Comments on Jeanson Accuses Duff Again

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.


Here are several of them compared to the mainstream view.

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?

1 Like

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?

Yeah. He could pick any branch he wants and decide it’s the root. It’s kinda hard however to take all three of them and force them to be in one place.

There’s no legitimate way to make this tree say what he wants it to say however.

Here are the predictions made by Jeanson. Can you scientifically justify what is wrong with these?

"For those species in which the vast majority of SNVs are inexplicable via constant rates of mutation over time, we predict that these SNVs will turn out to be functional, not non-functional or functionally neutral. In other words, we predict that these SNVs will participate in some way at the molecular level in the biology of each creature in a positive way. Rather than being “junk” DNA, molecular decoration, or harmful to the biology and function of an organism, we expect these variants to contribute to the development, expression, and/or operation of an organism’s traits.

In contrast, we expect most mutationally-derived variants (e.g., a small minority of the SNVs for most of the species and ‘kinds’ we examined) to be functionally neutral or slightly deleterious. Occasionally, some of these mutants might turn out to participate in the speciation process (e.g., see Lang et al. 2012) and therefore be viewed as “beneficial,” but we anticipate that the major effect of these variants will be to impede the normal function of the creature.

Contradictions between any of these predictions and future results would call into question aspects of our CHNP model and would cause us to reevaluate it." On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phenotypic Div | Answers in Genesis

How did you determine that? Can you point to any studies on domesticated dogs demonstrating that the chihuahua and great dane breeds do not contain any mutations that have occurred since the domestication of dogs? That appears to be an assertion pulled out of thin air.


If you root it right on the middle arrow, that gives zero ancestors for the middle one and one ancestor each for the other two. Of course that doesn’t put all the sequences inside the three groups. The biggest problem for Jeanson’s scenario is that there’s no way to make the black group monophyletic. The second biggest problem is the 6-way polytomy arising at the middle arrow.

It does seem likely that all three arrows indicate clades, though the middle clade includes the other two. Note that B is not Jeanson’s rooting. He doesn’t have one, and there’s no root that would give him what he wants.


So you are just going to completely ignore Jeanson’s obvious inability to interpret an unrooted tree and move on huh?

One of the major flaws in Jeanson’s model that I immediately see is the conflation of heterozygosity and genetic variation. Those are not the same thing. Almost everyone is heterozygous for DRB alleles, but that doesn’t mean there are only 2 DRB alleles. In fact, there are thousands of different DRB alleles for each DRB gene. There is simply no way that a small group of humans could contain thousands of alleles for a single gene since each person only carries 2 alleles.

From what I can see, if we grant that each kind was established by 7 pairs then there is a max of 14 alleles between them for each gene. If we looked across a proposed created kind, do you think this would hold up? If we did sequenced 1,000 genomes from each species within a kind, would we find 14 or fewer variants for each gene? I highly doubt it.

Edit: I should have said HLA alleles instead of DRB. You can check out the stats on human HLA alleles here:


Why do you think this Jeanson prediction is wrong?

“Scripturally, all ethnic groups likely find their ultimate origin at the tower of Babel event (Genesis 11). Genetically, the structure of the human mtDNA tree reflects this event (Jeanson 2015), implying that non-African and African groups originated at the same time in history. Based on the successful results of this study, I predict that the most diverse African groups will be found to mutate their mtDNA at a rate ~2-fold faster than reported here (e.g., at 0.2 to 0.3 mutations per genome per generation rather than 0.16 mutations per genome per generation).” A Young-Earth Creation Human Mitochondrial DNA “Clock”: Whole Mit | Answers in Genesis