I’ll answer yes to that. No one has suggested it. YEC don’t posit miracles beyond those described in the Bible. There’s no reason for God not to make AE genetic mosaics. There’s no reason for Noah and family to have anything but normal, very diverse genetics. As I have written in the past, I do think the verses about the Nephilim could indicate that Mendelian inheritance was being used as a way to father children with specific genetics by taking certain wives. That could also indicate diversity was so ubiquitous just after creation, children didn’t necessarily look as much like their parents in the way we do today. But after many generations, genetic inheritance would become more obvious. That’s what I have in my head right now; someone can definitely feel free to explain why they think my interpretation doesn’t make biblical or scientific sense.
But I’d like it if someone can answer my original question. How do we know we know all possible ways genetic variation is created? So why isn’t Jeanson correct to insist looking at mtDNA differences is an easy way to differentiate between models and compare what the genetic differences should be today based on the number of generations that each model has claimed would have passed? It seems to me natural selection can only vary a model so much.
If you’re working backwards to get a number of generations or years to get TMR4A, it seems like there are any number of mistakes that could be made to make the results vary widely, as it definitely looks complicated - at least to me.
This last quote (rightly) suggests that normal (but potentially diverse) genetics is the expectation for non-miraculous genetics. But the Bible does not say anything about genetics of Adam and Eve at all, so assuming them to have abnormal genetics would be assuming a miracle not described in the Bible. So the first two quotes from you are in contradiction, as you are allowing for a miracle not described in the Bible.
We may not, but the greater the impact you want to ascribe to unknown sources, the less likely it is we don’t know about them. One mutation per billion? Sure, could be. 50%? No chance. And you need to explain a lot of differences.
He isn’t necessarily wrong about that, it is just that his treatment of mtDNA data is laughable and any reasonable analysis makes it obvious his conclusions are complete bunk.
Also, since I missed it initially:
The quote is fairly strong evidence that Jeanson still doesn’t understand gene conversion, since it does the opposite of what he claims it does.
The time to believe there are other ways is when you find them. It’s not “I speculate there could be, prove me wrong”. It’s “I speculate there could be, and I’d need to do science to find out if that is true, and provisionally withold acceptance until sufficient evidence is amassed”.
It’s not good science if you’re going to erect this kind of ad-hoc hypothesis to excuse/explain away why another hypothesis fails to fit the data.
I do not wish to take the topic away from TMR4A, so I will refrain from listing a dozen counter-examples right off the top of my head. This is one of my big issues with YEC, that it has become untethered from the Bible it maintains to uphold.
I feel like you’re going to keep bringing it up either way, so it’s a free country if you want to take the time. I may or may not have a reply or make time for it, depending on where life takes me and how long this explanation is. Baby due soon and I have too much I should be doing. So set your expectations low.
I haven’t seen a critique of the non-human mtDNA analysis that they also show too few mutations for life to be so old. Has anyone responded? Btw, I did read his book; I didn’t follow the argumenta in some sections, plan to look at all the critiques because they help me understand all the science better. (Well, also I read it on Kindle so that didn’t help with reading comprehension in some sections. That was a horrible idea with all the graphs and references. I’m buying paper books from now on.)
I’m curious, so maybe start a new thread? Scientific hypotheses surrounding the miraculous don’t count to me. I’ll explain why with genetic mosaics because the objections to that make my head hurt.
No, it’s not. Obviously God had to supernaturally create A&E, in a way unlike the process of human reproduction observable today. The Bible emphasizes God’s love of diversity, and diversity in creation reflects the Trinity. Obviously, if we are crested in God’s image and humans have an amazing amount of creative talent, how much more so God. So there is no reason to expect that God would NOT choose to give humans the most diverse gene pool possible. He could not have, but there’s no reason He shouldn’t based on the theology of the Bible. There’s no EXTRA miracle; God created A&E either way. So it’s not a contradiction for YEC scientists to posit any scientific hypothesis that would originally fit the supernatural, and would follow laws of nature afterwards.
