SFT, TMR4A, and Created Heterozygosity

This is an ongoing stream, however, @SFT is making many inaccurate statements about @swamidass TMR4A argument. @dsterncardinale has taken up the torch to point this out, but I would love to see engagement with @SFT 's arguments from other’s here!

1 Like


It actually turns out to be pretty boring… here are two threads:

@SFT simply ignores any information that disagrees with his interpretations. He is totally immune to facts and technical presentations… just as he is on his YouTube channel.


Oh I’m aware standing doesn’t care, make no mistake. But I personally feel these things should be brought to the attention of the people they criticize, as a matter of public record, so a response can be available for people doing fact checking online. And since the YECs seem fundamentally unwilling to do so themselves, I’ll happily be the middleman :slightly_smiling_face:

Or is that too petty?


I think it’s worth think through how to make the TMR4A work more understood to good faith non scientists. Im not seeing much value in engaging that video directly.

1 Like

Though, if you want to respond to the video here, I’m sure we’ll look over your work :slight_smile:

1 Like

Oh I have no knowledge of genetics period so I can’t do much here. In the morning I’ll review the streams comments (where standing is lurking) and see if I can summarize Standings complaints, assuming @dsterncardinale hasn’t responded first :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

There isn’t much more to say here. SFT is egregiously misrepresenting TMR4A although he somewhat hilariously backtracks at one point. So at first his argument is that TMR4A doesn’t assume a heterozygous starting state. Then he says:

TMR4A has heterozygosity as part of the analysis but it is nothing like the model of created heterozygosity

I would love to hear exactly how and why the two are different, but alas, SFT didn’t say, and I don’t expect clarification.


SFT is just a more sophisticated version of the YECs we get here (or at BioLogos) - - they have an answer for everything… even though their answers are wrong.

SFT steps it up a couple of notches by becoming familiar with additional technical jargon … and then spinning tall tails about what the technical jargon means (or doesn’t mean).

1 Like

The difference is that TMR4A takes linkage and recombination into account, but the argument YECs are currently making do not take linkage into account. So there is a difference, in that their “models” are over simplified.


My response:

In a nutshell:

The TMR4A argument is a circular argument as it PRETENDS to assume created heterozygosity when in fact TMR4A has heterozygosity as part of the analysis, but it is nothing LIKE the created heterozygosity model that leading YEC scientists start from. Time to the Most Recent 4 ancestors (TMR4A), which is exactly what this is. Or time to most recent 4 alleles–what it does is it traces the origin of our autosomal DNA differences back in time, incorporating recombination and mutation. It allows the researcher to follow lineages, and the TRM4A point is when 4 lineages are present in the human population–this is the point where 2 lineages could be present in Adam (in a heterozygous state) and two in Eve (in a heterozygous state). But the entire analysis still treats every difference as the result of mutation; it just traces their mutational heritage in a more sophiticated way. In contrast, the created heterozygosity hypothesis treats millions of DNA variants as the result of fiat creation. In a sense, in the terms used in the TRM4A analysis, the created heterozygosity model puts millions of lineages in Adam and millions in Eve."

Dr. Dan’s follow up argument to this has to do with linkage and recombination and also a major misunderstanding on the definition of allele. I addressed this in detail in the above video. Thanks!


Actually the paper that I cite in both my videos responding to Dr. Dan does take linkage into account.

I am also having Dr. Robert Carter on my channel for an interview on Monday at 8PM EST. I’ll be sure to discuss these evolutionist misunderstandings.

TMR4A uses the heterozygosity that minimizes the time to Adam and Eve based on the data we see. It is tilted in YEC’s favor here, to infer the alleles required to minimize the time.

Do you really think creationists are trying to maximize that time? What do they do different?

That sounds about right.

That’s just false. Why make stuff up @SFT? This contradicts what you just wrote in the prior sentences.

That is exactly what the TMR4A allows for too! Good news right?

Now what?


