Valerie: Questions about TMR4A

I reject your analysis because your code was apparently written in python 2 instead of the clearly superior python 3.

(Note for observers: that was a joke)

9 Likes

That is not addressing any of his y-chromosome papers. I’m the one that introduced you to the second one earlier this summer.

1 Like

He has not addressed TMR4A, and we are discussing TMR4A. This is a clear evidential test of his model using 99x more data.

4 Likes

Well, I’ll go study up on alleles and their position and yours because unlike many men, I don’t play dodgeball. :neutral_face: This is way too important for that.

1 Like

Or you could just encourage Jeanson to have a conversation with me. I really do want to represent him correctly. I believe I am, and he is welcome to correct me.

1 Like

I missed what you were responding to earlier. No, you are not representing him correctly.

Because each side explain the nuclear DNA data in a different way, again Y-chromosome is the only way to win the argument. Again, if he looked at the whole genome, you’d explain the data based on your position - that is what he is saying. It’s not cherry picking for no purpose.

Because YE creationists explain the vast majority of autosomal differences by heterozygosity created in Adam and Eve (Jeanson and Lisle 2016; Sanford et al. 2018), and not via mutations since Creation, a direct molecular clock comparison is not possible for most nuclear DNA differences. However, the YEC model successfully explains the rare autosomal differences by post-Creation mutation (Jeanson and Lisle 2016). Conversely, since evolution explains all autosomal differences by mutation, evolutionists see the rare autosomal differences as stemming from the recent surge in human population growth (Coventry et al. 2010; Fu et al. 2013; Keinan and Clark 2012; Nelson et al. 2012; Tennessen et al. 2012). Consequently, at present, molecular clock analyses of rare human autosomal differences test—and appear to fit—both YEC and evolution.

Therefore:

The one human genetic compartment that has not received as much attention by all sides in the origins debate is the Y chromosome. For YE creationists, their expectations for Y chromosome differences today are easy to derive. Because males are XY and females XX, Adam would have been created XY, and Eve, XX. Therefore, a single Y chromosome would have been present at Creation. Consequently, unless God created Adam’s gametes with Y chromosome differences (Carter, Lee, and Sanford 2018; Sanford et al. 2018), all modern Y chromosome differences would be the result of mutations since mankind’s origin. Conversely, evolutionary expectations are also easy to derive. Because evolutionists explain all genetic differences ultimately by mutation, they also explain all Y chromosome differences by mutation. Thus, in theory, the Y chromosome differences and mutation rates could represent another direct test of the YEC and evolutionary timescales.

I looked in the supplements and didn’t find anything referring to y chromosome. If you have more information, then you may as well use it to prove his rate is wrong.

I read quite a few of the initial sections, but none of it actually rebuts this paper because you’re using evolutionary assumptions and don’t address any of the arguments here at all:

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=icc_proceedings#

You either haven’t read this, or cannot read it with an open mind because something isn’t allowing you to.

Lastly, we examined the feasibility that God designed a unique
genotype for each gametogonium of Adam and Eve. Given the
premise of a miraculously created Adam and Eve, a logical way
for God to bless later generations with abundant “good” diversity
would be to create within Adam and Eve genetically diverse
gametogonia (the cells that give rise to gametes). Normally, a
woman’s egg cells form from her gametogonia while she is still
in her mother’s womb. In other words, women are normally
born with a vast number of eggs already formed in their ovaries.
However, assuming that Eve was created, not born, her eggs could
not have formed in the normal way – so each gametogonium
would have been miraculously formed and could potentially have
been genetically unique. Therefore, there is almost no limit to
the number of variant alleles and linkage blocks that could have
existed in Eve’s ovaries. Eve might have had a vast number of
designed SNPs in each egg. Similar logic would apply to Adam’s
gametogonia (giving rise to sperm). In addition, all those designed
gametic variants would logically have been created within linkage
blocks that were designed, specific, and functional. Our Designed
Gametes Model appears to not only help reconcile a literal Adam
and Eve with observed allele frequencies, but also with observed
linkage block patterns.
If there were individually designed gametes/gametogonia in
Eden, this would potentially constitute an enormous gene poo1,
comparable to the gene pool of a large human population. To
transmit a large fraction of the original genetic diversity to later
generations would require that the first family was very large.
Indeed, it is entirely feasible that Adam and Eve would have had
a very large family size, given the extreme longevity and vigor of
the early patriarchs (Carter and Hardy 2015). In such an extremely
large family, there could have been 100 or more different sets of
chromosomes, representing a very substantial sampling of the
primordial gene pool that existed within Adam and Eve’s gametes.
This means that the variants in that first human population could
have started with almost any initial allele frequency distribution,
in accord with God’s design for mankind. In the same way, the
initial population of gametes could have also started with a great
diversity of linkage patterns, as might have been in accord with
God’s design.

