Of course. I stated in my post that Jeanson referenced a number of these papers. That does not mean that he properly represented them or is correct in his interpretation of the data. He strongly disagrees with the authors he quotes, and the question is who is correct.
It would be so helpful if only there were a paper which verified such Y chromosome studies with actual descendants of a known individual of a millennium past. Ta Daaa!
Four sets of Y-STR mutation rates were applied in the estimations. These are a widely used evolutionary mutation rate, two observed genealogical mutation rates, and a genealogical mutation rate adjusted for population variation using logistic model. A generally accepted generation time of 25 years was used to produce a time estimate in years.
I had a very long conversation with @CrisprCAS9 about why Jeansonās mtdna work is so horrendous. Iāll link the video and timestamp below, for your convenience.
Timestamp: 1:06:00
The TLDW though is this: Jeanson uses Parsons et al. (a secular scientist) for his insane mutation rate. Parsons et al. is a bad paper, for one because it includeds samples from individuals with a high contamination risk (soldiers) and two because itās error bars have the mtdna āeveā in a wild range that (guestimating as itās been a few weeks) has the upper end at only a few hundred years ago, and the lower end at a few million. That is not good.
Jeanson additionally references NGS studies, but OMITS the difference between pedigree and phylogenetic mutation rates (See Santos 2008 for more).
The measure of confidence in his claims would be talking AiG to fund an actual study, not a cherry-picked review, in which he produced new data by testing his hypothesis.
I see no such confidence.
I donāt think much of what they claim. Iām more interested in evidence.
Yes, he has laid out his method. Thatās great. Iām not currently able to evaluate how valid it is though, because like Jeanson, Iām have no background in this specific area, and I donāt have the time to dedicate to figuring it out. Thatās why I said āsuspectā, rather than āwrongā - Iām being honest and generous. As I said, Iām skeptical of his method being accurate given that Jeanson has no background in this field, and it contradicts previous research by scientists that do have expertise in the field. On the other hand, you seem to take Jeansonās method and results as accurate purely on the basis that he uses big sciencey words and is a YEC just like you. Weāre not on equal footing.
Iām sure he has so little confidence in his claims that he spent 25 hours explaining history to the general public thatās available on YouTube to watch, and then also wrote 2 more papers that followed that one.
It doesnāt take confidence in his claims to spend time pontificating about them to laymen if heās not interested in being accurate. Writing āpapersā in ARJ is no different. Heās done the same thing about other demonstrably ridiculous claims, why should this time be any different.
Wait, what? Two other Young-Earth Creationists also believe something is young!? Well that changes everything! /s
Tomkins is the only big YEC āscientistā I respect even less than Jeanson, given that he is even more brazenly wrong in his claims that Jeanson is. I donāt know as much about Carterās work.
I donāt remember example what context the ābad samplingā claim is about, but I suspect the āincredible error barsā comment is in reference to his mtDNA work, not the Y Chromosome. Thereās so many more problems with his work than just sampling and error bars though, as I think @GutsickGibbon realises.
They have been scooped in that regard. Have you checked out the David Reich book I suggested earlier? Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past. It is very thorough, and discusses population movements out of Africa, Neanderthal, Denisovan, Eurasian and Oceana, and new world migrations.
Yep, the Y chromosomal work is a completely different, albeit similarly flavored, can of worms.
So the bad sampling and error bars is in reference to the Parsons et al. study. Those problems are specific to that work. Jeanson uses that work in part to justify his mtdna mutation rate. So what I was pointing out is that Jeansonās own sources are ALSO frequently problematic.
No, I do based on the fact that I watched whole history series and it made sense. And the way he was talking about it in general, first being incredulous of this history himself, then being more confident, made me think it was accurate. Iāve also asked him some questions about it and felt he was being honest.
All I can do is try to ask a lot of questions to figure out the science and peopleās character. Thatās why I was asking them here and getting no specific rebuttals and increasingly being frustrated by that.
Weāll just have to wait and see. Obviously itās early and more data is needed. Iāll see if my library has the book.
Well, since this science is very new compared to the paradigm shift since Darwin, weāll just have to see if God wants to use Christian scientists to create another paradigm shift, or they will just get ignored, or they will be proven wrong.
Once again, youāre conflating āChristianā with ācreationist pseudoscientists.ā
There are many, many, Christian scientists, me included, who understand the science quite well and do it, unlike the creationists who stand on the sideline and donāt produce any new evidence.
The idea that your handful of creationists is representative of Christians in science is preposterous.
This is vague, like your regular responses to me. I was hoping for a little more.
I have a literature background. The paper is detailed - Iāll give it that. Every time someone comes up with a criticism, I go looking and it seems to answer it.
Sure, we should all be skeptical of conclusions that we would like to be true until we have more proof.
I donāt think you are willing to address an initial, simple point.
I donāt see how that justifies your pathological aversion to evidence. It also isnāt consistent with your preference for low-information videos.
I wonāt. I have a scientific background, much of it in genetics. It isnāt detailed at all. Itās designed to fool those who donāt look very deeply.
Thatās simply not true.
You not-so-graciously provided the literal falsification of that claim, today, above in post 103, when you wrote:
Thatās objectively, literally false.
So whatās your excuse for that falsehood? Did Jeanson mislead you, did you fail in your textual analysis, or did you just make that up?
