Sure @Dan_Eastwood, but I need to be clear on my position here. If @glipsnort wants to respond, we can reopen.
@glipsnort, I think your article is good in many respects, but it neglects serious arguments against your conclusion. For this reason, I think the article has critical omissions. Neglecting the case against your conclusion is one type of omission. There are others too. But just ignoring arguments against your preferred conclusion is not a valid approach to scientific argumentation.
Great point. Let me give four sources with far more than three arguments:
-
BioLogos still recommends Adam and the Genome without any caveats. In this book, Dennis puts forward several arguments that appear to conflict strongly with your thesis.
-
Dennis backed off those arguments of course, in this article: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2019/11/04/adam-once-more-with-feeling/. So perhaps to address #1 you might add a citation and brief sentence addressing this to your article. However, in his article, Dennnis puts forward a whole new set of arguments that he claims stretch back more ancient than 500 kya.
-
As @John_Harshman keeps chiming in, he is a legitimate scientist who believes his evidence against a bottleneck stretches back 6 million years, at least, if not farther.
-
This article, recently deleted by BioLogos. Claims to have several lines of evidence stretching back 18 million years. What do you make of the evidence there?
I do not think your article makes a scientifically sound case because it does not address these arguments against your conclusion. I’m honestly puzzled by you unwillingness to engage with Dennis and John’s work. They claim to have evidence against your conclusions. I think you need to address them.
Now, William Lane Craig and I have addressed these arguments head on. It is possible you could cite us. But relying tacitly on our work, without citing us is not really fair. If you would like to add a few sentences that appropriately cite us, I can provide the best citations to you.
For all the real strengths of your article, I think this ends up being a significant shortcoming. This is a scientific oversight. A good scientific article would not have this critical omission.
On a different note, but still relevant to this thread, next week I am presenting a response to your paper at the ASA. This paper will make clear another substantial omission, one that is even more significant than the one I describe here. That will be an academic paper. I will look forward to seeing your response to it @glipsnort .