as far as i remember ancient human had much more genetic diversity.
For your viewing pleasure Doc.
1 Like
Oh boyâŚseems like someone is feeling threatened
1 Like
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 SFTâs objections⌠and he just kept moving his rhetoric around without any attempt to accept science. I finally had to comment that I wasnât coming back to comment any more because it was a total waste of time.
1 Like
Iâm flattered, I really am. If thatâs 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 causingâŚ
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 didnât 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 doesnât seem to understand itâs simply a mathematical certainty under evolution that human mtDNA and Y chromosomes could be traced back to a single ancestor. Amazing, considering how much heâs 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 doesnât seem to increase the overall recombination rate substantially (as they claim). He literally scrolls right over the post where I show that data, but doesnât comment on it.
5 Likes
At 14:50, Raw Matt was kind enough to remind us all about his âstudyâ 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 donât understand the level of scientific ability weâre dealing with here, hereâs the PDF of his âpaperâ, complete with fake journal banner and NCBI copyright link, for some reason: Antediluvian_De_Novo_Mutation_Rate.pdf - Google Drive
Hereâs my rebuttal on Reddit: Guys they've done it : DebateEvolution
4 Likes
OâŚmâŚg. That abstractâŚand Wikipedia
1 Like
Keep reading, it gets much worse!
1 Like
Iâd 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 âscientificâ âpaperâ as constructed by someone who has only ever heard them described in passing.
I really wish I couldâve 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 Hovindâs PhD thesis. It might as well start with âHello my name is Joachim, I am eleven years oldâ.
âMy 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 evolutionâ.
I rest my case.
2 Likes
The DOI link is surprising, Iâll have to go back and check to be sure, but Iâm pretty sure submissions are not assigned DOIsâŚwhich means it might be totally fabricatedâŚ
The DOI was assigned by researchgate - it is (was) a real DOI, just not from the journal.
Maybe he thinks PLoS isnât 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 âReferencesâ.
He knows PLoS Biology is a journal, not sure exactly what he thinks about researchgate though.
I also donât know how he decided upon submitting his âmanuscriptâ to PLoS Biology, out of all the journals. Given how cocksure he is, Iâm surprised he didnât shoot for Nature or Science.