New Jeanson Book: Traced Human DNA's Big Surprise

They applied additional filters to get their mask, whereas other studies applied additional quality control steps. It’s difficult to compare these methods, but it’s not accurate to suggest that Karmin tried the “conventional method”, got a different result and then did “conventional method plus additional filters”. This was all covered in discussions on this forum years ago.

2 Likes

I’m not exactly sure of your position on this, but the difficulty with “unreliable dating” claims is they directly contradict the laws of physics. There is no evidence that our understanding of physics is either flawed or incomplete to the degree necessary for such extremely unreliable results. There is a great deal of evidence that physical laws and constants have remained unchanged for the observable history of the universe. If there were changes to physical law, there should be observable consequences, and there are none to be found. This also contradicts the idea of the universe being Fine-Tuned for life; the universe cannot be both mutable and fine tuned.

It is always possible for an omnipotent God to fix all these problems and wash it over to appear otherwise. That claim has no answer, but it implies a deceptive God and so is considered a no-go argument even by YEC scholars (See Omphalos Argument).
It comes down to this - if claims are based on faith, and faith is sincere, then there shouldn’t be any worry about what science determines. If faith depends on science being just so to support that faith, then something has gone very wrong. Science cannot do that - by definition cannot do that - and claims otherwise are ultimately futile.

@thoughtful I accept that you are sincere in your faith, but at some point you will need to accept your faith on it’s own merits. Science isn’t going to come to the rescue - it can’t. As an agnostic I don’t have much faith, but I keep just a little, enough to think I should accept the possibility of God. I don’t have any logical rhyme or reason for this, it just feels right, and I value that feeling. Allowing the possibility that science may be correct does not mean you need to give up your faith. If someone told you otherwise then they are wrong. Most Christians are at peace with both faith and science. Even most YEC seem to be at peace with science, since they function well in the modern world. I think you can be at peace too, but you may need to think about what faith really means to you.
– Dan

6 Likes

Not true. There are 5 species of cute male ducks in the continental U.S. alone: green-winged teal, bufflehead, ruddy duck, wood duck, and hooded merganser. And this doesn’t count the many cute male ducks worldwide, including the cutest of all, the pink-eared duck.

How? I notice that it once again shows Jeanson’s inability to read a phylogenetic tree. There is no such thing as a “main branch”, merely branches diverging from each other. And everything he says there is contradicted by the ancient DNA and by measures of mutation rate other than his own bogus one.

And yet he doesn’t confront the evidence that dates ancient DNA, which has nothing to do with the mutation rates you spend the rest of the paragraph garbling. He and you just assume that (for example) radiometric dating is off by orders of magnitude, or you ignore that question altogether. Why? Considered rationally, this is fatal to his hypotheses, without reference to any mutation rates.

Of course we are. We’re also vertebrates, and tetrapods, and mammals, and primates, and apes, among other things.

Of course you don’t have the knowledge, and you overestimate the extent of your understanding “otherwise” too. Then again, I do have the knowledge to assess his tree-building, and I can tell you that he’s clueless, just from what you’ve quoted so far and from previous discussions of his work here.

I’m pretty sure I already know what you know and can explain; I’m just trying to confirm it. I don’t think that Jeanson has actually built any trees; he’s just using other people’s results and misreading them. But feel free to show me otherwise.

It’s not an explanation.

3 Likes

@John_Harshman I’m in the middle of reading the paper on ancient DNA and the Y-chromosome. I realized that my response wasn’t really adequate because I didn’t read it. So I’ll get back to you on it.

I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. I think it’s an unfortunate consequence of science. Certain aspects of science are considered so settled that any data that might otherwise overturn those aspects can be overlooked or dismissed…unless someone is willing to question the science or data accumulates to the extent it can’t be explained away in whatever the current paradigm is. Right now I think Jeanson’s book is mostly going to dismissed. But will it be that way in the future? Maybe not if he continues to accumulate data that fit the tree on the YEC timeline.

Sure. But they still explained their initial result didn’t jive with other studies.

