Front-Loaded Genetic Variation & Phenotypic Diversity

Since I linked above rather than quoting you, please see my OP for a response, ICYMI the first time. And then please stop stating this. It’s off topic in the other thread.

Obviously I’m of the opinion this is part of the overall model. GE doesn’t make sense without it.

I think you are mischaracterizing yourself. When some YEC comes up with some half-baked hypothesis that is contradicted by every shred of evidence that exists, you are not stubborn or opinionated at all. You just swallow it hook line and sinker without even understanding what it says or possessing any of the high-school level knowledge necessary to evaluate it.

So don’t sell yourself short. :skull: :japanese_ogre: :scream_cat: :pouting_cat:

1 Like

There are none so blind…

1 Like

You can explain any evidential conclusion away as “well, God’s miracles could be an alternative explanation”. This should require the acknowledgement that the evidence God left for us is inconsistent with those conclusions. Belief in a 6000 year old earth makes increasingly less sense with each special miracle that is required to make the hypothesis feasible.


I was referring to my personality in general - this includes obviously time before this year. Perhaps I know myself better than you know me.

But there’s no “each” special miracle. We’re just talking about a single creation event.

I’m still fuzzy on why their hypotheses don’t work out, since I haven’t gotten specifics.

Every single star that is more distant than 6,000-10,000 light years distant (trillions of those) requires a specific miracle. Back to the OP, the genetic diversity seen in humans today stemming from a single couple 6,000-10,000 years ago would also require numerous miracles - although obviously not the same order of magnitude. There are evidences all across science that are best explained by an ancient universe, earth, and biome and it takes specific miracles for them all to match a young earth.


All of these examples just require a different scientific explanation. For instance, the distance of the stars could be explained by an infinite or near-infinite one way speed of light. Maybe there is no one-way speed of light because dark matter is a negative energy medium and it would have a different effect.

But I’m just explaining that not to get off the subject, but to explain the comparison doesn’t make sense to me because I’m just talking about one miracle at the beginning of creation, not ongoing miracles. We can do a thought experiment about the initial creation miracle as much we want and it doesn’t change creation of humanity into more than one miraculous event.

In other words, a miracle. But yes, back on topic.

As has been explained, in order to make the front-loading of genetic variation a viable explanation, other miracles would be required. There is no need to invoke miracles when there is a very good scientific explanation.


I just explained why that is not true. The basics of recombination would have to change dramatically for a very long time after that single creation event. Recombination at normal (documented in real time) rates would not have sufficient time to unlink and shuffle those alleles.

It would also have to change for a long time after the Flood. @thoughtful gets none of this.

No, what I don’t get is what the problem is in the first place. You haven’t explained to me why what we see in the present makes that impossible. I asked for information and no one provided it.

By the way, no. No one has measured a one-way speed of light. We cannot know.

I’ll take a stab at explaining this although I’m nothing of a genomics expert like others here. Experts, please correct what I don’t articulate correctly or if I’m missing anything.

There is a huge amount of genetic diversity currently in the human population. If we compare a random human genome to the human reference genome, there are millions of differences. Now, if we take the observed rate of mutation in the human genome and extrapolate backwards, we should be able to trace how recently it would be feasible to have a bottleneck of two individuals. @glipsnort did exactly this type of analysis and discussed it at "another site"™. The conclusion was that a single human progenitor couple, according to the best data we have available, would be very unlikely to have occurred in the last 250,000 years.

So to somehow make the data we currently have match with an sole Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago requires some sort of miracle. As others have stated, one possible miracle would be a tremendous increase in recombination rates. Another possible miracle I have heard before (I don’t think it was here) is that God created Adam and Eve with gametes that had a tremendous amount of variation. There are a lot of different miracles that, when invoked, could possibly explain the incompatibility of data. However, there is no reason to try to reach for a miracle when there is a perfectly evident explanation to degree of human genomic variability observed today.


Yes, that’s what this thread is about.

I’ve seen a lot of “observed” mutation rates that start with the premise that the MRCA was several hundred thousand years ago. So it’s important to know the details of that.

We discussed this above. My question was why exactly this doesn’t add anything to the discussion of the problem as @John_Harshman said. The flood bottleneck is 6 people with generations of ancestors who had very diverse genomes.

I understand I may be misunderstanding some basic biology here. I’d just like to discuss the actual content of the papers so I can realize what I’m misunderstanding.

You want to jump to papers before you have a basic understanding of genetics and inheritance. It is really hard to develop a working understanding that way.

You said “what I don’t get is what the problem is in the first place.” I gave an attempt to explain the problem. Do you understand the problem yet?

1 Like

I appreciate that. And I understand what you wrote.

To be clear - No, I don’t see that anyone has clearly presented the problem yet. Whether I understand what they’re writing is something different.

I honestly can’t tell if you are understanding my words or not. You say you understand, but you don’t see the problem. The problem is this - there is no natural explanation for how a single couple 6,000 years ago could give rise the the genomic diversity we see in the human population today.


Five people, genetically speaking. That resets the allowed genetic diversity at the new beginning to at most 10 alleles each with a frequency of at least 1/10. To create lots of rare alleles this requires either the designed gamete miracle or the accelerated recombination miracle for quite a while after the Flood.


Yes, that is clear.

Yes, three of us have made the effort to explain in three different ways. It is extremely uncharitable for you to claim we haven’t explained.

That is false. The key to understanding it is to understand the completely uncontroversial ways that geneticists have mapped genes, including in humans.

The key terms are haplotype and linkage disequilibrium. That’s a fourth time.

1 Like

Then you should have the integrity to retract your false claim that it hasn’t been explained to you.

1 Like

Sigh. I’m not getting anywhere. I understand what you’re saying. But you’re describing a summary of the problem.

I understand there is a TMR4A post here, but I can’t work through that math; at least not at first glance. Maybe I can try. I’m asking for the mathematical explanation in layman’s terms. Obviously the authors of the Allele Frequencies paper don’t see a problem with the math - so why should I trust you and not them?