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 Jeanson’s mtdna work is so horrendous. I’ll 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 it’s error bars have the mtdna “eve” in a wild range that (guestimating as it’s 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 don’t think much of what they claim. I’m more interested in evidence.
Yes, he has laid out his method. That’s great. I’m not currently able to evaluate how valid it is though, because like Jeanson, I’m have no background in this specific area, and I don’t have the time to dedicate to figuring it out. That’s why I said “suspect”, rather than “wrong” - I’m being honest and generous. As I said, I’m 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 Jeanson’s method and results as accurate purely on the basis that he uses big sciencey words and is a YEC just like you. We’re not on equal footing.
I’m sure he has so little confidence in his claims that he spent 25 hours explaining history to the general public that’s available on YouTube to watch, and then also wrote 2 more papers that followed that one.
It doesn’t take confidence in his claims to spend time pontificating about them to laymen if he’s not interested in being accurate. Writing “papers” in ARJ is no different. He’s 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 “scientist” I respect even less than Jeanson, given that he is even more brazenly wrong in his claims that Jeanson is. I don’t know as much about Carter’s work.
I don’t remember example what context the “bad sampling” claim is about, but I suspect the “incredible error bars” comment is in reference to his mtDNA work, not the Y Chromosome. There’s 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 Jeanson’s 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. I’ve 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 people’s character. That’s why I was asking them here and getting no specific rebuttals and increasingly being frustrated by that.
We’ll just have to wait and see. Obviously it’s early and more data is needed. I’ll see if my library has the book.
Well, since this science is very new compared to the paradigm shift since Darwin, we’ll 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, you’re conflating “Christian” with “creationist pseudoscientists.”
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 don’t 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 - I’ll 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.
