This actually rests my case. I don’t know if you are going to see it. But keep studying the relevant YEC literature on this and you will finally see the strawman. A lot of this comes down to the proper definition of allele. Thanks! This has been fun. Shoot me an email and we can set up a discussion/dialogue. God bless.
SFT
Book description:
We’ve all heard the claims that all life on earth is related through common ancestry. We’ve also heard many times that there is no evidence for a literal Adam and Eve and the bible cannot be trusted. Remarkably, in this must have book for all serious biblical creationists, Standing For Truth from Team SFT offers an irrefutable case for biblical creation. The scientific data in this book is groundbreaking and amazingly consistent with a scientific Adam and Eve. The data not only supports a literal Adam and Eve, it also supports a global flood, and a recent origin of species. This book also gives the fatal blow to evolutionary philosophy and demonstrates sufficiently why the idea of Universal Common Ancestry is inconsistent with the empirical scientific evidence. Has evolution been overturned? What is the real answer behind the question of ancestry? This book is a must-read for anybody interested in these fascinating questions. NEW EXPANDED EDITION COMING SOON ! STAY TUNED !!
All that in only 135 pages, huh?
[quote=“SFT, post:21, topic:11862”]
Not at all. I analyzed two models. This is just one. The other one may be what you were discussing 
So if you understood the created heterozygosity hypothesis why have you referred to it as TMR4A. Now you are saying its TMR10A. Even this doesn’t make sense given everything I just stated. My suggestion is for you to write your 10 page rebuttal to Dr. Jeanson on this and submit it to the AIG Journal. I assure you, you will be pleasantly surprised as to what Dr. Jeanson has to say on this. Do what Dr. Frello has done, and take on Dr. Jeanson. If even I can see where you go wrong on the TMR4A, I am certain Jeanson will have no problem addressing it. Remember…Dr. Frello was JUST as confident as you are until he decided to take up the written exchange in the AIG Journal. Question: have you read through the entire written debate? Thanks!
TMR4A has always been a strawman. I recognized this the second I read your article on it.
Notice the title “MADE EASY” so yes 135 pages.
I challenged you to refute my “Refuting Critics” book that addresses all of these typical arguments. Heck, if you email me, I will even send you a free PDF! And that goes for anybody here who thinks they can refute it. It definitely beats me having to spend hours a day in blog wars. Comment on my channel and I will give you me email IF you are willing to take up the challenge.
I never referred to it that way .
I think you forget that there are multiple created heterozygosity models. If there were multiple genomes in each cell of AE, that would be inconsistent with Nathaniel Jeanson’s most prominent work.
Notably in your first video about me, you though I was claiming AE were homozygous clones. That’s just false.
As far as I know, SFT is not advocating the idea that the gametes of Adam and Eve were mosaic - he believes the genomes of all their cells were identical (as much as they can be if somatic mutations are allowed), but that the gametes were produced normally without any kind of special diversity added. He’s welcome to correct me if he thinks I haven’t represented his view accurately,
If that’s the case, he is deeply deeply confused.
If you read Replacing Darwin and the relevant technical literature, you would have known this. Have you read Replacing Darwin? And have you read Dr. Jeanson’s cited papers? I know you are a brother in Christ and so I mean these questions to be sincere and respectful. Like I said, I would be open to publlic/and or/private discussions on this. Since like you, I prefer real dialogue.
That isn’t what we’re talking about. It’s about more created heterozygosity than could be contained in four normal individuals.
It appears to be the latter that @SFT is favoring. Or it may not be. He has entirely lacked clarity on this. It may be that he’s just supposing polymorphism at all sites with absurd rates of recombination. I’m asking him for clarification, so far not forthcoming. As you mention, if that’s his model, all this talk of TMR4A is irrelevant.
I would also wonder about his response to TMR10A.
After looking at some responses, it appears that he’s claiming maximum heterozygosity in every nucleotide position, which of course would incorporate all possible sequences. And of course it demands an insane recombination rate in order to produce all the observed alleles, including, apparently, all the differences among species in a “kind”. This is not a mosaic scenario.
