Toni Torppa and Genetics

I see that glipsnort is much too courteous to point at the extreme disparity in understanding of these issues between the two of you. But, let me tell you: every time you condescend to him, you remind everyone ELSE of that disparity.


Yes I agree. These alternative alleles (in the same DNA site) in the same human, are those “common” variants that Carter wrote about? You probably also know how recombination processes can produce new variations (new combinations) of these variations? You probably also know that it is this process that makes each individual genetically unique compared to his parents, because recombination and gene conversion “reorganize” parental combinations. This can lead to completely new combinations of those that do not occur in the older ones.

So why should we forget recombination processes? Why should we forget the biggest cause of diversity? It seems that most human diversity comes precisely from recombination and not from mutations. Carter wrote that due to mutations, individuals may have 15 to 20 thousand mutations (variants), but several million variants (alternative alleles at the same DNA site) are explained by the created heterozygosity and recombination of these regions. So I don’t understand the problem you’re building, because I don’t see that there is and by no means can we forget about recombination when we talk about variants

Because the quantity I’m talking about is unaffected by recombination. If your model can’t explain single-site statistics, looking at multisite statistics is not going to save it.

Yes. And what I wrote is that Carter is wrong. Completely wrong.

I suggest you read some posts in an old Biologos thread here. Start with my post #31 and read my additional posts through the 30s.


What does this mean? I can’t catch your point. After all, I explained that our model (created heterozygosity and recombination + gene conversion) can specifically explain the observed variants in human populations.

And don’t forget that our model also takes into account mutations. There are 15-20 thousand of them in every human being and they are (rare) variants.

You are building a problem that is not in the creationist model. Because evolutionists think that basically all variants are the result of mutations, they therefore construct theories that take long times for these variants to form. But that is the problem with your theory!

We creationists do not have that problem, because according to our model, most of the diversity (variations) was created in the beginning for Adam and Eve. Of that diversity, recombination + gene conversion + mutations has then produced everything we now see. This does not take much time, as even one generation can produce great diversity from this starting point.

And I told you that your model cannot explain the frequency at which the observed variants are present in human populations. Did you read my posts in the other thread?

No. I am allowing there to be as much created genetic diversity as you like in Adam and Eve. The basic problem: how does your model produce a large number of variants that are present in 5% of the population?

Look, I really don’t have time to teach you population genetics right now. If you read my other posts and have specific questions, I’ll try to answer them, but I have two papers and a grant (all covid-related) that I have to be working right now.

1 Like

That doesn’t work, even to the extent of explaining observed diversity for chromosomes that don’t recombine. In humans, those are the mitochondrial and Y chromosomes. It gets even worse when you look at the entire families you claim are the result of single creations.

And of course you are entirely ignoring @glipsnort’s point about the frequencies, not the mere existence, of genetic variants.

Carter wrote: "With an average (modern) generation time of 30 years, there have only been about 150, perhaps as many 200, generations in all of human history. Assuming a conservative modern estimate of 100 new mutations per person per generation, that gives us between 15 and 20 thousand mutations per person. This is a huge number when added up across the world population, and now of these should be unique. " Historical Adam biologos -

Why are these mutations unable to explain it? I encourage you to read that Carter article in its entirety, it explains these things in more detail.

The conditions may also have an effect on what variants occur under those conditions. I understand the genome has the ability to sense conditions and even the ability to turn regions on and off accordingly. This can also affect why a small population in one place has variations that are not found elsewhere.

In addition, because recombination is capable of producing new combinations (variants), rare variants can easily form into small populations that do not spread from there to elsewhere if the population is relatively closed, like some in Africa. That problem you suggest doesn’t just show up in our model. You should read more creationist literature on the subject. Here’s a good book outlining the creationist model. Replacing Darwin - Replacing Darwin (Hardcover) | Answers in Genesis

Carter teaches well about recombination in the following article: Can mutations create new information? - mutations-new-information -

"The in-built alternatives God put into Adam and Eve are scrambled over time, and new traits (even many good ones not previously in existence) might arise during this process. How? One way is through a process called ‘homologous recombination’. People have two sets of chromosomes. Let’s say a certain portion of one of Adam’s chromosome #1 reads ‘GGGGGGGGGG’ and codes for a green-colored something-or-other. The other copy of chromosome 1 reads ‘bbbbbbbbbb’ and codes for a blue something-or-other, but blue is recessive. Someone with one or two copies of the all-G chromosome will have a green something-or-other. Someone with two copies of the all-b chromosome will have a blue something-or-other. In the early population, about three quarters of the people will have the green version and about one quarter will have the blue version.

