Venema: Podcast on Adam and Eve and the Human Genome

Conversation
, ,
1

@swamidass is mentioned during this interview. Dr. Venema remembers things differently than you regarding the Buggs/Swamidass/Venema discussions.

https://www.apologeticscanada.com/2018/11/30/adam-and-eve-and-the-human-genome-an-interview-with-dennis-venema/

1 Like
2

What does he say @Patrick? I think @gbrooks9 just listened to it, and might help. What does he say about me?

3

20 posts were split to a new topic: Side Comments on Venema and Adam and Eve

4

I listened to it twice. I don’t think he accurately describes your position which frankly I am not to convinced on also. He is pretty dismissive on the whole Buggs/Swamidass/Venema discussion as just a minor theoretical mathematical discussion on a contrived example that no one thinks actually happened. A sudden population bottleneck to 2 at 500,000 years ago and then exponential growth thereafter.

5

Is it possible to put a quote relevant to this? Or at least time codes for others to go back and get the quotes?

This isn’t good if its true, but we need more than hearsay.

1 Like
6

Go to the 23rd minute of the podcast to hear Venema’s discussion of an alternate scenario that is more likely than the Buggs scenario.

Venema accurately (though incompletely) says that the actual evidence on the ancient human population would allow for an Adam/Eve to become a universal ancestral pair but not the only one.

The only time @swamidass is mentioned comes much earlier (regarding other participants in the debate). Venema doesnt mention “genealogy” or “genealogical Adam”… but by mentioning Adam as NOT the first human couple, Venema is clearly signaling this kind of discussion. He points out that the Historical Adam is necessary for those who hold to ideas of Original Sin

7

The podcast does have a pause button with time codes.

Most of the discussion is spent explaining the dynamics of the Buggs/Venema debate, namely:

  1. looking at how genetic testing would treat a sudden collapse of a specific branch of human ancestry;

  2. down to a bottle neck of one mated pair;

  3. followed immediately by recovery and exponential expansion.

Venema said he was surprised by the actual findings that were triggered by his discussion with Buggs … which would be important enough to include in the book were he to publish today.

But in the end, going back to 500,000 years doesnt seem to help anyone produce a working scenario!

All in all, i think Venema followed a narrow line of discussion which was reasonably and fairly accurate, sticking to what his book discussed and not straying far from that line of narrative.

1 Like