What is Reddit's opinion of Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

No group of people has a single "origin," and people move and breed and mingle so much that trying to pinpoint one is a fool's errand, especially as you go further back in history. It's maybe easier to think about the culture that way, but even that is a slow-growing amalgamation of different groups that weren't in contact and then were, or maybe were, then weren't, and were again, etc. And that will still be different for every individual.

Just before I started grad school, I read this book because like many people I'm fascinated by origin stories, but it lead to the correct if unsatisfying conclusion that there is no single origin for people, and that humans have been in contact with each other for greater distances for far longer than one would imagine, and so a single origin doesn't exist. It's pretty old by now, but still an interesting read.

Thanks for the collegial and thoughtful response. Would that all conversations on the internet go so well. (But now I'm hoping for a miracle as impressive as de novo creation...!)

I'll answer substantive questions, perhaps, in another post, but about the references.

The key publications are various, and here are just a subset:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15457259/
https://asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF3-18Swamidass.pdf

A word about the last paper published in PSCF. It was reviewed by six scholars, three of them were population geneticists, and all were hostile to the idea of a real Adam and Eve. So that was by no means a flimsy peer review. All peer reviewers entirely endorsed the scientific claims I made.

There are many many more scientific papers. These books are important too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_We_Are_and_How_We_Got_Here

https://www.amazon.com/Mapping-Human-History-Common-Origins/dp/0618352104

It's also notable that my book was peer reviewed, and every scientist (there were several) that read it signed off. Some of their endorsements qualify as peer reviews. Let me direct you to the peer reviews and CVs of Alan Templeton, Nathan Lents, and Phillip Payne,

https://www.ivpress.com/the-genealogical-adam-and-eve

The discussion about my book in academic literature has been substantial at this point too. Next week, you'll see Ken Miller's sanguine review published here (check back in about 8 days, or I can send you a copy a head of time if you like): https://peacefulscience.org/prints

I recommend this exchange at an academic venue too (linking to the final rejoinder by me):

https://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2020/08/the-genealogical-adam-and-eve-a-rejoinder/

You'll see that, ironically, there is some commonality in your objections and those from Paul Nelson (ID) and Marcus Ross (YEC). I address them head on there. To be clear, also, this is an online academic journal being linked here.