They say Neanderthals are beasts. ---

**Author:** ![Guy\_Coe](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/guy_coe/32/1972_2.png) [@Guy\_Coe](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Guy_Coe)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 3:30am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332/13 "2018-06-18T03:30:09Z")

A totally unnecessary stance. ---

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 6:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332/20 "2018-06-18T18:20:42Z")

25 posts were split to a new topic: [RTB and the Genealogical Adam](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/rtb-and-the-genealogical-adam/418) ---

**Author:** ![Guy\_Coe](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/guy_coe/32/1972_2.png) [@Guy\_Coe](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Guy_Coe)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 7:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332/21 "2018-06-18T19:15:50Z")

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! ---

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/6/6b7bf72453a5c60b0919b6b89a27dc18bc52382c.png) [@system](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2018, 5:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332/22 "2018-10-03T17:45:51Z")

---

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/6/6b7bf72453a5c60b0919b6b89a27dc18bc52382c.png) [@system](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/system)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 10:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332/23 "2018-11-05T22:22:13Z")

---

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/6/6b7bf72453a5c60b0919b6b89a27dc18bc52382c.png) [@system](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/system)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 2:08am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332/24 "2018-12-07T02:08:49Z")

---

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 2:28am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-invitation-to-dr-fazale-rana/332/25 "2018-12-07T02:28:56Z")