@thoughtful It doesn’t appear you are understanding this. I’m not sure how to help you.

6 Likes

Hi Valerie, I ask this as a genuine question to make you think about what is happening here. Do you think that it is more probable that Dr Swamidass knows the subject and material better than you, or that that the reading you have done is sufficient to properly understand the complexities of the arguments and the underlying theories better than him? Do you know the counter arguments properly, the things that go unsiad because they don’t need saying etc. Do you understand the nitty gritty of the theories, or is it possible that you are relying on overly simplified descriptions of things?

I am just genuinely concerned that you aren’t working with enough data to be a proper judge of these things here but are making some dogmatic statements through this thread. I have done similar things throughout my time on the internet and look back with further knowledge gleaned and realise just how far off the mark I was. That also included criticism of evolutionary theory when I was interested in ID. This isn’t a criticism of your desire to learn, or your desire to engage, both of which I love.

What do you classify as reading with an open mind? We all have biases of various sorts, but what would constitute a closed-minded reading from your view?

12 Likes

For instance I think @swamidass would be reading with an open mind if he directly addressed the points in the alleles paper, and rebutted them. Essentially the creationist paper is saying we could have started with 100s of different alleles at creations per location, if I understand it right. He’s not addressing that, nor did he address what I said about the y chromosome paper nor any of my questions about biblical implications. He’s just saying I don’t understand it. So he has not proven I don’t. If he did so, that would be great. I’m open-minded to that.

But he is addressing that issue. The fact that you don’t understand this should really give you pause.

6 Likes

I need to acknowledged an error here. This particular paper does not have Y-Chromosome mutation rates. That was a mistake on my part to point people here.

10 Likes

If it’s 100s why did he tell me above that it is 4?

That would be Model 3, not Model 2. We did address this. So what exactly is the problem?

There may also be some vocab confusion about “location.” Does he mean a SNP or a recombination block?

That is off topic here. You can start a new thread to discuss a different paper.

1 Like
  1. You didn’t state that that was their position. You stated it was #2
  2. You’re too vague and not actually showing you’re engaging with any of the data in specific papers, nor are you rebutting the simulations described in tables in that specific one from Sanford et. al. I need to see that you’re engaging their specific arguments and numbers. That is why again I suggested you send Jeanson a specific rebuttal.
  3. This is why you don’t appear trustworthy. But thank you for recognizing the paper you shared did not contain y-chromosome mutation rates.
1 Like

Guess what? If his hypothesis is correct, then radiometric dating is untenable. :wink: And since it becomes an exponential decay curve instead of linear decay, that gives creationists ideas of how to figure it out. :smiley:

@thoughtful that is not true on so many levels. Radiometric dating is already an exponential decay curve. No one thinks it is a linear decay. That doesn’t help creationists at all.

If Jeanson’s hypothesis is correct, it doesn’t do anything to deal with the radiometric dating data.

5 Likes

Ok, well take that curve, convert it to linear, then convert it again to an exponential decay curve.

Oh, it absolutely does deal with the radiometric data. You and I both know how human bones have been dated. And I’ve already explained how the age of the universe could be debunked. So … just waiting for you to see the light and turn the world upside down. Paul did a good job of that after only ruffling a few feathers in a few towns. You’re good at that anyway.

No I’m sorry but this is still not correct. In case of an apparent conflict between two methods of measurement, there are at least four possible options. Either method 1 is wrong, or method 2 is wrong, or both are wrong, or the measurements are wrong.

You can’t just say “method A contradicts B, so B must be wrong”. In probabilistic terms, if you have a huge amount of background evidence in support of method B, and a small amount of evidence collected with a new method A contradicts the huge amount of evidence from B, then it is generally speaking much more likely that the new method A is wrong (maybe we’ve made an error of some sort). You always have to understand these concepts in terms of a balance of evidence.

In light of what we already know and all the work we’ve done to know it(all the knowledge collected in the fields of geology and atomic physics), it would take a lot of work to overturn it. It can be done in principle, but that is not accomplished by some “mere” calculation of the time to our last common ancestor from some mutation rates and allele frequencies.

5 Likes

@thoughtful, we are considering Nathaniel’s model with respect to DNA, leaving radiometric dating out of it.

If you are going to allow crosstalk between his analysis and radiometric data, then he is done even before he gets started. We have tons of radiometric data that totally invalidates his model. That shows us his model is wrong, even before we look at DNA.

4 Likes