I Was Wrong on “Monophyletic”
I was wrong. I incorrectly used the terms “monophyletic” and “polyphyletic” in my book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve. I am correcting the record here.
I was wrong. I incorrectly used the terms “monophyletic” and “polyphyletic” in my book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve. I am correcting the record here.
Responding to my book, Garvey argues that allowing for people outside the garden is helpful to theology, recovering the original understanding of Genesis.
When it comes to human ancestry and origins, images can help communicate what words cannot, and invite a broader audience to join the conversation.
As for me, I aim to quickly correct my own mistakes as publicly as I make them. This is one of the demands of science, and what I expect of others.
The dialogue between PS and RTB is live streamed on January 18th, as we consider The Genealogical Adam and Eve alongside their model of human origins.
The question of Tasmania pulls us deeper into science, wondering together about what we know and the limits of our knowledge. Let the conversation grow.
The Genealogical Adam and Eve. A conversation begins on human origins, but it is also an old conversation, one that brings us to an ancient question.
Nathan Lents, a secular biologist, published in USA Today his reasons for endorsing The Genealogical Adam and Eve. This created a small social media storm.