Homo sapiens dropping down to zero?!

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@auntyevology

Please show me where I have spoken of ‘creation’ scientists putting forward anything? I do not use that language. You are speaking about them (whoever they are) now alone, not having a conversation with me, but with your own imagination.

As @cwhenderson pointed out:

@auntyevology

Genealogical ‘science’ confessed by un-tenured young biologists & geneticists is actually not too uncommon in the history of the USA’s ‘creationist’ movement.

There also seems to be an implication that this is NOT methodologically rigorous natural science. It is almost as if she did not look at the references in the paper.

@auntyevology

That’s where the genealogical argument comes from, after all, dressed as methodologically rigorous natural science.

The keystone reference was in Nature 2004. Would not have been possible to make the case without that study.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02842

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@cwhenderson

Although you didn’t specifically state they put anything forward, you are ambiguously crediting the genealogical argument to others in the history of the USA creationist movement. The implication that others had put forth the idea at an earlier time is quite clear. What is not so clear is why your comments are so combative. In the interest of rational conversation, what do you think of ramping that down a little?

@cwhenderson (@swamidass )

@auntyevology shows every indication of being related to the infamous Eddie. He (or she) is not only demonstrably obnoxious, he/she is always trying to humble his correspondents on odd points of forensic firsts.

Surely, no two differently born humans could be so similar …

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@gbrooks9

Surely, no two differently born humans could be so similar …

Having interacted with Eddie for a very long time, I’m not sure if that is who @auntyevology is. There is a different flavor to it. Also, I think I am on Eddie’s good side right now:

After nearly 10 years of reading the writings of American TE/EC leaders, especially those at BioLogos, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is an unwritten code of conduct (probably the product of unconscious consensus rather than conscious collusion) which governs the public behavior of ECs. This code of conduct is rarely breached, at least on BioLogos (though Joshua Swamidass’s challenge to BioLogos regarding Adam and Eve provides a refreshing counterexample, and Darrel Falk’s principled dispute with Robert Bishop over Stephen Meyer’s second book constitutes another), and it could be stated in the form of a rule: “No EC leader shall directly contradict another EC leader in public, or at least, not in any public setting where ID or creationist people might be listening and taking note of the disagreement.” In my experience, this rule holds about 90% of the time.
Paging Dr. Applegate: Please Call Dr. Haarsma | The Hump of the Camel

Eddies MO, also, is to affirm traditional theology, and the last time we interacted on it, he was very confused about the distinction between genetic and genealogical ancestry. I do not think that is what is going on with @auntyevology.

[jongarvey]

George - I know Eddie very well - we have shared a blog for several years, after all. And I would know his style anywhere. Neither Auntie’s style nor her content nor her attitude are anything like his, so let’s drop that one.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@jongarvey

George - I know Eddie very well - we have shared a blog for several years, after all. And I would know his style anywhere. Neither Auntie’s style nor her content nor her attitude are anything like his, so let’s drop that one.

@jongarvey

I found @swamidass’ input on this topic to be adequate and reassuring.

I find it interesting that you have been sharing a blog. I would have expected your many positive personal traits to have rubbed off on Eddie to a greater extent.

[jongarvey]

Some of his positive traits have rubbed off on me, for sure.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@jongarvey

Some of his positive traits have rubbed off on me, for sure.

@jongarvey

Well now it is your turn - - don’t you think there is a way to get him to tone down his constant fire-hose of antagonisim?

[auntyevology]

Should I need to know who Eddie is? Is that the one on the link? If he or she cautions against unitarian universalism, more power to them.

“Well now it is your turn”

Goading participants to tribalise their arguments, as if there are ‘turns’ attacking? This is what @gbrooks9 wants? Why so polarising? Are you hating Roman Catholics while Joshua welcomes their work and insights? Otherwise, what’s up with you, over-reacting guy?

I find @swamidass’ contribution here fairly even-handed and constructive. Why you say I am antagonising him? To means it seems you speak too much without listening to others.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@gbrooks9

Well now it is your turn - - don’t you think there is a way to get him to tone down his constant fire-hose of antagonisim?

@auntyevology

I find @swamidass’ contribution here fairly even-handed and constructive. Why you say I am antagonising him?

Let’s cool down a bit. I think a few people have been reacting to @auntyevology’s approach, which certainly does come off as antagonistic towards me, at least at times. Though, over the last couple days, you (@auntyevology) have made some very helpful and constructive comments.

Let’s dis-lock horns, and see if we can settle into a constructive pattern all around.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@auntyevology

Goading participants to tribalise their arguments, as if there are ‘turns’ attacking? This is what @gbrooks9 wants? Why so polarising?

@auntyevology

Is English your primary language? I was asking @jongarvey to invoke his turn “to influence Eddie” (that sentence had nothing to do with you!)… to be less corrosive in his commentaries.

I only offered that comment after Jon explicitly explained that he didn’t think you, Aunty, were Eddie with a different profile name.

Perhaps if you read people’s words more carefully, you wouldn’t become so provoked?

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@auntyevology

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

@auntyevology,

My good Aunty, I ask you to join us in an alliance to defend the idea that speciation helped produce human kind, with the help of God.

I read your withdrawn post before you were asked to remove it (I assume you were asked).

The conflict you and I seem to be having, is all about how you interpret what people write. For me to have to defend myself for asking Jon to take his turn and help gentle the narrative tone of a person we call Eddie is most ironic.

Because you chose to interpret what I wrote as an invocation that Jon should take a turn at inflicting antagonism upon you. How would a person come to such an interpretation?

I’ll start over again. I ask you to start over again as well.

You don’t have to agree to this here in public. But this is my private plan for the two of us. I hope we can cooperate on that plan.

Thank you for your words of reassurance, @swamidass !

[auntyevology]

@gbrooks9

I was asking @jongarvey to invoke his turn “to influence Eddie” (that sentence had nothing to do with you!)… to be less corrosive in his commentaries.

So you were advising Jon how to comment on another site with someone who is not here? Slick communications idea.

Please stop with your “private plan for the two of us”. That’s just creepy.

“join us in an alliance” - apparently recruiting me against an imagined enemy that I don’t share with local George.

It sure doesn’t take long. Joshua’s got an ‘us’-man on his site speaking for him & his new Forum already. Evidently that’s perceived as not a lot of gall to claim for a Unitarian. Hmm…

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@auntyevology,

What?

Are you capable of writing a pleasant post? But more importantly, are you not a Christian who supports the Evolutionary explanation for speciation and common descent?

If so, we have much in common.

If not, what exactly is your position on human origin?

[auntyevology]

“I assume” - @gbrooks9

No, that’s a bad idea. Please stop doing that. Ask politely & maybe you get an answer. Ask like a scholar on a topic I have knowledge about, and there’s a much higher chance you get one. Ask too personal, awkward or indelicate questions and you likely won’t get an answer. Don’t expect or try to force, compel or require people into answering you. This is the internet, after all.

I’m done here, thanks.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@auntyevology

I’m done here, thanks.

As any scholar might say under these circumstances: “@auntyevology, I wish you success and many citations from your next publication! Best wishes to you always!”