RawMatt on mutation rates

An associate of @SFT published this video on Standing’s channel. I prefer this format of shorter videos that lay out arguments compared to the usual style. It’s mostly a repackaging of something he wrote a few months ago and tried to pretend it was published. According to him, it’s currently in review, and the original PLoS banner, disclaimer, doi, and date that coincided with the latest journal release were just to “give it some zaz.”

I’ve already discussed the original article on reddit when I first saw it. In short, I have a bunch of problems that he doesn’t seem to have addressed.

  1. His math is completely wrong, even if you use his equations. I have no idea where he gets his numbers.
  2. He uses a mutation rate of 0.83 for the mothers. If you’re wondering why, it’s because the paper he cites, Kong et al. 2013, says “Mother’s age is substantially correlated with father’s age (r=0.83).” He still doesn’t understand that ‘r’ denotes correlation because he repeated it in the video.
  3. He misrepresents essentially all sources.
  4. He basically creates a substitution rate, so the number of generations don’t matter, only the amount of time. And then, it’s apparently surprised and significant when the two line up.

Anyways, back to the video. He accidentally debunks Jeanson’s mtDNA calculations at 11:51, and calls genetic drift and natural selection “crazy rescue devices” to explain different fixation rates in the past at 13:15.

4 Likes

Sounds like a hoot, I’ll watch it later.

We did briefly talk about Raw Matt’s “paper” recently on this thread (posts #48-62):

2 Likes

Yeah I also struggle with calling it a “paper.” Even in quotation marks, I feel like that title gives it too much credit. I need to come up with a better name. Junque? Humbug? Maybe a little facsimile or simulacrum?

2 Likes

“Cargo cult science” is a general descriptor.

4 Likes

HEAD --> DESK

I have no words for this (but my head hurts just thinking about it).

4 Likes

Cargo cult science is good, but I think it is more commonly known just as pseudoscience, or pseudo-scholarship.

  1. Get a degree in something. The history of Moroccan literature, lagomorph rectal surgery, steam pipe engineering, it doesn’t matter what. If you can put a list of letters or title (director, professor, doctor, etc) in front of your name, awesome!

  2. Put on a shirt and tie, a labcoat with a pen in the breastpocket, wear a pair of glasses and then get filmed with a stack of books in the background and some beakers with colored liquids in front of you. Now, with total conviction, assertively spew technobabble.

  3. When writing things use lots of figures depicting curves, or networked elements labeled with random letters and numbers connected by a complex mish-mash of arrows(preferably with different colors), supplied with tables listing stuff (also labeled with abbreviations and numbers). Make grandiose assertions and back them up with technobabble. “X is impossible because algorithmically complexified encoding translationally underspecifies the frequency of [insert abbreviation]”. Sprinkle with Big Exponents™.

  4. Reference famous historic scholars and scientists in support of claims that have nothing to do with their work. Always describe them as eminent, and their associated institutions as prestigious. If in doubt, use either Newton, Einstein, or Hoyle. Emphasize the sheer volume of their output over decades of their life.

  5. Watch in amazement as random internet crackpots you’ve never met defend your work like it was handed down from Heaven.

  6. Collect paycheck from propaganda institute. Laugh all the way to the bank.

3 Likes

Professor Director of Moroccan lagomorph rectal steam pipe literature, Esquire.

5 Likes

Take my money!

2 Likes

Just watched the video. Oof.

I did like the part where he shows a figure on screen at 14:04 that actually gives evidence for time dependent rate slowdown, while his narration is trying to make the opposite case.
It’s from this paper, if anyone is interested. Maybe Raw Matt should try reading it too:

The last claim he slips in the last seconds of the video is that studies have found that “mutations are all new” and “gene mutations only began showing up in the last 200-400 generations”. This claim is comically undercut by the text on screen that clearly says “90% of evolutionary deleterious variants arose in the last 200-400 years.” The implication being, of course, that other mutations are younger or older. That should be enough to ring alarm bells, and sure enough, if you read the studies in question, they ascribe ages of certain variants in the hundreds of thousands of years. Hardly the YEC expectation Raw Matt claims in front of his audience. I suspect he’s just parroting Jeffrey Tomkins on this point though, and I made a video addressing Tomkins’ claims on the subject years ago:

3 Likes

Maybe its slightly off topic, but I will never listen to this man until he finally admits the DDX11L2 belongs to a telomere-specific gene family. His favorite argument is a smoking gun of a fusion, not against it. I dont think you could convince me Tomkins specifically isn’t deliberately lying after finding that out :confused:

3 Likes