This “review” so thoroughly obfuscated what I actually stated in the book, I decided to make it more clear with my first question post for the main blog:
Several things make this “review” misleading:
-
@Jay313 himself, in the article, acknowledges that his point is exaggerated: “the title of this article is an exaggeration. Genealogical Adam and Eve aren’t dead;”. In the discussion he also misquotes and quote mines the book and my posts at BL (where I’m no longer allowed to post).
-
@Jay313 makes no mention of the actual conclusions of the chapter (p. 78). I state that the isolation of Tasmania may be real, so the total universal ancestry of AE at 6,000 years ago is legitimately disputed. He seems to be very contentiously agreeing with my point.
-
@Jay313 makes no mention of nearly universal ancestry, which in fact is the mentioned at the beginning and end of the chapter (pp. 66 and 78), as reason for why this debate is ancillary to the theological conversation.
-
@Jay313 quoted 5 scientists, but none of these scientists appear to have read the book. Instead, they seem to be commenting on @Jay313 description, which we have reason to suspect. I’ve reached out to these scientists for whom I can find contact information. I’m happy to correct any errors that scientists find as they read the book for themselves. Please report errors here: The Genealogical Adam and Eve, Erratum
It does not seem like much more of a response is needed to this article at this time.