Genetics and Adam and Eve

[amortalman]

I began to wonder about this after reading a post by rikuoamero wherein he made mention of it. It sounded like a worthy subject to explore.

So the question for debate is:

Does genetics disprove a literal Adam and Eve?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 27 by DrNoGods]

Right ... this is nothing more than the "statement of faith" that creationist organizations use, and it completely negates any reason to take their "science" seriously. The answers are predetermined and they work backwards to try and twist actual science to match.

That is a totally incorrect evaluation. Creationist begin with a different set of original assumptions.

Assumption 1.
We live in a logical discoverable reality. Because it was created by a logical God and organized by that God.

Assumption 2.
The Bible is God's revelation to man about Himself.

Assumption 3
Water flooded the entire Earth about 1500 years after it was created.

All creationist theories come from these three assumptions.




Naturalist also have a set of assumption

Assumption 1.
The universe was made by natural random processes.

Assumption 2.
These random process made a universe that appears rational.

Assumption 3.
There has to be some sort of reality outside of our universe.


So which set of assumptions is correct.

As of right now creationist theories are much more robust in their predictive power.

Magnetic fields
Prediction of earthquakes
Predictions of rounded boulders on comets and asteroids.
Salt water on mars.
salt domes
Water under major mountains
mtDNA mutation rate going back 4500 years.

We have theories that solve the cosmological constant problem.
We have theories that describes why massive objects make an indention in the space time fabric.


And the list goes on and on.

Naturalist have not theory that can make predictions like creationist theories do. So why would we change our assumptions. It seems to me that naturist might have a little more success in the field of origins if they use creationist assumptions.

Right now a rational reality is proving to be too challenging of a hurdle to get over.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 29 by alexxcJRO]

Off course he didn’t submit his work for peer review.
He does not want to find the truth and be a real scientist.
He just wants to fool the morons and the gullible.
A real scientist would not make such moronic statements of faith: “by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.�, believing in an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
These YEC aka “creations scientists� have become the laughing stock of religious world.
There are a joke in the scientific world. Smile

Except when ever we are proven correct like in this instance.

[Clownboat]

I don't understand why these creationists can't just accept what science has properly demonstrated instead of making futile and silly attempts at science to try and fight the facts.

Then I'm guessing you have never been set free from any religous beliefs.
Being freed of mine was one of the hardest things I have ever gone through.

Basically, as I learned how the world really worked, I went throught the process of amending my beliefs to fit the evidence. I had Biblical solutions so I could justify an old earth and called much metaphor. I even justified 'evolution' being the tool that the god of the Bible used in order to 'create' mankind.

If I heard things that supported my beliefs, I would parrot them to the world without checking for credibility. I did this until I just couldn't anymore. This struggle is very real and IMO is what had devoloped beliefs like pre-existence and this being a prison planet. Anything can be on the table for some if it allows them to hold their beliefs.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 32 by Clownboat]

Then I'm guessing you have never been set free from any religous beliefs.

Maybe not. I was raised in a deeply Christian household, church every Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night, vacation bible school every summer, a missionary training camp every summer, a prayer before every meal, etc.

But I don't think I ever really bought into it despite the heavy indoctrination attempts by my family. So it wasn't hard to see religion for the myth that it is once I got older and got a science education and appreciated how much more consistent and believable science was over the religious tall tales.

Obviously, YECs genuinely believe what they are trying to defend, but it surprises me that they persist at it when the deviations between reality (eg. 6000 year old Earth vs. 4.6 billion) are so great that it cannot possibly be supported against the overwhelming evidence. If you're going to believe in gods, afterlives, that prayer works, etc., why bother trying to buck science so drastically and just admit that it is all driven by faith rather than evidence, and leave it at that? But I suppose they have a need to legitamize these beliefs, and trying to justify them via pseudoscience gives them a good feeling despite the futility of it all.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 28 by alexxcJRO]

Firstly,

In the study is says they used 2000 complete mtDNA genomes:

“We here confirm a modest effect of purifying selection on the mtDNA coding region and propose an improved molecular clock for dating human mtDNA, based on a worldwide phylogeny of > 2000 complete mtDNA genomes and calibrating against recent evidence for the divergence time of humans and chimpanzees. “

“We first reconstructed the global mtDNA tree by using > 2000 complete mtDNA genomes and assessed the variation of different classes of mutation at different time depths, in order to test the time dependency of the mutation rate. We then recalibrated the mtDNA molecular clock by accounting for the effect of time depth (without any prior assumption on intraspecific calibration points), incorporating the most recent fossil evidence for the time of the Homo-Pan split. We also independently estimated new synonymous mutation and control-region rates for comparison and an internal control. Finally, we reassessed a number of phylogeographic aspects of human evolution in order to cross-check the new chronology.�



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2694979/

We compiled a database containing published complete mtDNA sequences from NCBI with the Geneious software.


These full mtDNA sequences were generated by a computer. They were not from actual individuals. Jeanson's study was from actual individuals.

Secondly,

The study found that the entire human genome substitution rate is 1.665 × 10−8 substitutions per nucleotide per year. In other words, a new mutation every 3624 years far lower then Jeanson rate.

This is not based on actual observations of but on a computer program.

