And here is an excellent review which shows far more than just 2 studies, though I’ll have to go through some of the details to fish out those that meet whatever ad hoc criteria you think is necessary.
Seems like they are showing four studies that are family pedigrees (genealogical) rather than 2, and that the computed rates are pretty close to the evolutionary rate.
Perhaps, but measuring mutation rate from pedigrees doesn’t depend on any assumptions of evolution. This is a place that the data would clearly show Jeanson correct and evolution false, if that were the case. Considering this data doesn’t bear out his hypothesis.
Are you certain you have actually considered the data? I watched the entire series of videos, and he compares his data to what evolution says about population growth. He is saying population growth proves him right, and he’s also making testable claims about history.
That was intensely painful. Jeanson is making up facts and fitting other made-up facts to them. It also has nothing to do with mutation rates. You understand that Jeanson’s force-fitting of the Y-chromosome tree to his model means that many human populations diverged from each other after 1500, right? But he doesn’t talk about the simple departure of that part of the data from reality. Further, he claims that it’s universally agreed that the population curve fits what he shows, but he shows a world population of only a few million in 1000 BC, and nobody agrees with that.
Perhaps most importantly, his initial assumption is wrong: the Y-chromosome tree doesn’t track population size. You would get a similar tree even if the population hadn’t changed at all in thousands of years. Jeanson seems completely unaware of coalescence theory, which you should look up.
No, that’s not the problem. Even if you assume that the root of the human tree is much shallower than we think, i.e. even if you assume YEC, his method does not work. This shows Jeanson to be comically inept, even in his own terms. You desperately need to find a new hero.