Another example would be the flood - as I see it, breaking up the depths is likely supernatural, as well as the abundance of rain (hey, I even came up with the idea that all the rain could be a weird astronomical phenomenon ). Beyond that, the pre-flood climate could be different and there seem to be so many affected areas of science when an entire planet is radically transformed that fast that I see it as impossible for this small community of scientists to figure them out in 50 years. And there may be nuances of the text that people disagree on, and some may see a supernatural interpretation where others think God used natural means in an extraordinary way. It’s not always clear what extraordinary natural means are involved in a miracle. I’m sure I would probably not agree 100% with any YEC person other than the basics of what seems like a plain reading of the text: the earth is not old, A&E were the first human beings, death didn’t come upon creation until they sinned, the flood was global, and only 3 couples afterwards are the genetic and genealogical ancestors of all of us.
Why the apparent uninterest in testing Jeanson’s claim? If Jeanson had proposed this test in place of John Mercer, would you more willing to see it done?
A new thread can be opened for you and kept unlocked, giving you enough time to evaluate how the hypothesis was tested. John likes to keep things brief and concise, so I don’t expect you will get a lengthy discussion.
Yet you still post comments here. You obviously do have the time and energy to engage.
OK, I’ll grant your point that whether God creates Adam with polymorphic germ cells or three heads or an adamantium skeleton, that still counts as only one miracle. Still, it’s a miracle not described in the bible. Of course the bible knows nothing whatsoever about genetics. And if God likes maximum diversity, why are humans so genetically impoverished compared to most species? For that matter, why aren’t we multiple species, as most creationist “kinds” supposedly encompass?
Let’s be clear that this is in no way a scientific hypothesis.
Sorry, no. While there may be no evidence against the creation of Adam, there’s abundant evidence against any sort of worldwide (or even regional) flood. If that’s a single miracle, it’s one that involves the consistent falsification of data covering the whole world and all of geological time. If you want to have no death before the flood, that’s still more falsification. And if that entails a 6000-year-old universe, the falsification extends to the farthest reaches of space. One miracle, maybe, but a huge and malicious one.
Sure, that’s a plain reading of the text. But if so then the Book of Nature is all a lie. Are you cool with that?
Perhaps a simple answer to that: we are distinct from animals who need more diversity for adaptation to climate change and to survive extinction. Humans are also able to manipulate animal and plant genetics for their own use or enjoyment because of their diversity - so that diversity in a way is a gift. In distinction, humans have the intelligence to make our environments more comfortable, while having some adaptive traits; we preserve the ability to mate with any other human by not speciating, and we’re alike enough for certain groups not to dominate, and for classism or racism or ethnocentrism or whatever to be so obviously dumb if we could examine our own cultures with discernment.
Satisfying answer or not?
Thanks. I had read through this post in particular and forgotten what it contained. So my deepest apologies. Nothing against you, I found while reading that book that social media has shot my attention span for reading technical literature on a screen and I can only read small chunks at a time. I’ve forgotten most of the book too for that reason. But I am disappointed you didn’t get up to critiquing chapter 10. I think that was probably the most interesting part of the book. I was planning on reading the critiques of the other chapters when feeling motivated again, as I skipped them and went to that one first.
If I had no interest I would not have replied at all. To be more straightforward about my half-hearted interest, typically my impression of @Mercer’s replies to me is that they are intended to prove something negative about my character. And I really mean my character and not my arguments. It is rare that I feel his comments to me lead to constructive dialogue. I feel like almost everyone else engages with what I write rather than addressing what I write as a character issue like he does, though you were edging close. John even knows I have muted him and still chooses to engage with me anyway - so I often feel that his replies again have nothing to do with actually engaging me. I still read through whole threads though and often see his replies in spite of not getting notifications.
I took his offer to be in good faith this time, and John @mercer I’d still be happy for you to explain whatever evidence or argument you’d have and I was disappointed you choose not to in your reply so far.
