I agree entirely.
The point Jeanson keeps trying (unsuccessfully) to belabor revolves around my 2016 statement that if he was really willing to advance his created heterozygosity model as valid, he should have used it to make verifiable predictions, but he does not. Jeanson protests that he DID make predictions! Of course, the predictions he made boiled down to “we predict new data will look like current data and therefore will be explicable by our model” which is not a meaningful prediction at all. It’s like when Russell Humphreys used his water transmutation model to “predict” that the magnetic field of Uranus would be somewhere within a gigantic already-expected range (IIRC it was like 2 orders of magnitude), then trumpeted that his model was confirmed after Voyager measured it.
Could Jeanson make actual, meaningful, verifiable, testable, falsifiable predictions using his model? I don’t know. I doubt it. If he did, however, it would open his model up to falsification against the evidence, and that’s not what he’s about. It appears his “created heterozygosity” model can explain all conceivable data, which means it doesn’t actually explain anything at all.
And meanwhile it can be roundly shown to be false in other areas…even by a grad student.