Homologous chromosomes are recombined from one generation to the next through a process called ‘crossing over’. If a crossing over event occurred in the middle of this sequence, we might get one that reads ‘GGGGGbbbbb’ that causes the production of a purple something-or-other. This is a brand new thing, a new trait never seen before. This is the result of a change in the DNA sequence and we will not be able to tell the difference between this crossing over event and a ‘mutation’ until we can sequence the piece of DNA in question. Thus, new traits (sometimes incorrectly or colloquially referred to as ‘genes’) can arise through homologous recombination. But this is not mutation. Recombination is part of the intelligently-designed genome and usually only reveals information that was previously packed into the genome by the Master Designer (it can also reveal new combinations of mutations and designed diversity). Also, recombination is not random, so there is a limit to the amount of new traits that can come about in this way."

@Toni_Torppa, you are really missing the point here. @glipsnort is notable for being a scientist that has taken Sanford and Carter’s genetic work seriously. Back in 2016, he engaged there work by doing experiments, and that is what he is trying to explain to you.

I suggest you check it out: Can someone explain like I'm 5 yo, what's wrong with this refutation of Biologos? - Scientific Evidence - The BioLogos Forum.

Since then, Carter and Sanford have engaged with @glipsnort too. I highly recommend you adopt a more respectful posture to him. He has treated YEC scientists with respect, engaging directly with their ideas, and I’ve never seen him insult them or attack them with ad hominems. I suggest you adopt the same respectful approach to him that he adopts towards you and your scientists.


And to be 100% clear,

  1. This is precisely the article that @glipsnort engages here: Can someone explain like I'm 5 yo, what's wrong with this refutation of Biologos? - Scientific Evidence - The BioLogos Forum.

  2. BioLogos is not currently a reliable source on population genetics pertaining to Adam and Eve. Carter were responding to Dennis Venema’s work, but there is much better and more convincing scientific work out now, and other errors identified in his work.


Honor him, yes, but I disagree with him. I think the debate has been in a good tone. Although he wrote like this, (glipsnort): “And what I wrote is that Carter is wrong. Completely wrong.” however, I do not take it as an insult.

Thanks – I’d forgotten about that thread.


You have not treated with him respect in this thread. Please respect him by seeking understanding, asking his reasoning on specific points and refraining from assessments and dismissals you are wholly unqualified to make.

If he gets something wrong, we will call him out and I certainly will. I invite YEC scientists also to call him out, and I personally will publicly acknowledge when there is legitimacy to their objections.

Please follow Proverbs 4:7 going forward. Before anything else, seek understanding. There is value even in understanding that which you respect.


Why would you? You are not Carter. If you were in a position to render judgments on the competence of the PhD scientists here, you would not have to constantly ask if others have read what Jeanson and Carter wrote, as if that settles anything.

Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Nothing there about created heterozygosity and recombination + gene conversion, or proto-kinds. I find it ironic that YEC is so fixated on a 6,000 year old earth that they build this super edifice far removed from the plain language of the Genesis they seek to protect. This creationist hyper evolution model is supported by neither science or scripture.


The idea is that all humans came from a first couple. Many people don’t think this is possible, but Dr C demolishes one common argument against Adam and Eve: the thought that you can’t get millions of rare variations in the genome if you start with just two people a few thousand years ago. In fact, not only are Adam and Eve an excellent fit for the real-world data, but computer modeling tells us the biblical scenario is a better fit to the data than the evolutionary one.


Carter is using data combining all human populations sampled by the 1000 genomes project, as though they all have the exact same demographic history. That’s begging the question, don’t you think?

According to the evolutionary model non-Africans underwent a bottleneck during the out of Africa migration that would skew the frequency spectrum, so it’s more appropriate to assess Africans and non-Africans separately and simulate different demographic histories.

The “evolutionary model” Carter simulates ignores all this, and just assumes a constant human population size. Combined with his inappropriate selection of data, it’s not surprising he found a mismatch between the data and his “evolutionary model”.

Yeah, that’s bad. Worse is that they stop showing the total number of alleles in their simulations and only show the relative number at different frequencies. That’s critically important, since it’s easy to get a realistic allele frequency spectrum with a small population or through bottlenecks – genetic drift operates quickly. What’s hard is getting the right frequency shape from a combination of created diversity and new mutations while also getting the right overall level of diversity.

I only gave the paper a quick read, but spotted multiple other problems: highly selective reference to prior work, inventing out of whole cloth a ‘convention’ that only the folded spectrum is shown since geneticists don’t know what the ancestral allele is (are they aware that we’ve sequenced the chimpanzee genome and why we did so?), and, most damning of all, they misspelled my name.


“The genomic position of alleles” is gibberish. You clearly don’t know the meaning of “allele.”

This is redundant, as an “allele” is DEFINED as being both alternative and at the same site in the chromosome. There are no alleles that do not meet those criteria.

Really, until you grasp the meaning of this term and can use it coherently, the discussion is pointless.