That is what I am doing. One example of this was a set of articles that they just deleted on June 11, that I referenced here: 18 Million Years Ago Means...500,000?.
What is fairly remarkable about this is that RTB specifically explains that their model allows for interbreeding, between humans and neanderthals. Rather than taking this as evidence of a model mismatch, Venema switches to making a crass and incorrect theological objection. This has no place in scientific inquiry. What he should have realized is that his model of Adam and Eve was a total mismatch with theirs.
Notably, @glipsnort makes a similar mistake (without making the crass theological objection). He points to interbreeding with Neanderthals as evidence against “sole-genetic progenitorship.” He misses what the interbreeding really is: unequivocal evidence that “sole-genetic progenitorship” does not require a genetic bottleneck, because RTB calls their model (with interbreeding) “sole-genetic progenitorship”.
So this really does become an error in the analysis. Remember this is mean to be a review of what “science says about Adam and Eve.” But to do this requires a large number of theological assumptions. The way his article is written, this assumptions are hidden from view, and that is what is creating the opportunity for abuse.
This also is very fixable.
I don’t think @glipsnort’s article specifically called out RTB.
What he did, however, was adopt an idiosyncratic definition of “sole-genetic progenitorship” instead of just stating what he mean “no interbreeding.” It would be one thing to publish this article in a scientific journal, but he published on the website of an org that has systematically misrepresented the evidence against RTB.
He certainly had all the information to see the problem with this before I said anything, but it was most likely a good faith oversight. Now that it is in the open, I think the right thing to do is correct it.
No they would not agree with BioLogos on this. They would object (much as do I) as the specific phrasing of that claim.
Remember, also, that they were rightfully unconvinced by BioLogos’s argument against a bottleneck. That turned out to be bad science. What convinced them was not BioLogos, but me, with my work on TMR4A. So they did not articulate agreement with BioLogos; they articulated agreement with me about TMR4A.
@glipsnort 's scientific conclusions, to the extent they are correct, are backstopped by my work on TMR4A. Of course he does cite me, but there is good reason to doubt the SFS data that @glipsnort presents. I do not think his argument from that line of evidence is scientifically valid.
They claim that Adam and Eve can be model with science, and that is what I am criticizing. Their scientific models of Adam and Eve are oriented exclusively towards proving everyone else wrong, and to do this they rely heavily equivocations and material omissions.
That’s the issue here where they have been very specific.