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.
- His math is completely wrong, even if you use his equations. I have no idea where he gets his numbers.
- 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.
- He misrepresents essentially all sources.
- 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.