Does this study strongly confirm "De novo" creation?

It does not support a claim made by anyone, anywhere, that there has been an astronomical mutation rate producing all of these new variants. The findings of that paper are entirely consistent with the known mutation rate for humans, which is not astronomically high.


As a side note, I’d encourage us all to avoid this sort of pejorative language. I know Dennis: he’s a Bible-believing Christian. Disagree with his exegesis/theology and/or science, but unless he positions himself as a “critic of the biblical story,” charity calls for accepting his own faith claims.


I feel like this is a semantic issue here in regards to the usage of the term “astronomical” versus “high” mutational rate. Nevertheless, forget about whether his claim needs to be true in order for two ancestors to exist. Just tell me whether the study confirms this claim (if you can) "there’s been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time"

So you are saying that it would be wrong to make this conclusion (which was made in a creation website) from the study:

" Adam and Eve were originally created with perfect, error-free genomes—no harmful mutations present."

Isn’t he an outspoken critic of a historical Adam? That’s a view a lot of people think is biblical, though Venema disagrees.

Yes it would be wrong to make this conclusion from the study. It would also be wrong to suggest that it implies a higher mutation rate than we’ve understood.

Then say that, not that he’s a critic of the biblical story.


Yeah, I think “biblical” unqualified and un contextualized just leads to misunderstandings and is a rhetorical attempt to claim the high ground.


Oh ok, so you are saying this study, which suggested:
Large-scale surveys of human genetic variation have reported signatures of recent explosive population growth 4,5,6, notable for an excess of rare genetic variants, suggesting that many mutations arose recently.

…does NOT confirm this claim "there’s been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time"


1 Like

That is correct. The data here does not indicate a massive increase in mutation rates, or even any increase in mutation rates.

Note the quote itself calls this a signal of population growth, not increased mutation rates.

1 Like

Thank you so much for being patient with me. I was wondering if you can comment on another topic I created that I need confirmation or clarification on as well:

Possible experiment to test for a “Divine” intelligent designer - Peaceful Science

That is correct. More humans = more mutations. There is no evidence of a change in the underlying rate at which new mutations occur. You are laboring under a misunderstanding.


22 posts were split to a new topic: Intuiting the Strength of Negative Selection

I don’t think this would make him a critic of the biblical story. There are multiple Adam and Eve propositions that could fit the biblical story, I think.

1 Like

Where does the Bible make this claim? And what does “perfect” even mean? (For that matter, what would “error-free” mean in the context of genomes? Do you/we know that they would have had fully functional GULOP coding for the production of Vitamin C? Of course, being in a garden with fruit trees, would a non-functional GULOP have been an “error” per se?)

Genesis 1 says that God pronounced the creation “very TOV [good]”, which in no way means “perfect”. (Indeed, there are other Hebrew words which could have been used if that was the intended meaning.)

Also, do you have a citation for that quotation?


According to the implications of the story and hypothesis, they would have been enriched with a greater amount of diversity so that the defects, which occurred later on, would be reduced. Thus, it would take quite some time and many generations before we would see these defects arise as a result of inbreeding and even then, the effects would not be universal.

This is essentially what [I thought] the study revealed as well because it showed how most of the harmful mutations in people arose in the past 5,000 to 10,000 years. The study also observed that the older the genetic variant, the less likely it was to be deleterious. I already gave the citation for this.

Also, make sure you take a look at my latest changes of my case for testing the Divine in my other topic.

Who would have been enriched? Why would that cause defects that occurred later on to be reduced? What do you mean by “reduced”? Where is the inbreeding coming from? I’m afraid you are not good at clarity of expression.


How would such an enrichment with “a greater amount of diversity” be possible? Extra DNA? More than two alleles each? And is this “enrichment” really implied in the Genesis account?

I’m finding your hypothesis difficult to follow.

Meanwhile, are you agreeing that the Genesis text
says nothing about Adam and Eve being “perfect”?


In regards to this topic, I agree. The information from previous responses came from old and Young creationist websites. But I am much better at responding to your objections at the other topic I created. So I encourage you to take a second look at my latest changes from previous critiques and make some critiques of your own again.

I’m very sorry, but I don’t believe that’s true.


This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.