Valerie: Questions about TMR4A

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


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


@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.


Or maybe it shows us he’s right because the Bible is true. If you can’t even read his papers with an open mind, your assumption is that YEC could never be true.

But yes, I agree his work should be considered on its own merits without considering any other implications.

Yes. One or the other must be wrong. Unfortunately for Jeanson, the support for radiometric dating is much, much stronger than that for Jeanson’s clock, even if you accept that his reasoning makes sense.

That makes no sense. Radioactive decay is already exponential. That’s why radionuclides have half-lives.

Doesn’t that just take it back to where it was? And why would you convert the curve to linear to begin with? Your arrogance in the face of evidence is insufferable.

That requires you to ignore the data, which you denied you were doing.

Nobody agrees with that.


The Bible is true, but it includes no reference to Jeanson’s model. Even if you want to be a YEC, there are better YEC models than his.

This is a hard conversation for you, isn’t it?


Umm…no to the question. Twice you had to retract statements in this thread. I didn’t.

I just had to understand what alleles were. Give me a day or two to brush up on basic biology I never learned or was taught 25 years ago. :neutral_face:

In YEC, Noah’s Y-chromosome is the only one passed on so we should only see a few thousand millennia of mutations. Carter and Tomkins also confirm this. I’m assuming Sanford does too based on his comments though I haven’t seen documentation of it.

The more you come at me with rude questions, the more certain I am that evolution is your idol and you are not open to YEC being true.

I don’t recall twice. Just once.

Everyone makes mistakes. I’m notable for making it clear when I do so and correcting them. That’s a reason to trust me, not to distrust me.

Evolution is not my idol, and I would consider YEC if there was a reasonable model that made sense of all the data. I haven’t seen one yet, and can’t conceive of how to build one.

And that question wasn’t rude. It was meant to be empathetic.



It is hard to figure what to make of these, but I will take them as retractions. Or maybe deflections.

Yes. Please answer this very question. You just spent a whole thread arguing for the perfect creation of H1N1, which is not only epidemiologically incoherent, but theologically incoherent.

Could you please define your understanding of location in this context?


One of the two was the paper that did not include the y-chromosome mutation rate. The other was this:

Today I watched a good chunk of your conversation with Behe posted in the forum. He accused you of not reading his book. It seems you have a reputation of this. Maybe you should wonder why that is. My best guess is that when someone writes against evolution as an origins theory, you skim read to find what you disagree with, and don’t actually try to understand, in order to protect what’s in your heart.

You just moved the goalposts so far back I need binoculars to see them. “All the data”? The model of common ancestry and mutations cannot explain all the data and that’s not even getting started on the origin of life problems.

There is no way, based on your level of education and mine, and your beliefs on the science of this and mine, that everyone would read that question as having empathy and not condescension.

I have stayed in this forum for months even when when it was difficult because I saw that when you are interviewed opposite another Christian who disagrees with you on the science of this, you are condescending and they are patient with you. I had empathy and love for you in Christ, seeing that if whatever was causing this in your heart was not there, you could do great work in God’s kingdom. I thought maybe I could be an influence for good.

After this conversation, I’m not sure what else I can do. More Christians will try, and you will push them away too. Your friends will be ones that agree with or don’t bother you about it, so you so that you can keep whatever is in your heart.

Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.

The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation:

Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock.