Oh and by the way, allow me to summarize Jeanson’s excessively lengthy answer to Venema’s question in case you forgot what the question was.
Venema asked if Jeanson could imagine a scientific discovery that would cause him to think he might be wrong about his YEC view of origins.
Jeanson’s answer was no, because he’d have to first change his interpretation of scripture.
So, evidence doesn’t matter to Jeanson. Everything comes down to his interpretation of scripture.
No, he did not in terms of nested hierarchies as were referenced in the paper I linked. These are genes which are fully functional and coding for protein on one branch of a tree, and broken on another. Organisms can be grouped according the the status of the gene and found to be in keeping with already well established evolutional relationships.
Even if a strained case can be made that the purpose of these stretches of DNA is structural or regulatory, that does not address the question of why the gene is coding in one branch, and is a pseudogene in another. If it is structural, why do you need coding at all? Jeanson is offering a distracting deflection here. Pseudogenes remain a compelling evidence for common descent.
Believe me, nobody pays me to watch and provide commentary on youtube videos.
By what criterion or criteria did you determine that Jeanson’s hypotheses are scientific?
And I definitely want to ignore pseudoscientific hypotheses, or even scientific ones that conflict with existing data, which AFAIK covers everything YECs produce.
Do you want to ignore evidence in favor of rhetoric? What has Jeanson done to rigorously test his hypotheses? Isn’t that 1000x more important than making YouTube videos?
Mutations occur at a rate measured in mutations per nucleotide. Therefore, you would get the same number of mutations in functional human DNA if you removed all of the junk DNA.
No, it’s really not. It’s the job of people advancing hypotheses to present evidence for them.
It’s scientists’ job to test their own hypotheses. Has Jeanson done so?
Yep. I watched a 25-part on history and he already has laid out new history of a later Native American arrival from Asia based on his work. The tree he created matched with written history he had found. It was interesting. Basically this native American tribe didn’t reach the east coast and settle there very long before Europeans arrived.
That’s not testing a hypothesis.
Did it test a prediction of the hypothesis? Testing doesn’t mean looking for confirmation.
What made you think that:
Where did you get that idea?
Did you examine the evidence, or are you basing your claim entirely on hearsay, Valerie?
That negates the millions of pieces of evidence from dozens of independent scientific disciplines showing the Earth is much much older than 6000 years exactly…how?
How does Jeanson’s YEC model account for the dates and DNA analysis results of Kennewick Man?
The ancestry and affiliations of Kennewick Man
Abstract: Kennewick Man, referred to as the Ancient One by Native Americans, is a male human skeleton discovered in Washington state (USA) in 1996 and initially radiocarbon dated to 8,340–9,200 calibrated years before present (BP)1. His population affinities have been the subject of scientific debate and legal controversy. Based on an initial study of cranial morphology it was asserted that Kennewick Man was neither Native American nor closely related to the claimant Plateau tribes of the Pacific Northwest, who claimed ancestral relationship and requested repatriation under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The morphological analysis was important to judicial decisions that Kennewick Man was not Native American and that therefore NAGPRA did not apply. Instead of repatriation, additional studies of the remains were permitted2. Subsequent craniometric analysis affirmed Kennewick Man to be more closely related to circumpacific groups such as the Ainu and Polynesians than he is to modern Native Americans2. In order to resolve Kennewick Man’s ancestry and affiliations, we have sequenced his genome to ∼1× coverage and compared it to worldwide genomic data including for the Ainu and Polynesians. We find that Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide. Among the Native American groups for whom genome-wide data are available for comparison, several seem to be descended from a population closely related to that of Kennewick Man, including the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville), one of the five tribes claiming Kennewick Man. We revisit the cranial analyses and find that, as opposed to genome-wide comparisons, it is not possible on that basis to affiliate Kennewick Man to specific contemporary groups. We therefore conclude based on genetic comparisons that Kennewick Man shows continuity with Native North Americans over at least the last eight millennia.
Jeanson is ignoring a huge amount of confirmed evidence in pushing his YEC hypothesis. Is that being scientific? Or honest?
The mutation rate itself changes linear dating into an exponential curve. I’ve also heard him say that his lab experience with degrading DNA means that he won’t trust any fossilized DNA - so he himself wouldn’t make any conclusions based on comparing that genome to others. In some ways he’s not ignoring but trying to overturn some assumptions yep. After researching a few of the things he focused on the video series, I realized most of them were focused on highlighting unknown parts of history or overturning other assumptions.
Did you notice in the latest article by Jeanson you posted Jeanson references his own scientifically unpublished AIG claims as an established scientific source? 
Tell me again: what is Jeanson’s justification in ignoring the millions of pieces of evidence from dozens of independent scientific disciplines showing the Earth is much much older than 6000 years?
The point there was that because we are made in the image of God, it makes sense to look how we create and then see if it matches how God created. It was a design argument.
If you are interested in the history of human migration and settlement as illuminated by DNA, this is an accessible but detailed book written by one of the most recognized and fully staffed researchers in the discipline. You would do well to avail yourself of a copy before permanently pitching camp with Nathaniel Jeanson.
He definitely could be wrong on the science. Until someone shows me he’s wrong or he’s proven wrong, I mostly trust what he’s saying based on his worldview and his degree. We all have to decide who we trust getting information from, but any source can be wrong all of the time, some of the time, or rarely. I generally filter through my worldview like everyone else when it comes to subjects I don’t know.
In that case he failed miserably because humans don’t create with nested hierarchies like common descent is restricted to. Humans mix and match parts at a whim with no nested hierarchical requirements at all.
How much evidence will it take to convince you the Earth and life on it is much much older than 6000 years? What evidence will you accept?
Quite a bit since now that I’ve researched it and more is coming out, the evidence is shifting in the direction of the Bible’s history.
Like what? Fossil evidence? Genetic evidence? Radiometric dating evidence? Thermoluminescence dating evidence? Geologic evidence? Evidence from yearly dating proxies which leave yearly records back over hundreds of thousands of years? Because I can show you all of that and tons more.