Comments on Jeanson Accuses Duff Again

I would say he takes perfectly legitimate de novo mutation rates derived from pedigrees and then proceeds to misuse those metrics by using them as a stand in for the neutral substitution rates that the approaches he adopts rely on. It’s one of many acts of slight of hand that Jeanson’s uninitiated audience won’t recognize.

3 Likes

Except that there is no reason to suppose that an omnipotent agent could not have created biological diversity in such away that it would appear to be the result of common ancestry and evolution. That’s the problem with presenting appeals to beliefs in the actions of omnipotent divine agents. I could say that God created the universe 5 minutes ago with the appearance of having age and there would be no way to empirically distinguish that idea from any other. Jeanson is doing the equivalent by saying that a divine agent pre-loaded life with diversity that science would say suggests a history. There just is no place in science for appeals to divine omnipotent agency. That’s not to say there is no God however, just that appeals to God(s) are not useful as scientific hypotheses.

6 Likes

I am treading on @evograd’s territory here, but his mutation-rate claims are filtered through a mathematically faulty lens to convert mainstream data into something that looks like it fits YEC.

But that is a good point. If he wanted to show that his model was robust and useful, he could make predictions of mutagenic drift, base pair difference counts, and so forth in yet-unstudied species. These predictions would need to be different than the predictions of the mainstream model. They would need to be definite. They might take the form “My model predicst that once the genomes of (insert two species here) sequenced, we will find it has mtDNA BP differences on the order of 800, as opposed to the ~50 BP differences predicted by (insert actual mainstream research here).”

1 Like

I haven’t read Jeanson’s work. With that said, my first reaction wouldn’t be focused necessarily on how the evidence falsifies his claims but more on the swaths of observations in the field of genetics that his model would need to explain. I really don’t see how it could be done without resorting to a level of ad hockery that would make everyones’ heads spin. For example, how would his model explain the patterns of sequence conservation between kinds? Why do we see more differences in introns than in exons when we compare genes between kinds? Why do separately created kinds fall into a nested hierarchy? How do you explain genetic equidistance in phylogenies? How do you explain the patterns of transversion, transitions, and CpG substitutions in comparisons of species from different kinds?

All of this evidence is easily explained from first principles within the evolutionary model, but I just don’t see how YEC can explain it without resorting to “Well, God just decided to do it that way for . . . reasons”. The ability to falsify YEC is just the tip of the iceberg.

3 Likes

I’m not publishing my objections to his mutation rate calculations yet, but it is just categorically false to say he doesn’t make predictions different than mainstream science. He certainly does.

1 Like

We may be crossing purposes on the word “prediction”. I’m using it in the very limited sense of predicting a future discovery. It seems you are using it to refer to calculations of underlying past mutation rate.

Creationists who are adopting this hyper, post-ark speciation have really latched onto the Lamichhaney paper on hybrid speciation in Geospiza finches. But there is actually no small amount of disagreement on their conclusions. If Jeanson were actually familiar with the history of the literature on species limits in Geospiza finches he would know that not everyone agrees this is even a hybrid at all let alone a new species (see McKay and Zink 2014 Biological Reviews 90(3):689-698; Zink and Miranda 2019 Systematic Biology 68(2): 347–357; Zink 2002 Auk 119(3):864-871). This is the problem with Jeanson. He only reveals as much as he’s learned if he can spin it to suit his agenda.

Also, no one is saying that speciation can not occur rapidly and that any single case of rapid speciation is against evolution. There are excellent and unlike the Darwin’s finch case, undisputed examples of rapid speciation (across a single generation) particularly among plants. Jeanson’s claim is that ALL speciation is rapid (< 4,000 years). Clearly this is not the case.

1 Like

That first link is the worst excuse for maths I have ever seen from a creationist short of Hovind. Utterly preposterous.

1 Like

You completely ignored my point and question. That’s how it went in the debate between you and Jeanson as well.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you give the impression that once speciation occurs slowly, it proves evolution and when it happens quickly, then it will also prove evolution? The explanatory power of a theory is pure zero if it simultaneously explains the opposite events.

Let’s think for a moment however about what Jeanson is claiming. He is saying that there may be NO speciation events between sister taxa beyond a few thousand years. He’s saying that ALL speciation is rapid. We know this is false.

1 Like

You are wrong. Common ancestry, the age of the earth and evolution in general do not rest on any one uniform rate of speciation. That simply isn’t part of the body of evidence that lead us to accept that life shares a common ancestry and changes over time and that the earth is old.

3 Likes

Can you give a scientific explanation as to why this is the case as you claim? Or is it just your subjective opinion?

Jeanson’s real accomplishment here is preying on our own sense of fairness to actually take him seriously when really there is no reason to do so. I’ve fallen for this myself. It is very difficult to resist the temptation to take him seriously because we all have a knee jerk tendency to give everyone a fair hearing. Jeanson really has given no one any reason to do that however any more than a flat earther has earned the privilege of professional scientists to comb over their every online manifesto. It think we need to emphasize that people like Jeanson are science deniers and drive that point home.

6 Likes

@Toni_Torppa Who is “we” is this context (AiG?), and what it your role? Mildly curious. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Do you notice the quote?

And you completely ignored the three papers I cited that show that the conclusions of Lamichhaney for rapid hybrid speciation in Geospiza finches that Jeanson is so enamored by because he believes he can spin it to suit his agenda is an area of considerable debate. There is little evidence that the two parental populations of the supposed species “hybrid” are in fact different species to begin with so therefore really little evidence this constitutes a new species. Ignoring work that doesn’t fit his agenda and then throwing a fit that people don’t read his work is however what Jeanson does.

1 Like

So very true. Like for example when Jeanson turns a blind eye to the mountains of research showing the conclusions of his naive brand of young earth creationism are wrong.

I do now. Thanks.

Let’s be clear on something Toni.

ANY speciation is evolution. Whether any particular instance of speciation is considered to occur fast or slowly doesn’t matter.