Yep. Here is something I posted year or so back:
Of course no Creationists responded to the data. I wonder what Jeanson would say? 
5 Likes
Heâs only trying to sell it as science to creationists, so a bible verse is entirely appropriate.
2 Likes
ROFL. This is the âtrue scienceâ @Toni_Torppa spoke about.
Primate change denial!
2 Likes
Where hyperrrapid speciation within âkindsâ takes you⌠
1 Like
I donât think AIG has a method to a priori identify kinds. The model he developed which is discussed in the 2013 paper may help refine the classification.
Of course they donât since there is no such scientific classification as âkindâ. Itâs a useless buzz-term cribbed from the Bible and meaning whatever any Creationist wants it to mean at any given time.
1 Like
Could you explain exactly how that would work?
The model he developed compares sequences of different animals. Consider 4 animals A,B,C,D. The null is that God created a standard electron transport chain sequence across all living organisms and it is mutating neutrally. If this is true and if I compare A vs B and get 60 mutations (differences) the following is true. If A has 60 mutations then B has 0 mutations. If B has 60 mutations than A has zero mutations. This defines the maximum possible number of neutral mutations for A.
If doing the same comparison for animals C and D you get 90 mutations (differences) then the maximum number of mutations for C is 90. If I compare A and C given the null hypothesis then the maximum number of expected mutations is 60+90 or 150 mutations. If the actual comparison exceeds 150 mutations then the null is violated.
If God designed the electron transport chain differently (different sequences) for different kinds we could see this violation of the null. In the Goldilocks scenario you could validate some of the separate kinds when their sequences violate the null.
What he needs to is to the analysis your suggest for chimp/gorilla and chimp/human and ask if his model is able to distinguish the latter as kinds but the former pair as the same kind.
3 Likes
One wonders why a Jeanson did not just use pi (mean pairwise differences) and Tajimaâs D (difference between pi and the number of segregating sites) instead of this convoluted method of comparing sequences. Oh wait I know why he didnât do that. Itâs because he has no familiarity with the field and is just making things up as he goes along.
4 Likes
Or 30 mutations accumulated independently in each lineage.
5 Likes
A lot of stuff Jeanson does reminds me of Spinal Tap when Nigel Tufnel boasts about how his amplifiers are louder because they go to 11.
1 Like
Youâre just parroting the method, which attempts only to dispose of the creationist null model. The model is multiply flawed and canât be used as a way to diagnose kinds. First off, mutations are not entirely neutral, and substitutions are strongly influenced by selection. Second, both mutation and selection vary greatly by position, so you canât assume a uniform distribution of changes. But even more importantly, This violation of the null can be explained by the existence of an ancestral branch rather than separate creation of kinds with different sequences. Elimination of the null hypothesis does nothing to diagnose separate kinds.
Ignoring inheritance of a shared mutation in an ancestor is of course the major flaw in all of this, if itâs even possible to single out one mistake in this as the worst.
1 Like
It all depends on your working hypothesis.
No it doesnât. He has one explanation for the cited phenomenon if A, B, C, and D are different kinds and a different one if theyâre the same kind. The test itself doesnât distinguish between cases. It only argues against the null hypothesis, which is something nobody holds.
From the perspective of a creationist the null hypothesis is a viable test. The direction of the mutation not being completely random should not matter. Assuming God designed separate kinds the violation of the null should signal a separate kind.
You have to invoke common descent as a working hypothesis to support your counter. We appear to have two competing models.
Common descent isnât a hypothesis Bill. Itâs a well established scientific fact.
1 Like
Thatâs a worthless perspective, especially if it canât be supported.
Nope. Not supported, even assuming there are separate kinds. What it shows according to the author is that if there are separate kinds, they were not created with identical sequences. Thatâs all.
No I donât. Why would you think so? Your attempt to equate our viewpoints is insulting as well as vacuous.
2 Likes
Only one has repeatedly and across multiple independent lines of evidence enjoyed any support.
1 Like