This article engages the “Allelic Multiplicity” argument.
I note that the TMR4A evidence is unaddressed by this paper (TMR4A didn’t exist in 2016), but this paper does demonstrate that Venema’s argument against a bottleneck is false. We already know this though, but Venema has refused to retract this argument.
The fact that this article is even possible is a case study of the harm done by fallacious arguments against YEC, such as those offered by Dennis Venema. We should support YEC papers, such as this, that correct dispatch bad arguments against their position, so we have credibility to point to evidence that YECs have ignored, such as TMR4A. Let YECs win where they are right, and encourage them to engage the actual evidence instead of fallacious arguments.
Of course, many of the conclusion of the paper are incorrect (the evidence does not suggest a bottleneck). However their response to Venema’s argument is in fact correct. They also have not engaged the strong evidence against their position (such as radiodating and TMR4A).
Venema’s Fallacious Argument
The article quotes Venema:
This actually answers a challenge issued by several critics, specifically Francis Collins, who said:
“There is no way you can develop this level of variation between us from one or two ancestors,”
and his Biologos fellow, Dennis Venema, who said:
“You would have to postulate that there’s been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence.”
This is an example of the fallacious “argument of allelic multiplicity” or “allelic numerosity.” It is invalid, depending on an incorrect claim about population genetics. I have explained Venema’s error at the ASA:
The argument from “Allelic Multiplicity.” This was published several times since 2010, online and in print, but never peer-reviewed. “In fact, to generate the number of alleles we see in the present day from a starting point of just two individuals, one would have to postulate mutation rates far in excess of what we observe for any animal.” This is a fallacious argument that does not appear in the scientific literature.
Three Stories on Adam
By presenting this as a valid argument, claiming citations that do not exist, and refusing it to retract it, Venema is making an obviously false statement to those of us that know population genetics, that is trivially easy to falsify. William Lane Craig has written specifically in reference to Venema’s fallacious argument,
In fact, it is a good test of population genetics knowledge to parse out why this is a fallacious argument. This is not subjective or ambiguous. Once you see it, you will have learned something important about the non-intuitive realities of how DNA evolves.
Still No Retraction
It is disappointing that in his recent podcast appearance, Denis Venema did not retract this claim and, instead, reasserted it. He did this after being asked specifically about this claim, as it referenced the WLC quote above. It is disappointing that BioLogos yet to retract this invalid argument from its website, which is demonstrably false with precisely zero references in the literature:
Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics: Responses to Popular Arguments - BioLogos
First we ask how many different alleles there are for a number of genes within the current population. Correcting for the rate at which we know new forms of genes appear (mutation), we can calculate the minimum number of people needed to generate the current amount of diversity. Numerous studies analyzing many different genes all point to a bottleneck. However, these studies are all clear: during the bottleneck, there were several thousand individuals, not two.
It is all the more egregious in his recent comments that he makes no mention of valid genetic evidence that do actually does challenge the YEC position. For this reason, YEC will have no reason to address TMR4A. He is, after all, the leading BioLogos scientist on these matters. This is why Venema’s omissions here are so consequential.
With all this in mind, the YEC article is correct in pointing out Venema’s argument is false. It is a false argument, and that is why it should be retracted and abandoned. It does not appear in the peer-reviewed literature and demonstrates and teaches incorrect information about population genetics.
We should expect many more like it until BioLogos and Venema remove this invented argument from the public discourse by prominently retracting it.
Honesty, Trust, and TMR4A
I’m reminded that honesty is fundamentally important. False arguments are not excusable if they are advanced for the “right” conclusion. They are still false arguments. False arguments in service of correct conclusions do great harm to public understanding. It is important, for this reason, that YECS, ID (@Agauger/@Pnelson) and OECs (@AJRoberts) know that we will never advance a false argument against their position. I would advise them to point to this post every time Venema’s argument is raised against them. We will make more resources to make this clear if needed.
@pevaquark asks an important question:
I would do two things:
-
Agree that Venema’s argument was fallacious and call on him to retract it. This will appropriately build trust, and indicate integrity and honesty in presenting science.
-
Point people to TMR4A, which is very strong evidence against a bottleneck of two before 500 kya. Heliocentric Certainty Against a Bottleneck of Two? @pevaquark, would you like to write a blog post for us summarizing this for a broader audience? You are very well suited to do this, and it would serve many people outside your camp.
Honesty means opposing bad arguments everywhere. Remember, it not enough to be right. You also have to be trusted. Do not expect to be trusted if you are not trustworthy.