Jeanson doesn’t think that AE are mosaics, and TMR4A applies to his model.
When you see the word “mosaic”, are you thinking about heterozygous sites in the genome or different versions of the genome in different cells in the body?
I ask because I think you’re misinterpreting what @swamidass meant when he used the term “mosaic”.
And I have suggested people read your work to understand why that homozygous argument should no longer be used. Just because we disagree on some things doesn’t mean we disagree on everything. There are aspects of your work that I like.
That is the heterozygosity that can be contained in two normal individuals.
Sorry, that’s right. It now appears that his scenario just means that A&E just had normal genetics, no mosaics, but had all the heterozygosity needed at each nucleotide site to account for all observed sequences through recombination. It’s the recombination rate that’s the obvious problem. A somewhat less obvious problem is whether an organism with that amount of heterozygosity would be viable.
It’s probably worth clarifying what you mean by “normal” in this context, because I can see it being another stumbling block to SFT’s understanding.
I think the poor guy is confused. It seems we might know more about YEC models than does he.
You seem to be forgetting my answers to this: gene conversion helps break up the alleles fairly quickly. And also Dr. Sanford and Dr. Carter speak frequently in their models about how these designed variants would be expected to be created within useful linkage groups where many are even designed to recombine in the first place. The allele frequencies paper I cited earlier explains this.
I am aware of the mosaic hypothesis and I think that is a possibility, but I do not think it is necessary. Carter and Sanford discuss it here:
"Even now, a single modern couple could account for a very large part of all human variation. Since most common variations are not associated with disease, most variation could very reasonably be attributed to designed variation. What would prevent God from engineering 10-15 million variants (heterozygous sites) into Adam from the very beginning? If we assume Eve was assigned her own unique genome, it would double the amount of potential designed diversity. If that was not enough diversity, God could have created different genomes in each of Adam and Eve’s reproductive cells. There really is no limit to how much diversity God could have designed into Adam and Eve, but we do not need to invoke anything more than simple heterozygosity. Adam’s potential heterozygosity alone is sufficient to explain almost all human diversity. 65”
Source: Sanford, J.C., and R. Carter. 2014. In light of genetics…Adam, Eve, and the creation/fall. Christian Apologetics Journal 12, no. 2:51–72. This article can also be found at: https://www.logosra.org/adam–eve"
Notice: “If that was not enough diversity, God could have created different genomes in each of Adam and Eve’s reproductive cells. There really is no limit to how much diversity God could have designed into Adam and Eve, but we do not need to invoke anything more than simple heterozygosity. Adam’s potential heterozygosity alone is sufficient to explain almost all human diversity. 65””
Like Carter and Sanford, I do not believe this is necessary though. I believe with a proper understanding of how to define an allele, and the fact that millions of lineages would be in Adam and millions of lineages would be in Eve indicates that the TMR4A is not a problem. Which is why the uni-parentally inherhited DNA (non-recombining) can be an area where both YECs and evolutionists can do head-to-head predictions (since we would all agree DNA differences are a reflection of time and a result of mutations). And unfortunately, this is where Creationists are meeting the gold standard of science. And evolutionists are not.
I want to add that if we are defining alleles the correct way, then MANY, MANY alleles can arise from a created heterozygosity model. Only when alleles are defined as single nucleotides does the maximum “4 limit exist” which at the end of the isn’t even really a limit, since there are only 4 different nucleotides (A, T, G, C) anyway.
Also, Evograd, I did an entire video addressing your arguments on the Y chromosome specifically pertaining to the papers you say Dr. Jeanson ignored (Balanovsky and Scally?). I also reiterated the questions and challenges in the comment sections for sake of you not having to watch the entire videos.
Wrong. I think I have demonstrated the strawman quite thoroughly here. But you can posture all you’d like. Like the other post I engaged it, I see a lot of amazing dodgeball skills from the other side! I’ll review this comment thread on my channel in a few days I find this to be very enlightening.