Dr. Joshua Swamidass and TMR4A: Some Major Modeling Problems for Young Earth Creationism

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@RonSewell

I have bookmarked over 20 Y chromosome papers, and I do not even have access to an academic account. When a paper comes up on NCBI website, it lists similar papers and citations, and if you follow these you will be up to dozens of Y chromosome studies minimum.

Look at what you listed:

@RonSewell

Thomson et al. 2000 [37] chimp/human 0.064 1.24×10-9 bp-1y-1, 50 ky

Kuroki et al. 2006 [62] chimp/human 13 1.50×10-9 bp-1y-1, n.a

Xue et al. 2009 pedigree 10.15 1.00×10-9 bp-1y-1, n.a

Mendez et al. 2013 pedigree 0.24 0.62×10-9 bp-1y-1, 338 ky

Francalacci et al. 2013 archaeology 8.97 0.53×10-9 bp-1y-1, 180-200 ky

Poznik et al. 2013 archaeology 10 0.82×10-9 bp-1y-1, 120-156 ky

Helgason et al. 2015 pedigree 23.1 0.87×10-9 bp-1y-1, n.a

Karmin et al. 2015 aDNA 10.8 0.74×10-9 bp-1y-1, 150 ky

Trombetta et al. 2015 aDNA 1.5 0.72×10-9 bp-1y-1, 291 ky

Xue is included. Karmin is included. Helgeson is included. Francalacci, Poznik, Mendez are referenced.

And he discusses those papers and their methods.

This was made even more clear in how Karmin et al. (2015) defined the accuracy of their filtering strategy: “The number of FS [i.e., Father-Son] differences was approximately 10-fold higher than the expected number of de novo mutations considering the range of published Chr Y mutation rates (Xue et al. 2009; Francalacci et al. 2013; Mendez et al. 2013; Poznik et al. 2013). This finding prompted us to explore additional filters” (page 4 of the Supplementary Information). Of the four studies they cited—Xue et al. 2009; Francalacci et al. 2013; Mendez et al. 2013; Poznik et al. 2013—only the Xue et al. study represented a pedigree-based Y chromosome mutation rate. The other three studies derived a mutation rate via the historically circular evolutionary geology-based molecular clock method—see Introduction—or by extrapolating the autosomal mutation rate onto the Y chromosome.