Comments on Jeanson Accuses Duff Again

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

You were shown exactly why it is wrong. In this very thread. @evograd linked to his analysis showing clearly why Jeanson is wrong. You just completely ignored it all and moved on which is exactly what Jeanson does when presented with any problem related to his ideas.

1 Like

Was that your answer? Huh! The professor relies on the student’s blog post. And this student admits that he is not an expert on the subject. Double huh huh.

Jeanson is in so far over his head Toni that all it takes is a basic understanding of this stuff to show how completely bankrupt his ideas truly are. If he had an actually even half-way competent undergraduate understanding of trees and the systematic and population genetic analyses he is attempting he wouldn’t make these rookie mistakes. Jeanson doesn’t know what he is doing. Period. There is a cogent well supported widely agreed on criticism of Jeanson’s “predictions” above that you are ignoring because you have no answer to it and can’t bear the thought of the science being at odds with your religious beliefs.


Yes, I can.

The problem is the adverbial clause “For those species in which the vast majority of SNVs are inexplicable via constant rates of mutation over time…”

It goes off the rails right at the beginning. This conditional allows him to pick and choose the data that fits. It’s circular. It’s like saying, “I believe that most supposed meteor craters are actually volcanic domes, so I predict that all supposed meteor craters which are not caused by some other mechanism will be close to fault lines.” One could then simply say that all meteor craters NOT close to fault lines are caused by some other mechanism. The prediction cannot possibly be “wrong” because it gives him the option to pick which data he wants to include.

Same thing here. “I predict that the most diverse African groups will…”

Of course he will be able to choose that the “most diverse” African groups are the ones which fit his prediction, and he will say any groups that don’t fit his prediction “aren’t actually that diverse” if you look at more fudge factors he adds. A prediction that bakes in the ability to pick and choose data is no prediction at all.

Do you understand any of these points? Are you paying attention? Does it make sense yet?

I continue to answer your questions because people tirelessly answered mine for years and years, and it’s one of the reasons I was able to get free. However, I was also genuinely curious. I do not see any evidence so far that you are genuinely curious.


It would only be nice to hear when you would show scientifically in your own words why, for example, the quote I gave is incorrect? If I talk to a professor, then I really don’t want to start reading a student’s blog that isn’t even an expert on the subjekt. I want to hear your own arguments.

I’ve given those arguments. So have others. You have completely ignored them.

1 Like

You’re not about what I just linked to.

So to be clear you are completely ignoring everything that has been said about Jeanson’s obvious inability to interpret an unrooted tree and moving on, is that the case?


Yet he’s right. I’m an expert on the subject, and I approve his message. Now what?



1 Like

This is seriously pathetic, bordering on juvenile internet trolling. You’re obviously not having anything meaningful to respond with in this exchange.


You say “yes I can” and then you just tell a story that in no way shows “scientifically” why Jeanson’s predictions would be wrong. In other words, you completely avoided the question!

You’re even more ridiculous than I realized.

What does it say about Jeanson that he relies on you to sell his propaganda?


Your response is facile, fatuous, and disingenuous. You have the choice to either engage my answer or not, but I will not repeat myself.

Jeanson’s “predictions” are so logically vacuous that they need no in-depth scientific rebuttal (although @evograd did an excellent job of doing just that).

1 Like

Toni, aren’t you completely avoiding the critique of Jeanson’s ability to interpret an unrooted tree, a criticism at the core of Jeanson’s credibility, and moving on in Gish Gallop tradition to something else you think you can get more traction on?


Well, now we’re waiting for you to show in your own words what I asked of Herman.

Jeanson’s predictions are not relevant. Even if it were true that some (even all) of the African groups had a high rate of evolution compared to other groups, that wouldn’t make the tree, under any rooting, fit his scenario. The problem is rooting, not branch lengths.

Who are “we”? Are you a king? Herman is right. The problem isn’t with evolutionary rates. The problem is that there is no way to root the tree so as to produce the three groups that Jeanson claims exist.


Toni is really showing why there is really little point in engaging with these people. They really don’t care at all about anyone’s expertise or the actual science.