Correcting One Error By Me on BioLogos

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@swamidass

Of course his article never claimed to be ruling out out a recent or not so recent A&E that integrated into an already existing human population. That’s never been the complaint about this article, at least not from me. Though, I will note it is an indefensible omission to leave that possibility out of a review of this topic.

@T_aquaticus this one I was wrong about. He did mention universal ancestry from people alive today (not since AD 1) without any references or explanation. But, at least he mentioned it, and I should have noted this.

I note that I overstated this in the ASA article too. I’m sorry @glipsnort for that mistake. In the end, I hope all my objections are in error. I don’t think that’s the case.

Within the context of the other articles deleted at BioLogos the same day, the claim that the conclusions were unchanged, a brief statement at the end of an article still seems like a fig leaf to me. BioLogos was arguing explicitly and specifically that we all could not descend from Adam and Eve, not against merely a genetic bottleneck of 2.

It is still notable the possibility de novo creation is excluded. That likely has to do with theological objections, and I’d like to see more explicitly why.

@swamidass

I havent spelled out my claims for you to object to with any precision. You have made clear that, before hearing my case, you are not convinced.

And now I have explained more here: Pre-Print: Brief Population Bottlenecks Are Beyond The Genetic Streetlight - #8 by swamidass. @T_aquaticus it seems that you now see what I’m getting at.

At the same time, I should be clear that if BioLogos had published a similar article in 2010 and 2014, it would have been much less objectionable. The exclusion of any meaningful discussion of universal ancestry (which is specifically what Venema was responding too) would have been absurd, but at least the conclusions would be sort of correct.

The issues about SFS in this article seem real, and I don’t think the results should be trusted, but even if I’m right, they do not approach the bad science in Venema’s articles.

This is still going to do damage. BioLogos does have a strict code of silence about discussing errors in Venema’s work, and that likely applies to Steve’s work too. So my guess is that it will take a very long time to correct his work.

Even though it is a better article, within the larger context, being published now, on the same day as stealth deletions and false claims…much better is needed.

BioLogos spoke against several people. They were wrong to do so. That did a lot of damage. Transparency and and apology would be a good start to repairing the damage.