That is not true. The opposite, really.
Your skin, hair, blood cells, and internal organs all have dividing cells. They are the first to go. They die, and you die in days, weeks or months. It is a very horrible death. You loose your hair, you vomit and loose your appetite, and you stop producing red blood cells and white blood cells, becoming unable to fight off infections. We actually administer lethal doses of radiation in the hospital to treat many cancers, but we have to do a bone marrow transplant to keep patients alive.
Cancer is not what kills you. That is just the long term risk if you somehow survive.
As for radiation as the mechanism of this (as proposed by RTB), it would cause primarily deletions and rearrangements, both of which are much more dangerous than point mutations (which is most of what we see). Rearrangements can delete genes or break them totally, and so can deletions if they cause a frameshift.
The lethal dose of radiation for humans is ~400 Rads, which kills 50% of people. At 1kRads, everyone is dead. The LD50 for uniform low LET irradiation of man. - PubMed - NCBI
Roughly 1 rem, or 1 Rad, is approximately 3 years of natural radiation exposure. So we get about 10 rem, on average, before having kids. Increase radiation by about 40x, and we are up to the point where 50% of the population is dying every generation. More accurately, there would be even more dying if you take cumulative effects into account. Of course, keep in mind:
Most of these mutations are not the right type any ways, and the germline cells will be among the the least likely to be affected (because they are buried deep in the case of eggs, and protected if they are testes).
Infertility would take place before that point too, as rearrangements cause genetic interference, and many of the mutations that won’t kill us will still injure development irrecoverably.
We do not see this many deletions in the human genome. We see mainly point variations, which are less likely.
You could look at alpha and beta radiation, but that type of radiation does not penetrate deeply.
He does not say that any more. He thinks that TMR4A does test the hypothesis, and rules it out before 500 kya.
That is not an ethical study. We know that we have just never observed anything approaching that rate in large mammals (or probably even small mammals). It has never been observed.
I think we have.
I’m all for that, but the arguments are not determined to be improper or proper based on use of a “bayes factor.”
The evidence is really clear. The YEC model of a genetic bottleneck of 5 people for Noah does not fit the evidence. To make it fit, we would need to invoke some large, ongoing miracles, where God is adding mutations to human populations for thousands of years in the past, and then stops for thousands of years. We also need to either (1) believe God was miraculously adding mutations before the flood too, or (2) posit that Adam and Eve were Genetic mosaics. Those options might be the only way for this to work.
Of course, ongoing miracles of that sort are unattested to in Scripture, and do not have any reason, it seems, except to fit the data. There does not seem to be an independent reason God, which should substantially reduce our confidence in it.