Kerching! 
Thanks Matt - hope youāre not disappointed. But whatās with the reading? I thought you idiotai are supposed to be agrammatoi?
2 Likes
Haha, this one is Ī±Ļ ĻĪæĪ“Ī¹Ī“Ī±ĪŗĻĪæĻ Ī¹Ī“Ī¹ĻĻĪ·Ļ. Glad someone was nerdy enough to pick up on the name!
The Logos mobile version of your book "Godās good earthā has some serious issues with verse links not working, dark mode unreadable, references not pulling up. I will try to report them later and see if the desktop version suffers similarly
It even seems to have extra chapters in the book of Job!
Looking forward to seeing what you have to say though
1 Like
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
No, you like to pick out little bits that fit your preconceptions, while ignoring everything that doesnāt. Thatās not research.
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But he who heeds counsel is wise.
1 Like
Weirdā¦ Iāve not had problems reported with e-format from publisher or Mr Amazon. Did you download from some other source?
1 Like
Nope, direct through the Logos software. I will flag it to them later, I just found your extended copy of Job to be amusing enough to share 
@thoughtful you are showing a child like faith in creationism, which is different than a child like faith in Jesusā¦
Donāt you agree Jesus is greater than creationism?
5 Likes
Probably written by the same guy who did the Sumerian king listsā¦
The following is from Human Y Chromosome Mutation Rate: Problems and Perspectives
Note that Jeanson does reference some of these papers, but diverges wildly from the accepted range of mutation rate.
Table 1. Methodology used, number of Mb analysed, mutation rate in bp-1y-1 and TMRCA in thousand years of age, in some relevant studies on human Y chromosome.
Reference Methodology nĀ° of Mb Mutation Rate TMRCA
Thomson et al. 2000 [37] chimp/human 0.064 1.24Ć10-9 bp-1y-1, 50 ky
Kuroki et al. 2006 [62] chimp/human 13 1.50Ć10-9 bp-1y-1, n.a
Xue et al. 2009 pedigree 10.15 1.00Ć10-9 bp-1y-1, n.a
Mendez et al. 2013 pedigree 0.24 0.62Ć10-9 bp-1y-1, 338 ky
Francalacci et al. 2013 archaeology 8.97 0.53Ć10-9 bp-1y-1, 180-200 ky
Poznik et al. 2013 archaeology 10 0.82Ć10-9 bp-1y-1, 120-156 ky
Helgason et al. 2015 pedigree 23.1 0.87Ć10-9 bp-1y-1, n.a
Karmin et al. 2015 aDNA 10.8 0.74Ć10-9 bp-1y-1, 150 ky
Trombetta et al. 2015 aDNA 1.5 0.72Ć10-9 bp-1y-1, 291 ky
What I note in above table is that the estimates for TMRCA run from 50 to 291 thousand years, as opposed to ~4,500 years per Jeanson.
More recent relevant papers include The Divergence of Neandertal and Modern Human Y Chromosomes where Mendez reports the time to the most recent common ancestor of modern humans and Neandertals as ~588 thousand years ago, two orders of magnitude greater than Jeansonās result. A preprint from this spring, The evolutionary history of Neandertal and Denisovan Y chromosomes may be of interest.
6 Likes
I clicked on some of these, but again, like @swamidass youāre missing the point as well.
For instance, the first link references y-chromosome and then goes to this:
Genomic mutation rates can be estimated either by direct observation of mutations in present-day families (de novo mutation rate), by calibrating genetic variation against archaeological/historical records (evolutionary rate), or by using a sequence extracted from ancient human remains of known chronology.
But YEC believes many nuclear DNA differences are a result of created differences, not mutations only. So the only direct measurement YEC can use to argue an approximately 6000 year timeline is Y-chromosome de novo mutation rate, and mtDNA de novo mutation rate. Mainstream genomic rates are a strawman against a YEC position.
Jeanson is saying that there are only 4 studies that captured the y-chromosome rate. Itās not as if it an evolutionary conspiracy - mainstream scientists just donāt care about proving wrong some creationist scientists theyāve never heard of, and theyāre all relying on the same set of assumptions using an evolutionary time scale most of the time. And it appears to me, thereās not really a big motivation for them to capture this y-chromosome data.
But all creationists (it was in the Dismantled firm) point to this below. Mainstream science agrees that the de novo mtDNA mutation rate is young (and this was 23 years ago!). And you guys think I donāt accept your theory because Iām ignorant? Itās because I realized creation scientists have already been proven right, and evolutionary origins theory makes less sense to me the more I study it. Iām copying the quote from an article where Jeanson quoted it because I donāt feel like buying the article.
āThus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr [i.e., 2.5 mutations per mitochondrial DNA position per million years], is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA [i.e., the mitochondrial DNA Most Recent Common Ancestorāthe time at which modern *Homo sapiens* began] of only ~6,500 y.a. [i.e., years ago].ā
I read it, and Iām not sure if itās the translation Iām reading, but thereās nothing of āwhere these things already exist.ā And if you posit that thorns and thistles are not the result of sin, then the crown Jesus wore on the cross has significance for him as King, but it doesnāt complete the metaphor that Jesus is King of creation as well and mediates its restoration through the cross.
Both you and others should consider this piece in addition, which I thought is a pretty thorough refutation. I came across it today when searching for Irenaeus. I didnāt realize Jon had already given me his reference.
