Beyond the OP topic

Each side is guilty of arguing from authority. When one side is a teacher then a leadership problem surfaces.

Here is an authority making an incorrect statement. There is supporting data from pedigree molecular clocks that life is young.

Good gravy, are we talking about Jeanson? Was that a joke? Are you in fact willing to defend the “young life” theory?


I would agree at this point in time.

I look at the data independent of the source. Jeanson has data that supports his claim. All that being said I think the young earth argument is very difficult at this point in time.

Are you leaving open a significant possibility that this may change in the future?

OK, but…

You just contradicted yourself. Moreover, if you had actually looked at the data, you’d know that Jeanson misrepresents the data, making your claim even sillier.

You avoid looking at data, Bill.


Here is one of the papers he cited to support his higher mutation rate. How has he misrepresented this paper?

For starters, by not citing all of the relevant papers.

Merely citing a paper does not mean there is no misrepresentation going on.

So, did YOU look at those DATA, or was your statement false, made with intent to deceive?

1 Like

I cited a paper that is relevant to his claims. He compares 4 papers 2 of them show evidence of higher mutation rates due to higher coverage of the Y chromosome. The paper I cited is the most current paper of the 4.

You made an assertion of misrepresentation and have not supported it. I must assume you got a little ahead of yourself.

Part of the appeal of creationism to the likes of Bill Cole is that it makes them feel as if they understand complex topics like biology.

The appeal of ID and creationism is a counter argument to macro evolutionary theory. What amuses me is people who dont have a clue about cellular biology arguing from authority.

In the case of Jeanson he is doing hypothesis testing. He, however, has a tough road ahead convincing people outside the YEC community of a young earth. He has made only a small amount of progress supporting the YLC claim. Future sequencing data will be interesting to follow.

Yes, that is quite amusing, isn’t it?

Even more so when they can’t tell a legit authority from an incompetent, dishonest hack.


What is even more amusing is someone with legitimate academic credentials who only looks at one side of an argument.

Citing a paper isn’t looking at the data. Even you know that.

So what? You claimed:

But you didn’t look at these data at all.

I don’t care which paper you cited. You claimed that you look at the data. You clearly didn’t.

YOU just supported it, Bill. Citing a paper isn’t looking at data.

No. Hypothesis testing involves predictions of data you don’t have. He is doing cherry-picking and misrepresentation; IOW, pure pseudoscience.

You’re not following any data, just what Jeanson says about them.

To whom, exactly, are you referring? And wouldn’t YOU need to have a clue about cellular biology to judge whether others have clues or not?

I see you’re moving away from your false claim about looking at the data.


I had looked at the data John but apparently you had not.

He has a clear prediction that current human population came from 3 male ancestors 4500 years ago.He is testing that prediction.

What I don’t understanding is why you are attacking this guy when you are clearly unfamiliar with his work? Your ideological bone to pick is you do not like God as a tinkerer. His hypothesis if true does not make God a tinkerer.

Macro evolutionary theory needs an alternative theory to test against. This guy is doing exactly what you been asking the ID guys to do. Your messages have not been consistent.

Then why did you only mention their mere citation?

If you’ve truly looked at them, how much money are you willing to bet that Jeanson is accurately presenting them?

No, Bill. That is his hypothesis, not its prediction. Sheesh.

No. He is cherry-picking existing data. Do you not understand what a prediction is?

What work?

I don’t like people lying about the data, or for that matter lying about having looked at the data. That’s much bigger, as it’s a crystal-clear violation of the Ninth Commandment.

Word salad, especially since you’ve demonstrated a total inability to distinguish between a hypothesis and its prediction.

No, I don’t ask people to do pseudoscience.

Utterly, objectively false.

1 Like

Out of courtesy I cited the most up to date paper. It was your claim to support and so far no support.

Not a provable point.

So he is testing his hypothesis?

He is showing that under certain conditions his hypothesis works. .

He is very clear about his methods.

Maybe to you. I think this stems from your hard line anti creation position.

There was no courtesy involved. You haven’t looked at the data, have you, despite clearly claiming:

So, even if you did look at the data, that’s false, because you only looked at the data Jeanson cited, which is a tiny subset of the data relevant to his claim.

We’re discussing your failure to support this claim:

So you haven’t looked for yourself.

No. Testing his hypothesis would involve generating new data. How can you not grasp this simple point after all these years?

No, that’s not how real scientists test hypotheses.

For starters, hypotheses have to be consistent with ALL of the extant data, not just under certain conditions. Is that true for Jeanson’s hypothesis?

Indeed. They are utterly pseudoscientific and you fell for it.

I think it stems from decades of doing real science.

1 Like

The conditions are how the data is filtered. He is using all the data from the two high coverage papers. He is not cherry picking. Time will sort out if his filtering method is correct.

Maybe, but so far you have not made a case that it is any thing different then a real hypothesis using the scientific method.

This presumes that there are two sides and an actual argument. Again I suggest using the flat earth test.

Incidentally, have you read any of hte critiques of his work? Some of them even happened here.

1 Like