I have had over 70 debates, many of them with leading YEC critics such as Dr. Stefan Frello and Dr. Ron Garret, as well as Conspiracy Catz (2X), Gutsick Gibbon (3X), and RJ Downard (4 or 5X I lost count). My point would be that I am not going to waste time debating in blogwars with people who ask the same questions over and over again that I have personally answered in either my videos, books, or NUMEROUS debates. I prefer actual dialogue and discussion. I also notice that in these blog wars, the evolutionist seems to dodge, dip, duck, dive, and dodge most arguments. This is just what I have personally noticed. I participated in the heterozygosity thread for as long as I could handle the evolutionists misunderstandings, strawman arguments, and misrepresentations.

Thanks! And come over to my channel for a discussion anytime!

I do too.

I’ve just explained how you misunderstood TMR4A and I’m not even an evolutionist.

Let’s have some dialogue about how this correction to your understanding alters your rebuttal.


@SFT, I tried to warn you.

Your position seems to be that anyone who states disagreement with your particular favorite model is necessarily misrepresenting it in some way, as though there can be no good faith disagreement.

If you aim to be taken seriously and treated as someone with whom a productive conversation could be had, you should rethink that approach.


I should point out that TMR4A isn’t relevant if AE had different genomes in each gamete. In that case we care about the Noahic bottleneck, of 10 alleles, or TMR10A.


You will have to explain this. What, in short, is the created heterozygosity model? When were all these alleles created, and in what people? If in Adam and Eve, where would all those alleles be kept?

I believe you may have misunderstood the meaning of “millions of lineages in Adam”. I hope he will clarify the scenario.

There are up to four alleles in millions of locations in the genome, so that is millions of created alleles.

There are two models. One has four alleles per loci, the other is the mosaic model with more. As I explained here:

As you know, the data rules this out going back 180 kya.


How do you define allele?

On pages 71-72 In my book “Universal or Separate Ancestry?” I explain what I mean by Created Heterozygosity:

“In basic genetics we learn that it goes back to this notion of Big A, little a, Big B, little b. As I iterated earlier, If Adam and Eve were created genetically homogenous, meaning they were created with no variety in their DNA, for example, all capital letters, or all lowercase letters. Then the critic would be right, it would be problematic to generate diversity in just a few thousand years. Adam, Eve, and the biblical kinds, being front-loaded with genetic heterozygosity, with Capital A, lower case a, Capital B, lower case b, and this is done for the millions of DNA positions that exist, this guarantees the production and generation of all sorts of variety in a single generation. We’ve now got multiple lines of evidence indicating that this was the case that God created Adam, Eve, and the kinds, in the beginning, so they have the potential within themselves to produce all sorts of variety, and in the case of animal kinds, all sorts of species in what some would call an evolutionary heartbeat. It is also important to note that allele be defined in terms of genetic location. Many critics of this model have looked to genetic linkage as a rebuttal to created heterozygosity. But of course, these constructed alternatives would be anticipated to be created within helpful linkage groups and would have originated at high allelic frequencies. With remarkable created and useful heterozygosity, even at a tiny percentage of their nucleotides, through the processes of gene conversion and recombination, an effectively unrestricted range of beneficial diversity would be generated.”

Notice: “Adam, Eve, and the biblical kinds, being front-loaded with genetic heterozygosity, with Capital A, lower case a, Capital B, lower case b, and this is done for the millions of DNA positions that exist, this guarantees the production and generation of all sorts of variety in a single generation.”

Dr. Jeanson points this out as well in his rebuttal to Dr. Frello found in their written debate in the AIG Journal. I actually document this in my book “Refuting the Critics of Biblical Creation”. This can be found on pages 34-37:

"Before we conclude this chapter, I want to note that many critics of the front-loaded DNA diversity model have used an argument that reflects a poor understanding on how to best define allele. Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson has had an extensive written debate with Dr. Stefan Frello that can be found on the Answers In Genesis website in the Answers Research Journal section. Dr. Stefan Frello has also chosen to utilize this poor argument against the created heterozygosity hypothesis. Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson addresses the argument by first pointing to where Dr. Frello has accurately represented his model:

“Let’s start by identifying where Frello’s claims and representations of Replacing Darwin are correct. In these paragraphs, he clearly and unambiguously states the genetic compartment to which he refers—the nucleus (“15 nuclear genes”). He also correctly identified my explanation for the origin of the DNA differences in this nuclear DNA compartment as, “the majority of genetic variation within families is due to original created variation.”

