Let me put this simply Toni, I have a Master’s degree in Evolutionary Biology, so I’m fairly well placed to talk about things like population genomics, phylogenies, mutation rates, etc.
In contrast, what does Jeanson have? A PhD in Cell and Developmental Biology, where he worked with hematopoetic stem cells. A subject very far removed from all of those aforementioned subjects.
Neither of us is an expert, but I’m closer to one than Jeanson, to put it frankly.
Jeanson in no way has earned the sort of deference he is demanding of people. Frankly I find his behavior on this matter perverse.
Evograd did an excellent, credible, and thorough job taking down Jeanson’s book and there is really not much else to say on it that hasn’t already been said.
If Jeanson truly had a cogent argument, if his actual expertise matched that of his ego, his work would be in the pages of science and nature not AiG’s blog.
Jeanson is a fraud in my opinion. He’s using the veneer of his credentials to fool people like you Toni into thinking that your religious narrative is science. I’m fine with whatever you choose to believe but your religious beliefs are not science.
Let me add that Jeanson to my knowledge is an author on only three legitimate research articles in the peer reviewed literature for his entire career with total only a 100-200 total citations. He is first author on only one of them. None of those papers have anything to do with population genetics or systematics.
He doesn’t need, or necessarily even want, the respect and admiration of anyone other than the likes of @Toni_Torppa. And you can see how fervently he has won that.
The theory of evolution is not scientific. For the first requirement of a scientific theory is that it must not contradict any known observation. The minimum requirement is that the theory must at least fit the facts better than competing theories. Neither criterion is met in the theory of evolution. In speciation, we observe the disappearance of alleles, not evolution. Therefore, the creation model is much more explanatory to the evidence.
I think he craves legitimacy and gets terribly offended if scientists don’t treat him as if he were a peer. It’s pathological.
We all recognize (some of us from personal experience) that you desperately want this to be true.
However, there was not one sentence in that paragraph which was actually accurate. At all. At no point did it even flirt with legitimacy.
You have absolutely no idea as to what you are talking about Toni and seem incapable of listening to anything from anyone if it’s not what you want to hear. Evolution and common ancestry are universally considered science by working professional scientists and not just considered science but well supported bedrock ideas in the life sciences in particular. Even creationists like Todd Wood admit this in rare moments of candor.
You may be right. The peevishness of his recent article may not just be an act to further the YEC narrative that they are being unfairly discriminated against by the giant atheist conspiracy that is Big Science. He might genuinely believe that his inane scribblings demand the attention of the scientific community.
He clearly does. That’s exactly why he went on this tirade over Duff and MacMaillan’s article.
I mean, really, how pathetic is that?
Very pathetic.
In how many different ways do you need to have it explained to you that the theory of evolution isn’t a theory that says alleles should never ever be lost?
The removal of less fit alleles within a population is evolution. Random fluctuations of neutral alleles in a population is neutral evolution.
Revisiting this because I’m curious.
I’m trying to piece together the most advantageous/sympathetic argument Jeanson could conceivably make, should he ever actually attempt to address this (which I am certain he will not).
In the Jeanson hypothesis (which, here, would generally be agreed-upon by all YECs), all humans have mtDNA descending from three contemporaneous female progenitors. Those three, in turn, shared a common ancestor between nine and one hundred generations before.
If this were actually the case, what would the tree actually look like? Would it be rooted on one of the three, or would it be rooted above them? We have no mtDNA other than through those three (in this hypothesis) and so there would be no other data to construct the tree above. What would it look like if you had a rooted tree in which all samples were descended from three nodes, which in turn shared a common ancestor?
You simply can not root that tree to look the way he wants it to.
I believe you. I’m trying to figure out how a rooted tree would look if it was the way he wanted it.
His arrows would have to be at the actual root of the tree. Because he never bothered to root his trees, because he didn’t know how to do so in any way that doesn’t involve an outgroup, he was mislead by his intuition in picking groups on his unrooted tree. I suspect he doesn’t want any hint of an out of Africa scenario for the post flood diaspora either. The bottom line is who knows what he’s thinking. It’s all so incredibly muddled and ill informed it’s almost impossible to take seriously.
Ignoring the data, what would a tree look like with three monophyletic groups from three distinct stems, which themselves have a common ancestor?