Carter: Response to TMR4A and Created Heterozygosity

@stf made a response video to this blog (SFT, TMR4A, and Created Heterozygosity) what do you guys think of it?

Welcome @laymanheretolearn.

@GutsickGibbon, @evograd, @davecarlson, @Mr_Wilford, @CrisprCAS9, @glipsnort, @John_Harshman, and others, here we go again…

Seems like his touching on this too: Carter: Were Recombination Rates Higher in the Past?.

Hm, this may be my fault :sweat_smile: I mentioned in the comments section the other day that SFT appears to not have a consistent stance with TMR4A. May have hit a nerve there


I think it’s really interesting he is able to get Rob Carter on his program. I’d focus in on Carters comments.

Yeah Carter’s material on the program seems really conceptual.

If I could show that the seed dispersal we see in the South Africa looks exactly like what we would see if flying vervet monkeys were the sole perpetrator rather than the accepted idea of a large number of species contributing together to the dispersal we see… well… that’s fine but I need to show support that vervet monkeys can fly first.

That’s how Carter seems to be dealing with Allelic diversity. That is to say… Model 4.


What is also interesting here is that:

  1. Humans are far less genetically diverse than other species (Carter correctly notes this).

  2. Due to the flood bottleneck, YECs should predict that humans are more diverse than any group of land species (10 human genomes on the ark vs. 4 genomes per kind).

Carter doesn’t really note #2. So why is it that there is less diversity in humans than, for example, the horse-kind? Or the ape-kind? Or the rodent-kind? I don’t think there is any good explanation for this, and it is particularly interesting that Carter doesn’t address this.

And if he is moving to Model 4, that’s new. It would be great for him to make that clear. (Though I know observers don’t even know what we mean by Model 4).


Sounds about right. This a consistent theme with SFT. His opponents are always wrong, and if his rebuttals are refuted, that just means he needs a different argument. That his end conclusion is in error, or that his opponent may actually have a valid argument…nah, that’s not an option. It’s narcissistic as all hell.

For those unaware, @dsterncardinale made a video that demonstrated these guys have lied about him when he was their #1 enemy, so none of this should be a surprise. They’re bad faith actors.

1 Like

And if he is moving to Model 4, that’s new. It would be great for him to make that clear. (Though I know observers don’t even know what we mean by Model 4).

They will soon!

#2 is an excellent point, although I imagine it will be “dealt with” via some kind of frontloaded heterozygosity implemented with the foresight of a global flood.

1 Like

Yeah, but they haven’t dealt with that data yet. And it all starts to look ad hoc…

They are forced to reject a single ape-kind, and instead claim gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans as each separately created kinds. At least, that’s the position of SFT and his understanding of Carter and Jeanson.

1 Like

Okay, but why do Chimpanzees have more diversity than human then? They arise from just two ancestors, but humans arise from 5 (Noah, his wife, and their three daughter in laws).

Very rapid hand-waving, I assume.


Is it? I seem to remember one of their videos claiming that gorillas, chimps, and orangutans were all related? It’s hard to keep up sometimes…

1 Like

The thing that galls me about this topic is that I’m still waiting on specific numbers. Show me your math. TMR4A involves modeling to show how this would work. In my video on the topic, I laid out some very specific simplifying assumptions and showed my work to show how Jeanson’s model doesn’t work, specifically for the ABO gene. In that Carter interview, like in “Replacing Darwin”, it’s a lot of asserting how much diversity could in theory be generated, but no actual calculations showing how the very specific objections are incorrect.


Ugh another rambling >1 hour hangout. Why can’t SFT make his points clearly and concisely, preferably in text? It would be the easiest thing in the world to just engage in a detailed conversation on this forum, instead of making these “response videos” endlessly.

I also just watched his latest 5-minute video on the foramen magnum. Much better way to present a claim, but still woefully inaccurate.


@dsterncardinale that is a helpful way to think about it. They’ve verbally and informally proposed some exotic biology we’ve never actually observed to explain this data. The next step for them to do is demonstrate with simulations and experiments that this exotic biology could in fact, at least in principle, explain the data. They haven’t done this, so that leaves their proposal untested so far.

That’s what SFT told me. Because he knows ‘just’ enough about genetics to understand that admitting the other three are one ‘kind’ forces his hand on humans.

But that still raises this question:

Like I said, very rapid hand-waving.

1 Like