# What Genetic Science Says About Adam and Eve (Omission #1)

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/what-genetic-science-says-about-adam-and-eve-omission-1/14019>\
**Category:** Office Hours\
**Tags:** Adam, Science\
**Created:** [July 22, 2021, 8:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/what-genetic-science-says-about-adam-and-eve-omission-1/14019 "2021-07-22T20:05:21Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [July 23, 2021, 12:50am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/what-genetic-science-says-about-adam-and-eve-omission-1/14019/3 "2021-07-23T00:50:03Z")

</div>

The discussion in a [comment thread](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/responding-to-pop-gen-article-at-biologos/14017) has been phenomenal. One key line of evidence against @glipsnort’s conclusions is worth clarifying.

> [@Comments on What Genetic Science Says About Adam and Eve](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-what-genetic-science-says-about-adam-and-eve/14017/5):
>
> As @John_Harshman keeps chiming in, he is a legitimate scientist who believes his evidence against a bottleneck stretches back 6 million years, at least, if not farther.

What @John_Harshman is propounding is the evidence of trans-species variation. This is a legitimate line of evidence that most scientists think rules out a bottleneck of 2 _ **anytime** _ between 6 million years ago and present day. This comes from a paper in in the 1990s by Ayala, and it is the most common evidence cited by scientists against a bottleneck of 2 individuals.

In my view this a valid line of evidence that must be addressed by @glipsnort. He, also, has to come to a far stronger conclusion than mine on this matter, so I do not know if his conclusion will stand.

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.

In my presentations of this work, I am sure to point out both these points. The first is point is important, but the second point renders this line of evidence moot. WLC is not working within BioLogos’s genetic-sole progenitor model of human origins.

In @glipsnort’s case, he should certainly rely heavily on and cite the evidence I offered in #1. However, the escape hatch of #2 is not available to him. He has been excruciatingly clear that by “sole-genetic progenitor” he means to exclude any interbreeding between Adam and Eve’s lineage at all. So when he concludes that the evidence does not rule out a bottleneck couple more ancient than 500,000 years ago, he is making a far stronger conclusion that WLC or I.

Maybe he is right. Demonstrating his case here with @John_Harshman would add significantly to the discussion. @glipsnort is also well equipped and situated to do the requisite genetic analysis to put this argument fully to rest. So I very much look forward to his response hearing his take on trans species variation.

Of course, even if @glipsnort does not make his case, WLC and I have #2 as an escape hatch. We are not working within the confines of @glipsnort’s genetic bottleneck paradigm. Either way, our claims are safe.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/what-genetic-science-says-about-adam-and-eve-omission-1/14019)._