Comments on What Genetic Science Says About Adam and Eve

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@John_Harshman

@swamidass

Winning the argument here with @John_Harshman

There is no argument. You are trying to create one.

I just mean scientifically. If you are unwilling to explain the evidence here, perhaps I will.

@John_Harshman

@swamidass

WLC makes clear that he is thinks there is a larger population of reproductively compatible individuals that may have interbred with Adam and Eve’s lineage.

Then there was no bottleneck of two.

Agreed. WLC does not require a bottleck of two. He is not working from within @glipsnort 's paradigm.

I am always careful to clarify that the transspecies data might rule out a bottleneck of two, putting a minimum bottleneck of limit of 10 to 20 at worst. That’s why @glipsnort 's claims are far stronger than any I have made.

@glipsnort is making a far stronger claim than am I, and he is certainly qualified to do so. I want to see him justify this claim.

@John_Harshman

@swamidass

I presented evidence (which WLC explains in his new book) which substantially weakens the argument based on this line of reasoning. But I cannot fully dispatch it.

I don’t even think you have weakened the case, which depends not at all on Ayala’s focus, on strictly human alleles, and I think you have misunderstood the paper on convergence.

Sure. You do not agree with my case. But I’ve already addressed that a different way. This is a more acute problem for @glipsnort 's claims about a bottleneck of 2.

@John_Harshman

@swamidass

In my view this a valid line of evidence that must be addressed by @glipsnort.

I fail to understand. @glipsnort is not proposing a bottleneck of two. So why should he have to confront evidence against something he doesn’t claim? Nor is phylogenetic inference the concern of population geneticists, and the evidence from population genetics was the subject of that article. I remain mystified by your belligerence on my behalf.

No belligerence.

I understand him to be claiming to summarizing all the genetic evidence pertinent to a single couple bottleneck. He presents several lines of evidence, but leaves out the lines of evidence that several scientists claim rules out single couple bottleneck. That is a substantial omission.

Perhaps he has worded his claims so as to not claim that “there is no evidence against a bottleneck of 2 before 500,000.” That loophole would not be sufficient. No discussion of the genetic evidence pertaining to a single couple bottleneck is complete without addressing trans-species variation. He has not addressed this evidence.

You yourself point this out. You were not belligerent. You were just point out a key omission. I agree with your point and am making sure it is not lost. That’s it.