But then Frello’s argument commits a common genetic mistake. In his endnote, he (correctly) defines an allele as “One of two or more versions of a particular DNA position” (emphasis mine). But then he contradicts himself in the paragraph above: “a maximum of four alleles 1 of each gene could be present in this original pair” (emphasis mine). By definition, genes consist of more than one DNA position. So which is it? Is an allele a version of a particular DNA position? Or a version of a gene that contains hundreds to thousands of DNA positions? Frello can’t have it both ways.” (Most italics in this book have been added by this author)

Next, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson points out that this argument that Dr. Stefan Frello has employed has been addressed in a prior published paper. This again goes to show that these militant critics of biblical creation fail to read the relevant literature before making an argument.

“In fact, his argument rests on his (erroneous) adoption of the second definition—that alleles are different versions of genes. Under this definition, he misrepresents my explanation for nuclear DNA differences. In fact, in one of my published papers (Jeanson and Lisle 2016) that I refer to at least 15 times in Replacing Darwin, I explicitly addressed Frello’s error:

If an allele is defined in terms of a gene unit, then generating “allelic” diversity by mutating just one gene per mutational event produces little diversity. Instead, if an allele is defined as a single genomic position, independent of its relationship to a gene, then enormous allelic diversity can be generated by mutation . . . As an aside, allelic diversity need not arise via mutation. Again, if we use the genomic position definition of an allele rather than the gene unit definition, other mechanisms besides mutation can generate allelic diversity. For example, a single gene typically spans thousands of nucleotides, and SNVs [SNVs = Single Nucleotide Variants] might be distributed throughout the gene—for example, at 90 of the nucleotides within the gene. If we allow for the genomic position definition of alleles, every single one of these 90 SNVs may have existed in a heterozygous state in each of the individuals of the pairs brought on board the Ark.

Expanding this single gene example across the entire genome reveals a tremendous potential for allelic diversity on the Ark. In just two diploid individuals, four genome copies exist. Since only four DNA base-pairs exist, virtually every possible genomic position allele (i.e., far more than 4–28 gene unit alleles) could have been present at the time of the Flood, if the individuals were heterozygous. (Jeanson and Lisle 2016, 99) [emphases in original paper]

In other words, every single one of the nuclear DNA differences in Frello’s graph could have existed in a heterozygous state in the felid ancestor on board the Ark—because my model defines alleles in terms of DNA position, not individual genes. Thus, Frello’s (apparent) claim—that a maximum of four versions of each gene could be present in this original pair—is incorrect.

Conversely, my model has no need for the mutation rates that Frello claims; in fact, in theory, it has no need for mutations in this example at all. Frello has made a common genetic error, which nullifies his conclusion.” Source: Jeanson, Nathaniel T. 2018. “Response to ‘No Replacement of Darwin: A Review of Replacing Darwin—The New Origin of Species’.” Answers Research Journal 11: 63–83.

If you could so kindly explain how the TMR4A applies in light of these facts? Clearly it is no longer a question of time to most recent 4 alleles. So which is it? Given the fact that the REAL created heterozygosity hypothesis model puts millions of lineages in Adam and millions in Eve.


What do you think? Why? A wall of text is not an answer.

As I stated, if you meant AE are mosaics, then we look at the TMR10A. That doesn’t help you.

I think you are confusing two distinct models, but it doesn’t really matter if you focus on TMR10A. That rules out Noah (who was not mosaic) before 180 kya.

Now what?