Sure. I’m just more picky with what I choose to spend my time on - especially as my moods and interests are fluctuating wildly right now. I just am not going to reply to something emotionally triggering, especially if it seems to be intentionally so. And I’m much more curious about that objection. I don’t have enough details on whatever John proposed to be that curious about it.
Thanks for the kind words. I will share pics in lounge. People at work ask when I’ll be out of the office and I’ve decided to say “0-6 weeks” - “soon” is pretty variable. Haha. So I do actually want answers to my questions above though!! - what I was trying to say before is, it’s a balance. I also need to keep my brain busy/distracted enough not to get frustrated about how physically limited I am and not knowing for how long. Sometimes reading about science or dialogue is interesting and helpful. Sometimes it’s really not.
As am I, I’ve just been too busy with my PhD studies - publishing papers and working on my thesis has taken priority! I’ve haven’t even thought about writing anything on that blog in more than a year. I would like to get back to it eventually but I don’t know when I’ll have the time.
Simple, and yet wrong. If we’re distinct from animals, aren’t cheetahs even more distinct, because they have even less genetic variation? You excel at rationalization if not at rationality.
Not. It’s yet another display of ignorance about biology. And of course if it’s intended to show us that racism is futile, then why is there so much racism? Another of God’s failures?
It was not clear that those questions were related to what you wanted to out forward. Anyway, we can go with 6000 years ago for A&E and 4500 years ago for the flood for rough estimates.
Perhaps my fault for not distinguishing that I was generally thinking about diversity of kinds of animals versus humans in my analysis. You mentioned kinds in the next sentence, although your specific question asked about species. I don’t think I could make any inferences related to differences between specific animals species and humans.
I have already explained that I think our inability to discern truth correctly gets in our way.
I’m allowed to have feelings. It would be difficult for you to judge whether I am lying about my feelings or not. I don’t think that is what you’re saying, but please read carefully. Some care about how they come across and some don’t. If they don’t, that’s up to them. My impressions are what they are.
If you meant by “just not true” that you didn’t intend to address my character, then now you probably see how succinct responses sometimes don’t convey the writer’s intended meaning very well.
You open a can of worms when you refer to kinds. What are the kinds? How would you tell? I suppose you think there’s a “cat” kind, to which we should compare human genetic diversity. Why shouldn’t you compare the “cat” kind to the “hominoid” kind? You say there’s no hominoid kind, and Homo sapiens is its own separate kind? But where’s your evidence for that?
Anyway, Jeanson wasn’t talking about kinds. He was talking about species, right? If it’s kinds that were on the ark, shouldn’t he be looking at that genetic diversity instead?
So why didn’t God take that into account? If human lack of diversity is intended to prevent racism, it’s clearly a failure, and you shouldn’t use it as evidence.
I looked back at your original response. You’re changing the subject. What you’re bringing up now has nothing to do with your original response and I’m not really interested in responding today to the same old argument about kinds or why God isn’t the author of evil.
Also notice what you did here in this thread. My emphasis in the quote.
So basically you asked me a question about why the diversity among “most”, I answer, and then you pull a gotcha and basically say well, you didn’t explain the exception to the “most,” and so your generalization that answers what I asked you about isn’t rational.
Yes, I was generally thinking about kinds when I answered, but either way, the way you answered me is revealing.
So set your expectations low.
). Beyond that, the pre-flood climate could be different and there seem to be so many affected areas of science when an entire planet is radically transformed that fast that I see it as impossible for this small community of scientists to figure them out in 50 years. And there may be nuances of the text that people disagree on, and some may see a supernatural interpretation where others think God used natural means in an extraordinary way. It’s not always clear what extraordinary natural means are involved in a miracle. I’m sure I would probably not agree 100% with any YEC person other than the basics of what seems like a plain reading of the text: the earth is not old, A&E were the first human beings, death didn’t come upon creation until they sinned, the flood was global, and only 3 couples afterwards are the genetic and genealogical ancestors of all of us.
.
I just am not going to reply to something emotionally triggering, especially if it seems to be intentionally so. And I’m much more curious about that objection. I don’t have enough details on whatever John proposed to be that curious about it.