Carter: Response to TMR4A and Created Heterozygosity

For your viewing pleasure Doc.

1 Like

Oh boy…seems like someone is feeling threatened

1 Like

@Mr_Wilford

They are a bunch of 20-somethings trying to decide the fate of Christianity. And they do a pretty awful job.

I spent half a day responding to SFT’s objections… and he just kept moving his rhetoric around without any attempt to accept science. I finally had to comment that I wasn’t coming back to comment any more because it was a total waste of time.

1 Like

I’m flattered, I really am. If that’s the best he can do, there does not seem to be any reason to worry.

Do you need some unisom for the sleeping problems he is causing…

I glanced at the one calling me out in the title:

Verbatim quote from SFT at 25:12:

The thing is, the genetic evidence we have that we came from a single Y chromosomal ancestor and a single mitochondrial DNA ancestor - guess what? This didn’t have to be true! If ape-to-man evolution was true there could have been any number of mitochondrial DNA ancestors. There could have been any number of Y chromosomal ancestors.

He doesn’t seem to understand it’s simply a mathematical certainty under evolution that human mtDNA and Y chromosomes could be traced back to a single ancestor. Amazing, considering how much he’s talked about this subject and had it explained to him.

The only part of the video actually directed at me seems to be 43:00-47:00 (really more like 45:00-47:00). He shows this post of mine and notes that I acknowledge Africans have more recombination hotspots, but then completely ignores my point that this doesn’t seem to increase the overall recombination rate substantially (as they claim). He literally scrolls right over the post where I show that data, but doesn’t comment on it.

5 Likes

At 14:50, Raw Matt was kind enough to remind us all about his “study” he revealed a while ago that he claims to have submitted to PLoS Biology for peer-review and publication.

Just to give people who still don’t understand the level of scientific ability we’re dealing with here, here’s the PDF of his “paper”, complete with fake journal banner and NCBI copyright link, for some reason: Antediluvian_De_Novo_Mutation_Rate.pdf - Google Drive

Here’s my rebuttal on Reddit: Guys they've done it : DebateEvolution

4 Likes

O…m…g. That abstract…and Wikipedia

1 Like

Keep reading, it gets much worse!

1 Like

I’d like to see the rejection letter, or (if we are really lucky) the peer-reviewer reports.

2 Likes

Well, technically speaking, if there were some kind of strong frequency-dependent selection, multiple Y or mt lineages could be maintained forever. I know of no real-world examples of that, though. Even in Mytilus, leakage between male and female line mitochondria seems to drive coalescence eventually.

That makes it worse.

That is a ‘scientific’ ‘paper’ as constructed by someone who has only ever heard them described in passing.

I really wish I could’ve seen him try and navigate the whole submission process. How did he manage to miss all the submission guidelines? What did he put in the cover letter? Does he know it costs $2500-3000 to publish in PLoS Biology? So many questions.

1 Like

I want to avoid crying. Never mind the crappy banners and silly cargo-cult dressing it has with copyright disclaimers and DOI links, it reads like a child wrote it. It reads like Kent Hovind’s PhD thesis. It might as well start with “Hello my name is Joachim, I am eleven years old”.

“My experience as someone who was a past evolutionary secularist who is now a Young Earth Creation Scientist, is that the overwhelming evidence ability to make novel future testable predictions including retrodictions based on scripture is undeniable. This alone opens up a new window for why Biblical Creation should be taught in the classroom in every school on Earth as a counter argument against evolution”.

I rest my case.

2 Likes

The DOI link is surprising, I’ll have to go back and check to be sure, but I’m pretty sure submissions are not assigned DOIs…which means it might be totally fabricated…

The DOI was assigned by researchgate - it is (was) a real DOI, just not from the journal.

Maybe he thinks PLoS isn’t a journal, just a library, like Researchgate. Maybe he thinks Researchgate is PLoS.

I note that he has exactly one (count it) one reference. I also note that he misspelled “References”.

He knows PLoS Biology is a journal, not sure exactly what he thinks about researchgate though.

I also don’t know how he decided upon submitting his “manuscript” to PLoS Biology, out of all the journals. Given how cocksure he is, I’m surprised he didn’t shoot for Nature or Science.

That’s probably shooting too high. He might have an outside chance at Journal of Theoretical Biology however.