Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Young and old earth Creationism » New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model

New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model

Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.
Analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of humans generated 3 patterns of genetic trees that can represent the wives of Shem, Ham and Japheth, the story of Genesis and the offspring of human beings from these three mothers.
Other studies of Nature and Science showed that the human species has undergone an explosion of variation of the human genome due to genetic entropy (deleterious mutations) between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago.

Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans
the genealogies of all living humans overlap in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular, the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors.
Its evident proponents of evolution and old earth would not remain silent.... :
"It turns out this graph contains the biggest problem in the whole paper. It compares two completely different sets of data. Dr Jeanson has calculated the number of mutations that should have happened since the flood. Which he's then comparing to the diversity in human mtDNA. Specifically, if you look at his original source, nucleotide diversity. The problem is that nucleotide diversity isn't a raw measurement of number of mutations.

Rather, nuclear diversity represents the number of differences between any two individuals. So if you were to compare the mtDNA of me and Bob, there would be 123 differences between us. And if you compared Bob and Sally, there would be 123 differences between them. The key issue is that they could be different differences. There might be a separate set of 123 differences between Bob and Sally than there are between Bob and me. This would produce up to 246 mutations separating all of us. So Dr Jeanson calculates 123 mutations and claims a victory because it matches the nucletide diversity. Yet the real number of mutations could be up to 256. And that's just comparing two people. When you compared the whole population this figure gets even bigger. In fact, the paper Dr Jeanson got is 123 figure from actually contains within it the number of mutations (of a certain type) they identified in the mtDNA they studied. It's over 7,000. Yet under the creationist model, only 123 mutations have happened since the flood.

A study that analyzed the mtDNA suggests that the story of Noah real

We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000-10,000 years.
Another study in Nature found that after the flood of the period there was a common ancestor to all mankind. The study argues that racial differences people have a recent origin: between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago. 2

A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region 1


Last edited by Admin on Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:19 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile



Dr. Jeanson’s reply to this article:

i) The main claim is that my mutation rate is 35x faster than the published one. In fact, if you look at the article the author cites, the “published” rate (Soares et al) is one derived first assuming evolution and millions of years, and then fitting facts to these conclusions. For example, Soares et al first assume an ancient timescale (the very fact that my research contradicts), and then fit DNA differences to this timescale. Not only is this circular reasoning (i.e., assuming evolution to prove evolution), it’s also indirect science. It’s analogous to trying to measure the rate of erosion in the Grand Canyon…by measuring the depth of the Canyon, assigning millions-of-years dates to each layer, and then calculating the rate of erosion…rather than actually physically measuring it. So the main claim of the blog you cited is not a logically sound or scientifically compelling argument against my published work.
ii) “By adding null results from small studies like this he could effectively fine tune his mutation rate.” Here, the blog author accuses me of dishonesty. In fact, my goal in citing these additional studies were for the purpose of complete transparency and rigor. I cited all possible studies I could find. If the author of the blog really wanted to accuse me of cherry-picking, the author should have cited many studies I missed (which the author doesn’t do).
iii) The author tries to explain away my published mutation rate by invoking three possible scenarios under which my actual mutation rate would drop.
The first scenario envisions a movement from heteroplasmy to homoplasmy; the author thinks this is not a mutation. For the sake of argument, let’s grant the author this conclusion. But now let’s take it to it’s logical conclusion. Ask: Where did the heteroplasmic mutations come from? The only possible answer is mutation. Therefore, perhaps we should look at changes in heteroplasmic mutations, rather than changes in homoplasmic. If you look at the same table from the Ding study, you will find that the rate of heteroplasmic changes is 4x higher than the homoplasmic ones–which makes the problems for evolution even worse. So this argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. (In fact, sticking to homoplasmic mutations is the most scientifically conservative approach to this question, for reasons that get into significant technical depth.)
The second scenario and third scenarios invoke a similar principle–that I scored somatic mutations rather than germline ones. In theory, this could be a valid objection. But, again, let’s take it to it’s logical conclusion. For example, the author of the blog took for granted that number of mitochondrial DNA differences among the different people groups. But how many of these have been validated as germline changes and not somatic ones? For example, the author has no problem with my citation of 123 differences being the max difference between two humans–but how does the blog author know that these differences are germline ones? Furthermore, the evolutionary mitochondrial Eve and out-of-Africa model is founded on the assumption that mitochondrial differences among ethnic groups are germline. Should this be questioned now as well? If the author of the blog is not careful, he will soon undermine the entire mitochondrial DNA field!
But for sake of argument, let’s conservatively say that this germline-somatic dilemma is enough to prevent us from reliably inferring a mutation rate from the Ding study. What does the blog author suggest that we invoke instead? The logically circular rate derived from Soares et al?

Let me further address these second and third scenarios with some questions of my own for the blog author:

-If the rate I cited from Ding’s data is invalid, why does it agree with the 7+ studies that have been published previously? (See Table 4 of the following paper, as well as the discussion therein: Why is there such strong scientific consistency across multiple independent scientific studies? If the blog author wishes to question the conclusions of the one study he cites, he has a lot more evaluating and explaining to do than the single paper with which he interacts.

-Why do mitochondrial DNA clocks point towards a young-earth and reject a millions-of-years timescale for every other species in which the mitochondrial DNA mutation rate has been measured? (See the following:; Please note: In the fruit fly, roundworm, water flea, and yeast mitochondrial mutation rate studies, the rates were measured in mutation accumulation lines–in other words, over several generations of genealogically-related individuals. Almost by definition, these studies measure germline mutations–not somatic ones. Why do all of these studies agree so strongly?

-What testable predictions does the blog author’s model make? This is the gold standard of science–the one to which creationists have been held for years. If the blog author thinks that he has a better answer than what I have published, I challenge him to make scientifically testable predictions from it. For example, from my young-earth creation model, I can predict (i.e., I’m claiming that I can) the mitochondrial mutation rate in the millions of species in which it has yet to be measured. I’m willing to test my predictions in the lab. I challenge the blog author to do the same. Otherwise, by the evolutionists’ own standards, the blog author’s claims pseudoscience.

You might have noticed that these three questions that I ask refer to an extensive literature that has already been published on this topic–literature with which the blog author never interacts. You could almost say that the author seems to be cherry-picking which studies to address and which ones to ignore. I’m not saying this to accuse–my actual opinion on the subject is that I presume that he has no idea that this published literature exists. Rather, my point is saying this is to show that the “cherry-picking” stereotype can cut both ways.

View user profile


Far from special: Humanity's tiny DNA differences are 'average' in animal kingdom

The mass of evidence supports the hypothesis that most species, be it a bird or a moth or a fish, like modern humans, arose recently and have not had time to develop a lot of genetic diversity. The 0.1% average genetic diversity within humanity today corresponds to the divergence of modern humans as a distinct species about 100,000—200,000 years ago—not very long in evolutionary terms. The same is likely true of over 90% of species on Earth today.

View user profile

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum