Does Genetics Support Adam & Eve? - µReaction

A confused YouTuber who missed the point. I wonder if @dsterncardinale @GutsickGibbon or any of the other YouTubers know him.

1 Like

In so much as it is a criticism of Fox News and their coverage, I don’t think he misses the point at all. He certainly misses the point of your work, but I don’t get the feeling that was his actual subject.


It was a pure ad hominem. The problem is that it was about my work, and he did really miss the point. Unfortunate.

Again, there is a distinction between something being about a topic and being about the coverage of a topic. The video was clearly the latter. And frankly, the article is… not particularly good.

If you’re bothered by the presentation, or lack of presentation, of your actual work, leave him a message and say so.

1 Like

Hadn’t heard of him until now. Doesn’t sound like he’s familiar with the gist of GAE.

My understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that you accept genetic evidence for common ancestry and such, and say ‘okay, could Adam and Eve fit into this?’ And the answer is ‘Yes, we could all have A&E as ancestors and share common ancestry with other apes if XYZ’. The answer is not ‘this is 100% definitely the best conclusion to draw from available evidence’, but more like ‘this is consistent with a) the genetic evidence for common ancestry and b) A&E being specially created and being the ancestors to all living H. sapiens’.

Is that a fair two-sentence summary?

I don’t think that Forrest really got that that was the point, since he’s going off a Fox News article, not anything written by you. And of course Fox News spins it in the way most likely to appeal to their audience, without really caring about the nuances of GAE.


I reached out to him last night and he responded. Hopefully the private conversation will go well.


True. In this case though it crosses the line with some toxic ad hominems on me.

It’s fair, but I don’t know if it’s salient to this particular situation. I also might say some of that differently.

Yeah that’s the issue.

It’s fine for what it is. It’s his business how he wants to engage Fox, but I think politicizing science backfires. I’ll work with any one in the media, despite our differences in politics, so that good science can be part of their conversation too.

I think he crosses a line with the ad hominems on me. That’s not part and parcel of criticizing the coverage.

1 Like

Full transcript of everything said about you and not the coverage:

It turns out this whole argument is coming from this guy, Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass in his new book The Genealogical Adam and Eve. And when you look for that on you’ll see that it’s listed in the ‘Bible Study and Reference’ section. So I’m not saying that this guy isn’t a scientist, I’m saying that this isn’t a scientific work.

What do you consider a toxic ad hominem?

1 Like

I see validity in everyone’s take on this. However, having watched plenty of his TikTok videos, I feel confident that he basically pulled a genetic fallacy. He’s had so much experience talking about your typical YEC stuff that he just saw it was on Fox News and didn’t actually bother to look into it enough to see where it deviates from what he’s used to. He’s thrown out the baby with the bath water, but I don’t particularly blame him for that—it is a lake-sized bathtub.

Hopefully your private discussion bears some fruit.


That is not everything that was said or shown. I think I’ve earned a more professional response from him. Perhaps you disagree, and that’s okay.

Regardless, I think @SlightlyOddGuy is right, and he has been better in private. Hopefully we can build a bridge.


@swamidass, this deserves a response. It would help if you specify just what the ad hominem was.


THIS is how we make progress towards a better discussion. Carry on!


This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.