No. I don’t want to give Jeanson any money, and one of the points here, which you are demonstrating quite clearly, is that you don’t understand and can’t explain what the book says. I don’t have to criticize the book, only what you present here. And I don’t think there are any strawmen. Your arrogance is offputting.
I presume you can’t respond to anything I’ve said so far. Correct?
We’re asking how you thought of it, not what you thought of it. We know you like it. It’s clear that there is zero evidentiary basis for your opinion.
Straw man, because I didn’t ask for all the details. I merely asked for you to cite some convincing either/or evidence (not explanations, not math, not arguments) from the book, but you couldn’t cite a single datum. Here was my request:
So what’s the actual evidence? If the book has a speck of merit and you have even a cursory understanding of it, you could cite some.
Instead, your deflections are tacit admissions that it is deceptive pseudoscience. What more do I need to know?
I don’t see that anyone has invoked the straw man fallacy here except you.
You’ve done a fine job of showing that it doesn’t present any convincing evidence, just rhetoric that sounds good to you.
I don’t see why, as you’ve already implicitly admitted that it’s not worth my time. Unlike Jeanson, I’ve actually done real genetics.
Unfortunately, Jeanson has not published in any sort of mainstream journal, which is the accepted forum for the promulgation of scientific challenge and discourse. If he had evidence that the consensus rates for mtDNA or Y chromosome molecular clocks were seriously wrong, there would be nothing stopping him from stripping out the Noah references and presenting his case. Instead, he publishes his ideas as a book marketed to the choir, and indulges that researchers are supposed to procure the thing. When they don’t - which is likely as they will deem it not worth their time or never hear of it to begin with - he then spins that as a validation by default, presenting the deafening silence as an inability to respond.
This is somewhat like a book presenting a theory of gravity for a flat earth. No matter how technical the discussion and advanced the math, any generally educated person knows it is wrong because the earth is not flat. We know Jeanson is wrong because there has been a continuity of human population for tens of thousands of years which is attested to by a massive array of archaeological and genetic evidence and dating technique that cannot be explained away.
Jeanson cannot publish in a recognized journal because his case does not withstand scrutiny. The molecular clock rates which are foundational to his timeline are unsubstantiated and contradicted by an array of other studies, and for the rest his conclusions are based on his religious beliefs. That leaves little left for scientific discussion.
I haven’t finished the book yet, but it’s almost certain Jeanson referenced his own paper on this. IIRC, he dug into the supplemental materials of some recent published work on this, but it should be in this paper.
Exactly. We might get a review from @dsterncardinale?
Valerie, there are many reasons for not reading this book (and more particularly paying good money to read it). Many of them I have already stated.
Jeanson appears to have no expertise in genetics. I try to avoid reading books that aren’t written by experts in the field they are writing about.
The quotes you have provided so far do not give any impression that Jeanson has any profound understanding of the topic.
He appears to cite no sources for his claims. This means that we cannot check their factual accuracy.
He appears to make a claim, that R1b moved into (the rest of) Europe from “far Eastern Europe or Central Asia” some time after the “400s to 700s”. This claim is contradicted by two independent lines of evidence – ancient y-haplogroup DNA, and present-day distribution of y-haplogroup DNA. I attach the snippet from Google Books below. It would be helpful if you could give us the full quote of this claim (which you have alluded to above).
For these reasons, I do not consider this book worth spending money on.
What evidence do you have that I “don’t have a better grasp of the subject” rather than that Jeanson is mangling the subject? I have already explained why your understanding of it is highly improbable.
I will note that, throughout this thread, you have displayed an obdurate resistance to any engagement with the evidence, combined with an annoying belief that our inability to make sense of all of this is our lack of understanding, rather than the gross limitations of Jeanson’s understanding and explanations of the subject matter. This leads you to a pollyanna-ish belief that reading Jeanson for ourselves will resolve everything.
I can. I’m just feeling extra stubborn tonight 
as I figure the point of you asking those questions earlier is the beginning of you testing my knowledge on phylogenies until you come to a question I can’t answer, as if somehow that proves a point. Yes, eventually you’ll get to a question I don’t know the answer to, but I don’t feel like taking the time for that back and forth right now.
I’m not interested. I’m kind of over the critique of what I bring up or how I bring it up rather than the discussion of the underlying science.
