I have all 4 seasons of the BBC Radio series. It’s a treasure!
I see on that thread that some people are insisting that “because it’s not published in a peer-reviewed paper, it’s not true.” In the thread between @T_aquaticus and @Eddie we saw a little bit of this too. Even though such dogmatism on papers is wrong (science doesn’t work that rigidly), I think at least for rhetorical purposes it would be good for you to write up and publish the results of the discussions you had with Gauger, Buggs, and Venema in some journal so that people have to believe you that “even my secular colleagues agree.”
I’m playing a long game here @dga471. There is a cautious plan being worked through. I have to be careful how I do this. I don’t care what troglodytes online think about this. I’m aiming to suss out any errors I made first, and then convince the whole field. Impact is far more important than a peer reviewed paper right now. Peer reviewed papers, also, will come in their own time.
No troubles, @swamidass…
Ill introduce myself as a pro-Evolution Unitarian who understands your work and where it fits in!
Thank you for inviting me, Dr. Swamidass. I originally posted the video of Ann Gauger (Human Uniqueness) to the Answers-to-AIG group because I thought it would interest them. I reasoned that any theistic evolutionist would be thrilled to have the possibility of our original parents being sole progenitors of the human race because it is much easier to reconcile with the Bible. Their response was not very enthusiastic though. I encountered a lot of hostility. So I joined some other groups and Eric Goberman requested from me my position on the Adam & Eve issue. He assumed I was claiming that Ann Gauger and you were teaching a YEC version of a literal 6000 yr old Adam & Eve. This was completely untrue and so I shared the video on that thread and clarified to them that this was in a theistic evolutionary context. I wasn’t trolling. Thus the firestorm. I am a YEC but I am not hostile towards any other Christian groups.
Do you really think that the results of Swamidass discussions with Gauger, Buggs, and Venema is publishable in a real peer reviewed journal? I don’t think so.
I don’t think that’s the case. “Sole progenitor” is the big sticking point, since it requires either a bottleneck of 2, implausible given the data, or separate creation of humans, exceedingly implausible given the data. This is the point of the genealogical Adam scenario, as it would be undetectable from the data.
Well, I thought it was no longer an impossibility. I thought that Ann Gauger determined, along with Richard Buggs and the others that sole progenitorship was no longer ruled out. Of course, Methodological Naturalism does not allow the “Divine Foot” into the door or the dialogue, but why does biblical interpretation have to depend on materialistic science’s statistical probabilities? This is why, in my mind, it’s enough to say it is a possiblity - because there is the element of God who I believe played a very intimate role in creation.
@John_Harshman there are different types of sole-progenitorship, genetic and genealogical. I am making a strong distinction between them. From a theological point of view, it seems that genealogical sole-progenitorship (which allows for interbreeding) is sufficient for historically important doctrine. Yes, I am coining a term here.
Also, it appears that @Celeste_Williams_Cap is also referencing a bottleneck back before 500 kya. Genetic-sole progenitorship world be consistent with the evidence, but certainly not indicated by it. It will be interesting to see which directly people go, but it seems most people see value in the recent genealogical model.
It is a pleasure to have you here @Celeste_Williams_Cap.
I’ve been surprised by the hostility too. We are still sorting out why that is. Part of it is that TE people do not like ID very much. Did you know that? Also, it seems that a lot of TE are pretty invested in a non-historical reading of Genesis. That surprised me. I found out the hard way.
Ironically, I’ve found atheists have been more fair minded about this. Interesting, right?
That thread was pretty rough.
Honestly, I’m glad you found your way here. I hope you stay. I think you have much to add.
I’m very pleased to find you, a YEC, trying to find common ground with other people. We want to find common ground with you. I think you will find yourself at home with us, even the snarky atheists (@Patrick). Can you tell us more about yourself?
This is all potentially true, depending on precisely what you mean. Have you read this closely yet?
There are three different scenarios. Which ones are comfortable with?
What do you think of the genealogical Adam?
(Btw, you are going to like @gbrooks9, I predict)
6 posts were merged into an existing topic: John Harshman: Bottlenecks and Trans-Species Variation
I DID warn you to bring hockey sticks!
That’s a Brockian Ultracricket group. I’d stay out unless you have a good supply of hockey sticks.
If you want a different sort of punishment, go find the group “Evidence for Creation”.
And speaking of Facebook, I might do a little recruiting. I’ll list the groups I frequency in case you have posted about Peaceful Science there already.
I’m a moderator at Intelligent Design: Is It Science,
and we try to keep things civil.
The Science and Christianity group isn’t too bad, relatively speaking.
@Ronald_Cram is the owner.
I know a couple of the others. Recruiting will always work better if done by someone other than me. I’ll get accused is self promotion. It is the surprising diversity here that hooks people, showing them this is bigger than me.
I will be careful to ask permission from the moderators first, so I don’t step on toes.
@Im fairly used to rabidly zealous atheists…
You are finding your voice @gbrooks9. Raising a ruckus on other forums, fighting the good fight. I’m proud of you.