Comments on Jeanson Accuses Duff Again

Yeah. He could pick any branch he wants and decide it’s the root. It’s kinda hard however to take all three of them and force them to be in one place.

There’s no legitimate way to make this tree say what he wants it to say however.

Here are the predictions made by Jeanson. Can you scientifically justify what is wrong with these?

"For those species in which the vast majority of SNVs are inexplicable via constant rates of mutation over time, we predict that these SNVs will turn out to be functional, not non-functional or functionally neutral. In other words, we predict that these SNVs will participate in some way at the molecular level in the biology of each creature in a positive way. Rather than being “junk” DNA, molecular decoration, or harmful to the biology and function of an organism, we expect these variants to contribute to the development, expression, and/or operation of an organism’s traits.

In contrast, we expect most mutationally-derived variants (e.g., a small minority of the SNVs for most of the species and ‘kinds’ we examined) to be functionally neutral or slightly deleterious. Occasionally, some of these mutants might turn out to participate in the speciation process (e.g., see Lang et al. 2012) and therefore be viewed as “beneficial,” but we anticipate that the major effect of these variants will be to impede the normal function of the creature.

Contradictions between any of these predictions and future results would call into question aspects of our CHNP model and would cause us to reevaluate it." On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phenotypic Div | Answers in Genesis

How did you determine that? Can you point to any studies on domesticated dogs demonstrating that the chihuahua and great dane breeds do not contain any mutations that have occurred since the domestication of dogs? That appears to be an assertion pulled out of thin air.


If you root it right on the middle arrow, that gives zero ancestors for the middle one and one ancestor each for the other two. Of course that doesn’t put all the sequences inside the three groups. The biggest problem for Jeanson’s scenario is that there’s no way to make the black group monophyletic. The second biggest problem is the 6-way polytomy arising at the middle arrow.

It does seem likely that all three arrows indicate clades, though the middle clade includes the other two. Note that B is not Jeanson’s rooting. He doesn’t have one, and there’s no root that would give him what he wants.


So you are just going to completely ignore Jeanson’s obvious inability to interpret an unrooted tree and move on huh?

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?