Comments on What Genetic Science Says About Adam and Eve

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@John_Harshman

@swamidass

Agreed. WLC does not require a bottleck of two. He is not working from within @glipsnort 's paradigm.

That isn’t @glipsnort’s paradigm. I truly do not know what’s going on here.

That is very true. WLC is not insisting there must be a bottleneck of 2, nor am I.

@John_Harshman

@swamidass

That’s why @glipsnort 's claims are far stronger than any I have made.

Perhaps you could quote the claim in question from the article, because I’m not sure what claim you mean.

He is claiming to present the critical genetic evidence pertinent to a bottleneck of two. His take away from this evidence is that we can rule out a bottleneck more recent than 500,000 years ago, but more ancient than this the evidence is equivocal.

@John_Harshman

@swamidass

You do not agree with my case. But I’ve already addressed that a different way.

???

We addressed it like so:

@swamidass

WLC and I have dealt with this in a particular way.

1. I presented evidence (which WLC explains in his new book) which substantially weakens the argument based on this line of reasoning. But I cannot fully dispatch it.
2. WLC makes clear that he is thinks there is a larger population of reproductively compatible individuals that may have interbred with Adam and Eve’s lineage.

You correctly point out that, then, WLC does not require a bottleneck of 2. That is exactly right. That is why this evidence is not relevant to his position.

@John_Harshman

@swamidass

I understand him to be claiming to summarizing all the genetic evidence pertinent to a single couple bottleneck.

I don’t think he makes any such claim. He’s summarizing all the population genetic evidence, as is appropriate for a population geneticist. Are you familiar with the cliche “Let’s you and him fight”?

If that is the case, he is more than welcome to explain. I am sure there are brief ways to deal with this. I’ve had to deal with extremely aggressive critics from all sides. In fact, you have pushed back harder on me. This is just collegial pushback. I’m sure he can handle it.

@John_Harshman

@swamidass

You were just point out a key omission.

I wasn’t. I was in fact responding to you, asking for information.

See here:

@John_Harshman

Presumably, one of those arguments is cross-species polymorphism. Yes?

I responded “no” because that was not one of Venema’s arguments. It is an argument you have taught me a great deal about. That is why I named you going forward.

You certainly are not pressing him half as hard as you have pressed me. I am certainly not pressing him nearly as hard as you have pressed me.