No, their ideas fit the observational data. Scientists are going to learn that the data no longer fit the evolutionary model. They will have to unlearn some of Darwin’s ideas - this will be the paradigm shift. It may happen quickly or slowly because it also means acknowledging the supernatural in a community dominated by atheists.
They’ve dated human remains to dates that are obviously wrong. So then they’ll have to figure out why.
It happens all the time in science. Germ theory, general relativity, etc.
Yes, this will probably be the case for a long time until creationists figure it out and have a better model.
I think it’s important to note here that creationists portray biologists as invoking highly variable mutation rates over time to explain why pedigree based rates don’t apply over long time-spans, but this isn’t correct, and in several cases (looking at you, Jeanson), I’m pretty certain it’s a deliberate strawman.
The reason the rates aren’t applicable is not because the baseline mutation rate (mutations/site/replication) was all that different in the past. It’s because, over time, most mutations are weeded out sooner (via the germline bottleneck, gamete competition) or later (via selection, drift, inbreeding). So using a pedigree rate is useless over hundreds or thousands (or even dozens) of generations. It’s not a “mutation rate slowdown” no matter how much creationists want it to be.
2 Likes
But all of this doesn’t apply to mtDNA and y-chromosome pedigree rates. I’m still figuring out genetics but I can see that I think 
Correct me if I’m wrong. Those genes are passed on in copies to each generation, so you only have certain types of mutations. That’s why Jeanson focused on that.
Indeed. Scientists will have to unlearn their way to the stone age. They will need to unlearn the nuclear physics which was tested at Hiroshima. They will have to unlearn deep space astronomy and forget the images of galactic gravitational interactions and the CMB. They must unlearn paleontology with its stratification. And there would need to be massive book burnings to rid the world of current biology and molecular medicine, which is rife with evolution. Geology, I am afraid, cannot just be unlearned, it must be eliminated altogether.
2 Likes
A global flood that totally remade the earth really is a crazy thing, isn’t it?
Yes it does. All mutations are subject to selection due to their phenotypic effects, whether mitochondrial or y-chromosomal.
How did you determine they are obviously wrong? You seem to be engaged in massive wishful thinking.
2 Likes
Yes. Literally insane. The only way to be convinced of it is to believe through faith and reinterpret all the data through that filter or dismiss it entirely. You seem to be doing a little of both. But there’s no way to make it intellectually respectable. What amazes and annoys me most is the very cheerfulness with which you reject or distort science.
2 Likes
Wrong. Jeanson and Sanford cherry picked a tiny bit of the available data they could force fit into their “hypothesis” and ignored the other 99.9% of the data which doesn’t fit. In any other circle that is considered intellectual dishonesty.
3 Likes
Thanks. I’m glad I come across as joyful.
1 Like
Your passive-aggressive behavior comes across to me as snide and smug rather than sincerely joyful. Not sure how others see it. Ignorance may be bliss, but I don’t see that as a good thing.
3 Likes
What do you see as passive-aggressive?
That’s 100% not the case; those forces apply to the mtDNA and Y chromosome just like the rest of the genome. I would love to know what gave you the opposite impression.
2 Likes
Is that true? Hasn’t it been disputed by me, right here, with @PDPrice?
It is. Sanford ignores most of the data and misrepresents the data that he presents.
Not even close. It’s merely a hypothesis that is contradicted by existing data.
In science, we use the term “theory” to describe a hypothesis that has survived a huge amount of testing–like evolution. Nothing in OoL would qualify as a theory yet. See the difference?
That’s how pseudoscientists misrepresent science. In the real world, it’s up to Sanford to test his hypothesis rigorously. Sneaking a lousy paper into a 4th-tier journal isn’t very impressive.
Just be to clear, you’re claiming Einstein was viewed as a crackpot before his relativity work?
How does inbreeding affect them?
You’re wrong.
Or did he focus on that because they were the only data he could force to fit his hypothesis?
Yes, but what you’re omitting is that creationism is included in your “etc.”
1 Like