I had skimmed through TMR4A thread to see if it made any more sense to me than a year ago. Still way over my head No idea where the numbers come from and why - that’s OK it’s out of my league. But after I re-read this post, I went back and checked if it referenced TMR10A - I didn’t see it. I did a search in the forum, and just found you referencing it, but I didn’t really see any reference to how you got to 180 kya. Please correct me if I’m missing it.
Also I thought it’d make more sense to respond to the statements quoted below from another thread here as my response/questions relate to TMR4A or TMR10A more, but moderators please move my response if you prefer it to be something separate.
So your comments and @mercer’s motivated me to finish this article. I had started it a couple of months ago, it made me think of TMR4A and then I got distracted and didn’t finish it. Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve | Answers in Genesis
Is the quote below from the article/chapter by Jeanson and Tomkins relevant when considering TMR10A or ArgWeaver or whatever ?
The second claim56 deals with the rate at which sections of DNA are swapped during sperm and egg cell production (the technical terms of two swapping processes are genetic recombination and gene conversion ), but the conclusions that the BioLogos writers reach is based on erroneous assumptions and outdated science. With respect to the latter, in making their claim, the evolutionists assume only a single process of reshuffling DNA sequences (e.g., recombination) when, in fact, there are at least two (the second and, apparently, much faster process of reshuffling is gene conversion).57 Had they included this faster process in their calculations, they would have discovered that mankind’s genetic history is much shorter than they claimed.58
Does this quote below have validity? Besides the above, are we missing any possible means of change or starting points?
As we’ve observed in the preceding section, using DNA sequences to function as a clock is not straightforward. In theory, just like the ticks of a clock mark off the passage of time, the transmission of another 60 DNA mutations from parent to offspring should be able to mark the passage of another generation. However, knowing how much time has passed requires knowing when the clock — whether mechanical or biological — actually started ticking. As we observed above, some (probably most) DNA differences may not represent mutations at all; they may have been supernaturally created in Adam and Eve from the start — e.g., Adam and Eve would have been created with genetic differences. Thus, when we’re evaluating the billions of DNA letters in our cells and trying to determine when the differences began arising, it’s as if we were asked how long a clock has been ticking — but then were told that the clock has at least four hands instead of two.60
Therefore, to use DNA as a clock to measure when humanity began requires a very careful accounting of all potential means of genetic change and all potential genetic starting points. In other words, the only relevant DNA clock to the human origins debate is one in which evolutionists and creationists agree on the mechanism by which DNA differences arise as well as on the number of starting points from which DNA differences can arise.
- Since Adam and Eve each would have been created with two versions of their 3 billion letter DNA sequence, and since Eve’s versions may have been slightly different than Adam’s, humanity may trace its genetic origins to 4 different starting points.
Footnote 60 is referencing the idea of TMR4A?
Back-and-forth on this topic leaves me curious, but frustrated because most of the details are above me. Still had to ask what you think, as I might learn something.