I guess we should specify the human populations we’re talking about. And this would actually be an interesting discussion.
This. The irony is that he is demonstrating that he has no faith.
It’s hard to understand, I agree. However, if one’s worldview commits oneself to certain facts of material reality that are clearly not true, how should one write a book defending that worldview? By accurately and honestly representing the factual evidence in prose that is lucid and elegant? Exactly how would that succeed?
Jeanson is doing the best he can with the cards he has dealt himself. And not doing all that badly if we judge by the response of @thoughtful, who is representative of Jeanson’s target audience. She doesn’t find the writing garbled at all. She thinks it is super duper excellent science writing, “well-written and edited” and that we should all read the entire book because it is just that good and we would all become as knowledgeable as she is on the subject if we would just follow her advice and forget all the nonsense we might think we know from the peer-reviewed literature.
Creationists think Jeanson’s book is convincing because Jeanson agrees with the Creationists. His audience could care less about the evidence or the scientific merit of the claims. They are only interested in the conclusions, and the ability to make the claim that somebody with the appearance of expertise agrees with them.
By artful misdirection? Stephen Meyer seems to make a reasonable run of that.
It would be difficult to fool somebody who knows more about the subject than you do. It however should not be too difficult to bamboozle those who know less (and Jeanson does have a PhD in Biology after all). Yes, the more skeptical of your audience will figure that’s what you’re trying to do, and go straight to expert reviews stripping the lies bare. But the slightly more credulous and/or over-confident will swallow it hook line and sinker. This would allow them to extend their audience beyond those that will swallow anything, no matter how garbled and nonsensical.
Yes, you are. But I believe you are unable to answer the questions rather than just unwilling. You don’t understand this subject. Jeanson also either doesn’t understand or is deliberately obscuring the data. Your refusal to discuss it doesn’t help you.
That is a discussion of the underlying science.
Well, for example, the various populations in which the R1b haplotype occurs. And, though it’s not a population, the R1b haplotype itself. I’m talking about the contradiction between Jeanson’s dating and reality. Was this not clear?
You are cute when you are stubborn 
Thanks.
Maybe. Anyway the split for Noah’s 3 sons is in the middle of the figure you shared from Karmin et.al. 
Anyway, I’m in a good mood because my hard cover book arrived this morning. When reading the ebook, I thought it was kind of boring, but in print it’s pretty.
Well, YEC already believe in the timeline, so yes it is exciting to see how more of the story happened. It’s frustrating to read about millions of years your whole life and not have anything else to fill in. But the interesting thing is there isn’t any faking Jeanson’s enthusiasm if you watch recent videos. He obviously believes in his own research and is looking for indigenous peoples to help him in further research.
And is this book going to matter, at least in the YEC world? I think so, because the YouYube algorithm reached me with the 2020 video series along with hundreds of thousands of other people. And the subset of YEC people who don’t care about science but like history and ancestry will also get it, and maybe the set of those people who aren’t YEC too. It is mainly a history book. That’s what’s surprising. The word “evolution” probably doesn’t even appear 5 times. I was curious how people were reviewing the book so I went to the Amazon page. They were sold out. Then when I bought my book they were again running low. In a video with Ham and Jeanson they mentioned something about the first printing selling out. So I assume that Amazon bought or reserved whatever AIG didn’t.
Since I’m in a good mood, I’ll share some pictures of R1b that are relevant. Jeanson is doing this presentation on Monday I believe so I’m just giving you a sneak preview of these. There are more on R1b, R1, and R1a but I’m narrowing it down. @Tim take a look at these and you can start to see why I thought your comment was silly. I just think it makes sense that these populations diverged as state formation was beginning.
I will start reading, annotating, etc as soon as I have the book in hand. There will be a review.
A half-serious youtube review is what Jeanson deserves. If he wants a formal review in a scientific outlet, he should be going through the peer-review process. Which he won’t do. So a half-serious youtube review is what he gets.
No she isn’t.
Yes. And it also gives people who are almost entirely ignorant on a subject license to believe they know as much as, if not more than, people who are actually experts. As we are seeing in this very discussion.
Yes she is, Mister Grumpypants 
Will it matter if it lacks scientific merit? Does it matter if Jeanson misrepresents the science? Will anyone in the creationist community critically evaluate the science presented in the book?