I still need to understand radiometric dating more, but that doesn’t matter to me. The assumption is that our understanding is physics is so immutable it cannot be changed…the laws of nature are immutable but we do not have any guarantees we understand them perfectly. If God was deceptive, then there wouldn’t be immutable laws of nature or physics in the first place, so that logic makes no sense. My faith doesn’t depend on science but I think the most logical interpretation of the Bible means that the mainstream understanding is false. Why would I want all of you or any of my fellow human beings to have false knowledge? Why else would I bring up research that I think at least challenges the current paradigm or could be interpreted a different way? So I would like to know the truth of science in a more clear way, but I don’t think science will come to my rescue, but it could comes to yours. :slightly_smiling_face: Is that arrogant? Sure. But the entire Bible is offensive, so it doesn’t bother me if @Faizal_Ali thinks I’m offensive - sometimes I deserve that anyway - . I don’t know as much as I think I do often. :joy: My oldest son is exactly like me, so I get to see that in action. Haha. I only get bothered if I’m not treated like I’m a human being. But you’ve never treated me that way. And I appreciate that very much.

2 Likes

The contrary evidence can be found in the table I previously linked to:

Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of Europe: Frequencies in European ethnic groups

Alternately, a more general description of the modern geographic distribution can be found in the map I included in this post.

Addendum: additional information can be found in these maps of I1, R1a and R1b distribution in Europe, which clearly shows I1 dominating R1b in Norway, and R1a dominating R1b in Hungary.

The modern DNA is the same as above. The ancient DNA is the origin and dispersal information I previously posted.

I would note that, even if you reject the radiometric dating of this ancient evidence (although I’ve never seen a substantive argument against it), the burials are clearly Stone Age, and so date back to earlier than the last two millennia, clearly indicating that R1b was already in Europe.

Thank you. :slight_smile:

This is the first step in tracing back the data behind this claim.

In this passage Jeanson refers to Color Plates 66 through 74 for his claim that various variants of R1b entered various parts of Europe between 700 and the 1550s.

Does Jeanson cite any sources for these dates in these plates? Let’s start with the first of the plates you previously posted, “Color Plate 70”, which purports to show relative distribution of R1b-S116 in the 1490s to 1550. What is the source for this oddly specific piece of data?

Actually, your post makes no mention of my “‘teleporting’ comment” – hence “without offering any substantive criticism”.

And it is rather Jeanson’s belief that R1b could (i) cross Eastern Europe, and (ii) become the dominant haplotype in Western Europe, in less than two millennia, without leaving much trace in Eastern Europe that is very, very silly.

Yes, and I have seen specific cultural advantages discussed for why Indo-Europeans carrying R1b replaced Paleolithic Europeans in the Bronze Age. But those advantages would already been prevalent across Europe (and thus give no one group an advantage) long before the time-frames Jeanson is talking about.

  • What specifically was this large-scale migration “in the a.d. 1400s and 1500s” into Western Europe that Jeanson is talking about and what specifically was the “cultural advantage” that this migration carried?

I will note that I specifically asked for “evidence”, not wild and completely vague speculation.

It “could” – but it is highly unlikely.

And as you cannot even speculate what such an advantage might be, to be so oddly and specifically geographically constrained, I feel perfectly justified in rejecting this not-even-half-baked suggestion.

Evidence please!

Further addendum: speaking of I1 and Norway, I was surprised to see that although Jeanson mentions Vikings fairly frquently, he says very little about the I1 haplogroup, and appears to doubt the relationship between the two:

Given the prevalence of I1 in the Nordic countries, I find this odd. Does the distribution of it (most concentrated in the Nordic countries, but also with lesser concentrations in areas where first Germanic tribes, and then later Vikings, were known to have migrated) in some way conflict with Jeanson’s ‘recent and rapid mutation and migration’ thesis, that he is downplaying it?

1 Like

Update: I’m through chapter 5, and Jeanson seems to be conflating genealogical convergence and genetic convergence. Seems to be. He hasn’t explicitly made there ‘therefore Biblical timescales’ argument, but it feels like that’s where he’s going.

2 Likes

Speaking of radiometric dating there are actually two types of creationist responses to the dating methods.

One is to suggest the laws of physics were different in the past, such as accelerated nuclear decay (and to ignore all the problems this brings with it such as enormous heat).

The other response is to claim that the rock dates are cherrypicked and contradictory or anomalous results are all just thrown away or dismissed as contamination (and to ignore all cases where there are no or very few anomalous measurements), and they’ll bring up some obscure example of a rock formation somewhere that gives inconsistent readings and pretend all other rock formations must be like that one and there’s a secret conspiracy to throw away inconsistent readings.

Most succinctly, the laws of physics are wrong and scientists are conspiring against God.

3 Likes

Which isn’t surprising as they initially used less stringent filtering compared to other studies.