You ask good questions. I was thankful God brought a passage to mind earlier this morning in a few minutes. The answer is that the ārestoration of Edenā and the ārestoration of Israel to its promised blessingsā is perhaps a distinction without a difference:
The restoration includes both the New Jerusalem and the tree of life. Eden and Israel are restored. Notice the echo of Acts 3:21 in Revelation 21:5 and Revelation 22:2
Revelation 21
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, āBehold, the dwelling place[a] of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people,[b] and God himself will be with them as their God.[c] 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.ā
5 And he who was seated on the throne said, āBehold, I am making all things new.ā Also he said, āWrite this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.ā
Revelation 22
Then the angel[a] showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life[b] with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever. 6 And he said to me, āThese words are trustworthy and true.
So youāre requiring several migrations, the first of which is under a layer of glaciation, Neanderthal remains later, etc. I think this only takes centuries not millennia. Think how much has happened in the last 500 years of modern history.
Watch 11:30 to 22 minutes and see if you think it is plausible.
Who says that? Itās not, as I understand it, Jeansonās favored model. Youāre presumably talking about the idea that Adam had all sorts of prefabricated genomes in his gametes, enough to simulate a whole population. By its nature, there can be no evidence for or against this notion in the Y chromosome data.
In a word, yes. Willfully so, and the reason behind that is that you donāt want to know because it contradicts your ingrained notions.
If I recall, Jeanson takes the rate of the D-loop hypervariable region and extrapolates that to the entire mitochondrial genome. Thatās not a reasonable thing to do. Itās like estimating the evaporation rate of a pond by checking a pot of boiling water on a stove.
2 Likes
Itās Ken Ham. You canāt expect anyone to take what he says seriously. You certainly canāt expect anyone to watch any of it.
1 Like
As I have answered the other 2-3 times you asked me this: Yes, Jesus is greater than any of manās ideas of science. Do you agree?
Iād be careful when you see a non-believer using scripture or biblical language to criticize a fellow Christian. Letās assume he does not wield it correctly, and if he does, it can be used falsely as when Satan tried to tempt Jesus. I saw the compliment in the criticism - that he resented that I used my faith to filter how to use evidence. I thought God was gracious in that, as I think John uses sophisticated spiritual attacks sometimes.
The use of faith to filter evidence is specifically why I wrote this in my review of your book:
@John_Harshman I think quickly realized his mistake, and tried a new type of criticism. But again John, your problem is with how I think, right? He focused on that and not what my faith was in - to him it makes no difference whether it is in God or creationism but only what I think about science. Do you care what my faith is in - or just how it makes me think about scientific evidence?
Well that is obviously not quite the case.
Several papers have multiple authors, the Karmin Paper lists a hundred author attributions. For many reasons, there is a great deal of motivation around the Y chromosome mutation profile.
Then find me another one that captures it separately besides those 4, if itās not āquite true.ā
OK. I see all your attributions above, but they use evolutionary arguments as far as I could tell when I clicked on a few. Accepting their POV is self-defeating.
Agrees?
The Parsons paper that you quoted also statesā¦
This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence.
And sure enough, further study elucidates the long term rates [bold is mine]ā¦
From Time Dependency of Molecular Rate Estimates and Systematic Overestimation of Recent Divergence Times
Using Bayesian analysis with a relaxed-clock model, we estimated rates for three groups of mitochondrial data: avian protein-coding genes, primate protein-coding genes, and primate d-loop sequences. In all three cases, we found a measurable transition between the high, short-term (<1ā2 Myr) mutation rate and the low, long-term substitution rate. The relationship between the age of the calibration and the rate of change can be described by a vertically translated exponential decay curve, which may be used for correcting molecular date estimates. The phylogenetic substitution rates in mitochondria are approximately 0.5% per million years for avian protein-coding sequences and 1.5% per million years for primate protein-coding and d-loop sequences. Further analyses showed that purifying selection offers the most convincing explanation for the observed relationship between the estimated rate and the depth of the calibration. We rule out the possibility that it is a spurious result arising from sequence errors, and find it unlikely that the apparent decline in rates over time is caused by mutational saturation. Using a rate curve estimated from the d-loop data, several dates for last common ancestors were calculated: modern humans and Neandertals (354 ka; 222ā705 ka), Neandertals (108 ka; 70ā156 ka), and modern humans (76 ka; 47ā110 ka).
Mainstream science does not agree with Jeanson on either Y chromosome or mtDNA clocks. At all.
You seem to think that there is evidence against evolution and the age of the earth right there in front of scientists, but they are somehow blind to the big picture truth that the evidence supports the earth and all life therein being young. The consilience of science massive supports the great antiquity of the planet, and the researchers uncovering the actual data are best positioned to contextually interpret the findings.
2 Likes
Thanks Valerie, I will check that out
Will you be reading the book as well as those articles?
Who am I, a tool of Satan? This is a paranoid fantasy, and one fears for your mental health. There was of course no compliment. What you apparently consider a virtue, I consider a vice.
Sorry, what mistake?
You will note that itās talking about the D-loop. Unfortunately, the article is paywalled, so I can only see the abstract. They do suggest explanations, apparently, that donāt involve the world being 6000 years old. Do you disagree with their explanations? Have you read the paper?
2 Likes
Possibly. I have a lot to read on my list currently. 
But I definitely always think itās good to be aware of ideas I donāt agree with. Just need the capacity to engage with them - Iād rather spend all my time thinking about ideas rather than doing laundry, but my kids need clothes to wear. 
I need to invest in audiobooks I thinkā¦