What about Noah and Population Genetics?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Otto

So we can analyze the probabilities P(“unknown magical mutagen”|YEC) and P(Evidence|YEC & “unknown magical mutagen”) separately and in the end we can show how many and how severe ad hoc assumptions have to be made to save the hypothesis.

Sorry @Otto, that is not how science works.

@Otto

So before we do any more work to work out math or plumb the literature, it might be worth trying to find a mutagen or mechanism that can increase mutations in precisely these ratios. I’m not sure if one exists.

I don’t like to leave my arguments in the state of “I’m not sure if a suitable mechanism exists”, if we can do better.

It is an issue of resources. It is reality that this is often how things are left. Though, this gives a way forward for people who want to scientifically challenge this mutation rate. A research program to make the scientific case would:

1. Identify a mutagen that produces mutations at these ratios.
2. Demonstrate this mutagen can mutate mice or rats at 50x to 100x their natural rate, without killing them or reducing mutation rates.
3. Produced a plausible explanation (or evidence) why everyone across the entire globe was exposed to this mutagen.
4. Demonstrate that ancient genomes do not contradict the mutation rate.

If that can be done, that full cohort, then perhaps even that might become part of mainstream science. As you can see, that is a very difficult thing to do, even if it is what happened in the past.

@Otto

It seems you could make a strong argument from the mutation fingerprint, but at least two questions must be settled before It can be appreciated for its true strength:

You two questions fine, however what you are running into a “fine-tuning” problem. Such a fine-tuning is highly non-parsimonious. We also have an independent way of testing mutation rates in the distant past (ancient DNA).

For such a reason, such a position is high vulnerable to challenge.

@Otto

I would call that beating up the superman.

That is not how science works. It is invitational.

We invite those who think this is a real possibility to show us how it is coherent with the evidence. We always maintain the humility that we missed something. We hold results provisionally.

@swamidass

I am a practicing scientist, working and engaging with leading scientists every day. I cannot envision how we could possibly know that we have “exhausted” all natural possibilities. We could certainly exhaust our creativity. We could exhaust our knowledge. Without entering into science fiction, how could any one possibly “exhaust” natural possibilities?

Such a counter-factual requires either God-like knowledge of nature, or profound blindness to the fact we do not have God-like knowledge of nature. It is something only a philosopher could propose with a straight face. I cannot plausibly imagine constructing that type of confidence about the natural world. It is stunningly implausible hubris.

I was just at an NIH review committee. I’m imagining a fictional R01 being discussed, where Aim 1 is “rule out all natural possibilities;” Aim 2 is “consider other possibilities.” I can’t even imagine what the approach would be, and would struggle to discuss it with out breaking into laughter. There is no process I know of or can imagine for accomplishing Aim 1. It is an absurd claim, that no real scientist would ever consider putting before their peers.

I see what you are trying to do @Otto. It just does not work that way. Science does not bring us to the type of confidence for which you are looking. It is invitational.