If the variation that is then mixed and selected in the course of reproduction was originally created, then it cannot, by definition, be evolution! And note that as we move from heterozygosity to homozygosity, population information decreases. That is the opposite of what microbe-to-man evolution needs in order to be credible.
There is little point in explaining the same thing to you over and over again Toni as long as it’s not something you want to hear.
You are playing word games. You want to define evolution as something more limited than what it is, and then you act offended when we refuse to accept your definition.
If Jeanson’s hetero-to-homo hypothesis is true, then he would be able to make specific, defined, testable predictions which do not align with the mainstream model.
The model proposed by Jeanson is extraordinarily simplistic. It’s like he is trying to replicate Google’s search algorithm in less than 10 lines. It cannot be done. You cannot select a tiny slice of a complex system and then pretend it is representative of the entire system.
On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phenotypic Diversity - On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phenotypic Div | Answers in Genesis
So let me get this straight: Are you denying that mutations occur?
Despite Jeanson’s now lengthy protests to the contrary (four years running now), he does not make specific, defined testable predictions which do not align with the mainstream model.
If you disagree, please identify the predictions he makes, explain how they do not match what the mainstream model would predict, and explain what new evidences or discoveries would confirm or falsify the predictions.
Yes, if you assume that new genes (or even new alleles) can’t evolve via mutation and selection then it turns out evolution doesn’t work. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
No, you need to specifically figure out scientifically why Jeanson’s predictions don’t match the evidence. You have just been criticized for not scientifically showing why the Jeanson model would be overturned.
One ongoing frustration I have with all this is that we continue to take this stuff seriously as if it were a legitimate scientific criticism.
The reason why creationists don’t like the idea of mutations occurring randomly with respect to selection (an idea demonstrated as I’ve already pointed out nearly 70 years ago) is because that idea butts up against the religious convictions creationists have about purpose and “God’s plan”. That’s it. It has nothing at all to do with a desire to get the science right only with a need to validate their religious beliefs with a veneer of scientific legitimacy.
He’s saying genetic variation was created as part of the plan of an almighty God who just so happens to be the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible that he believes in.
I’m going to add a link to this in my blog so Jeanson’s inability to grasp the importance of rooting a tree is made even more clear.
By not always removing alleles from the population, and instead adding them occasionally? I mean, it’s not that it is hard to figure out which premise of yours leads your astray.
If I only ever lose money, how can I save up money? You don’t if you really only ever lose them. But do you only do that? Evolution is a process that occurs both by gain and loss of genes, it’s not exclusively and indefinitely one or the other. The real world is more complicated than that.
I have no intention of doing Jeanson’s work for him. And no, I was not criticized for “not scientifically showing why the Jeanson model would be overturned,” which is unintelligible word salad. Jeanson is mad at me (and Joel) because he believes (incorrectly) that we quote-mined him and misrepresented his position. He doesn’t recognize quote-mining as such, so he lumps it all in as “misrepresentation” in his accusation of misconduct.
Moreover, your statement shows you still have very little understanding of the central problem.
In order for a new model to demonstrate it has explanatory power, its originator needs to show that it deviates from the mainstream model in some measurable, real-world way. If I claim that gravity is actually caused by the exchange of superluminal negative gravitons traveling backwards in time, but further claim that all possible observations of gravity should be identical to those under the standard model, my model is useless. It doesn’t matter how fancy my maths are or how cleverly I name my variables. If I don’t make any predictions which deviate from what physicists would expect without my theory, it’s effectively just a bunch of squiggles.
This is the problem with Jeanson’s so-called model. He’s just redefining a bunch of stuff and packing in fudge factors to create a hacked-together version of evolutionary biology that fits in his short timespan, but he fails to ever show that the predictions of this model deviate from mainstream expectations. He could try to show that, of course, but he has not done so. I have even provided examples of how he could do so, but I will not do his work for him. He has a Harvard PhD in biology; he should be capable of doing his own homework.
Once more, you are fundamentally failing to understand what a prediction is.
Jeanson is doing bad math and calling it a “prediction” when all he’s actually doing is retroactively fitting his model to data that already exists and retroactively un-fitting the mainstream model to the data.
That is not a prediction; that is post hoc fudge-packing.
We get it Toni. You’re a big fan.
So Toni. It doesn’t bother you in the slightest that Jeanson’s prediction regarding the three mtDNA haplogroups he is assigning to the wives of Noah has been shown in this very thread by @evograd and others to be based on his seeming complete inability to interpret an unrooted tree? See 20:45 in the video you just linked to.
Is it possible to root the tree such that those three nodes are essentially at the top?
What do you mean by “at the top”?
Put another way – what rooting choice results in the lowest possible sum of ancestor nodes for the three identified nodes?