1 Like

That set off all the irony meters. It’s only possible to consider Jeanson’s YEC timeline seriously if you ignore all the masses of data showing that the earth (including human species) is much, much older than 6000 years. You yourself ignore or dismiss those data.

That may be true, but only if you further assume that your interpretation is correct and that the bible is a guide to physical truth. In that case, science is irrelevant. There’s no need for you to understand it because truth is contained in the bible, and anything that contradicts (your understanding of) the bible is wrong by definition. And in that case, there’s also no point in talking about science with you. God said it, you believe it, and that settles it. Have a nice day.

4 Likes

Yes. Bet on it.

1 Like

I assume you’re referring to drift and selection? I still haven’t figured out how drift would play into this with multiple mutations per generation in uniparentally-inherited DNA. No comprehendo. I assume I will be enlightened soon enough. :slightly_smiling_face:

Curious if you noticed the dates already then in chapter 5… :slightly_smiling_face:

Whew, what a :hot_pepper: SPICY :hot_pepper: thread!

Has anyone invited Jeanson to participate on the forum? If so, was there a response or no?

1 Like

I have, on FB, some time back now. I’m too sleepy now to recall the context, but the answer was an amused “no” and that he would reply publicly.

Something related to @evograd’s criticism, I think.

1 Like

An excellent idea. A token wager for a Starbucks gift card and bragging rights. It is difficult getting someone to put ANY amount of money where their mouth is, but sometimes the challenge will quiet them down for a while.

That rather requires agreement of what timeframe to use for “the future” and on what counts as being “dismissed”.

There is another issue with regard to the mutation rate supposed from Noah. Remember the discussion regarding Genesis 11 where you made this statement

So perhaps 45-50 years is probably a better generation time for the average.

That is a longer generation time than usually assumed for Y chromosome mutation rates, which means for the patriarchal era the mutation rate had to be higher yet to offset the fewer generations. But hey, in for a penny in for a pound I suppose.

I’d call all of those handsome. Except the bufflehead. That is a cute duck and cute name so I stand corrected and we agree there.

It’s a colloquial way of speaking…there it’s obvious it’s referring to a population that didn’t migrate away from that area. I think you’re being too picky since the book is for the lay reader.

The ancient DNA review was an interesting read in light of the book. Again, it’s obvious, at least to me, Jeanson specifically advances ideas that contradict mainstream science. So we agree there too.

And we agree on what knowledge I don’t have, and sure that’s very likely I overestimate the extent of my otherwise understanding.

I agree that this is an error in the book. Jeanson cites this paper, which is showing the same thing.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8152#Fig1

It’s been an exhausting day, so I’ll respond to more tomorrow.

In case you missed it, I already explained many of the problems of Karmin to @thoughtful in another thread. Including this specific issue. Perhaps she forgot?

3 Likes

DId chapter 6 yesterday and WHEW, that’s where this book goes off the rails. Like, it goes from “eeeeehhhhhh” to “eeesh” in the span of a few pages.

How?

Jeanson’s talking about Y chromosome haplogroups and their respective histories when he busts out the pedigree-based mutation rates, and does the “extrapolate the one-generation rate back in time infinitely” thing. So he’s still acting like drift and selection don’t exist when it comes to TMRCA calculations.

He then uses this ill-gotten “mutation rate” (which he’s really using as though it’s a substitution rate but he calls it a “mutation rate”) to rewrite the entire timeline of haplogroup divergence, and therefore history, of H. sapiens in Africa. He follows that up by performing some truly grade-school-level analysis by saying “well if you have this haplogroup here, and the sister group over here, and draw a line in between, their common ancestor group was probably somewhere near the middle of that line”.

I’m not exaggerating.

He’s saying he’s rewriting the history of humanity as we know it. That’s…not wrong. He is very much doing that. He’s just doing it in a laughably incorrect and amateurish way.

7 Likes

I just read that part and it’s extremely clear why:

The “bad” studies that Jeanson rejects covered multiple generations. One involved a group of individuals with a known genealogical MRCA in the 1800s. Another involved hundreds of men with shared ancestry. In both cases, covering more generations means mutations are lost via drift and selection. So the per-generation rate is slower.

Jeanson, on the other hand, uses single-generation mutation rates. No drift, no selection. But if I check those same lineages in 5, or 10, or 100 generations, are all those mutations going to be there? No, many will have been lost. He ignores that and continues to act as though the faster rate continues to apply as you go backwards in time.

This is such an obvious explanation, I find it difficult to believe that Jeanson hasn’t heard it and doesn’t understand it.

6 Likes