This seems to be the heart of your objection to Venema’s position. But prior to the fairly complex discussion between Drs. @RichardBuggs and @DennisVenema on BioLogos (now a notorious discussion all around the English speaking world of Creationism), my understanding of the context would have been (and even now):
How to get from the diversity of a single mated pair to the Earth’s current state of human diversity in 6,000 years!
Prior to the rather fevered zeal of Dr. Buggs in that discussion, I had never encountered any Creationist who would have thought it important to show that a bottleneck occurring more than 500,000 years ago was at all relevant or useful to the YEC mission.
At the time of the thread (and I certainly made my complaints known on the thread), it seemed like a fishing expedition where Buggs was doing whatever he could to prove Venema was wrong “in some thing, in any thing!”.
And this feeling of mine is further confirmed by the complete lack of follow-through with the 500,000 year finding. It was an opportunistic discovery that there was any way to justify a bottleneck of one mated pair - - with virtually no relevance to the usual way these issues were discussed up to that point (namely, the usual YEC scenario of 6,000 years ago)!
So what exactly are you asking for in this retraction? Do you need Venema to publicly admit that it never crossed his (or anyone else’s mind) that a bottleneck was theoretically feasible if we extended the time frame back beyond, not just 6,000 years … back beyond the the rise of Homo sapiens sapiens… back all the way to before Creationists even believe “Humans” (as we understand them) existed?
I know you and Venema don’t exactly see eye-to-eye on such matters… but maybe Venema would be more forthcoming about the limits of his imagination if Dr. Buggs also confesses that he has no idea how a bottleneck more than 500,000 years ago would be helpful in a more “Biblically consistent” interpretation of the rise of humanity?
Maybe history (and lightning) can strike again in the same place - - if we arrange a “parlay”**[FN #1] between Venema and Buggs in their original canvas-floored arena at BioLogos.Org? (with over 1,050 individual postings!):
[FOOTNOTE #1: Parley … the term spelled as “parlay” on the Pirata Codex was known as a right in the Code of the Pirate Brethren, set down by Morgan and Bartholomew, that allowed any person to invoke temporary protection and brought before the captain to “negotiate” without being attacked until the parley is complete."]
“[PIRATE CODE] EXAMPLES: Nine complete or nearly complete sets of piratical articles have survived, chiefly from Charles Johnson’s “A General History of the Pyrates”, first published in 1724, and from records kept by Admiralty Court proceedings at the trials of pirates.”
“A partial code from Henry Morgan is preserved in Alexandre Exquemelin’s 1678 book “The Buccaneers of America.” Many other pirates are known to have had articles; the late-17th century “Articles of George Cusack and Nicholas Clough have survived intact.” [More ]…pirate articles [would] have survived [except] pirates on the verge of capture or surrender usually burned their articles or threw them overboard to prevent the papers being used against them at trial.”