T

his has been corroborated by

- archaeological dating for the settlement of the Canary Islands and Remote Oceania;
- yielding an age of modern human expansion in the Americas at ∼15 kya, consistent with the archaeology;
- accurately predicting the timing of the first modern human settlement of Europe and resettlement after the Last Glacial Maximum.
- a rate based on looking at just synonymous mutations

But no genetics




EarthScienceguy wrote:

Jeanson used homoplasmic mutations


There is a problem with this sir.

Ding et al. 2015 found 35 homoplasmic variants in children and 28 found in mothers.

These variants can be explained away.

A. Homoplasmic variants in children
- Heteroplasmic mother produces a homoplasmic egg due to a mitochondrial bottleneck. Therefore we get homoplastic child. Jeanson would have counted these as genuine germline mutations.
- Homoplastic kind in the child was also in the mother but in the meantime it become heteroplasmic in the mother through somatic mutation. Jeanson would have counted these as genuine germline mutations.

B. Homoplastic variants in the mothers
- Homoplasmic variant in the mother can be explained by the fact that the child although getting the homoplastic kind later it became heteroplasmic through somatic mutation. Jeanson would have counted these as genuine germline mutations.

We could count all mutations but that still wouldn't help your hypothesis. It would actually make it worse.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 30 by EarthScienceguy]

Assumption 1.
We live in a logical discoverable reality. Because it was created by a logical God and organized by that God.

No problem with sentence #1. Sentence #2 is an unfounded assumption. No god(s) have even been shown to exist.

Assumption 2.
The Bible is God's revelation to man about Himself.

Again, an unfounded assumption. Gods have never been shown to exist.

Assumption 3
Water flooded the entire Earth about 1500 years after it was created.

Demonstrably false. This absolutely did not happen (assuming your prior assertions that "creation" was around 6000 years ago and Noah's flood ~4500 years ago).

All creationist theories come from these three assumptions.

This is exactly why creationist "theories" can be discarded as nonsense. Two unfounded assumptions and one demonstrably false assumption. So again, it boils down to the statement of faith ... anything that disagrees with the biblical narrative is ignored regardless of the evidence. Therefore, it is not science and not compatible with science. So why pretend that it is?

Real science makes no unfounded assumptions, or uses made up events (eg. Noah's flood) as a basis. Hypotheses are made, tested by experiment, observation and analysis, confirmed by repetition and multiple investigations, published in the open literature after peer review for everyone to throw darts at, refined if needed, etc. If a hypothesis survives this process for long enough it is accepted as "true" until future experiments or observations falsify it. Initial assumptions and hypotheses that fail are discarded.

You can't equate the two approaches. With unfounded assumptions and "god did it" starting points, virtually anything can be passed off as correct. But put up against rigorous scientific scrutiny the biblical stories completely fall apart. There is no such thing as "creationist science" ... because it isn't science at all.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 35 by DrNoGods]

No problem with sentence #1. Sentence #2 is an unfounded assumption. No god(s) have even been shown to exist.

Quote:
Assumption 2.
The Bible is God's revelation to man about Himself.


Again, an unfounded assumption. Gods have never been shown to exist.

Quote:
Assumption 3
Water flooded the entire Earth about 1500 years after it was created.

What you believe about the assumption is inconsequential? Our theories have far more predictive power than any naturalistic theory. So until naturalism catches up I think we are doing just fine with the assumptions we have.

Demonstrably false. This absolutely did not happen (assuming your prior assertions that "creation" was around 6000 years ago and Noah's flood ~4500 years ago).

Only if you know of a 4500 year old study. We actually have two competing flood geology that are becoming very robust in their predictive power. I am assuming that in the very near future they will be combined to produce an extremely robust theory for the flood.

Current theory has problems explaining
Ice ages.
The Grand Canyon
Round boulders on comets.
No evidence of soil between rock layers.
no evidence of bioturbation


Quote:
All creationist theories come from these three assumptions.

This is exactly why creationist "theories" can be discarded as nonsense. Two unfounded assumptions and one demonstrably false assumption. So again, it boils down to the statement of faith ... anything that disagrees with the biblical narrative is ignored regardless of the evidence. Therefore, it is not science and not compatible with science. So why pretend that it is?

Experiments can start with any assumptions they want to start with. If a robust theory comes from the experiment the assumptions have to looked at and determined why they give the correct view of reality.

Real science makes no unfounded assumptions, or uses made up events (eg. Noah's flood) as a basis.

1. Like a rational universe coming from random events
2. Like no uncaused events right.
3. Or pulling events out of thin air. Like inflation.

Hypotheses are made, tested by experiment, observation and analysis, confirmed by repetition and multiple investigations, published in the open literature after peer review for everyone to throw darts at, refined if needed, etc. If a hypothesis survives this process for long enough it is accepted as "true" until future experiments or observations falsify it. Initial assumptions and hypotheses that fail are discarded.

You mean like the Big Bang theory that fails to predict elements in there correct proportions.

You can't equate the two approaches. With unfounded assumptions and "god did it" starting points, virtually anything can be passed off as correct. But put up against rigorous scientific scrutiny the biblical stories completely fall apart.

You mean I should believe an uncaused event produced this universe. That is not rational at all.

There is no such thing as "creationist science" ... because it isn't science at all.

There is only creation science. All other theories with different assumptions result in a universe in which there is no such thing as reality. Only random energy in a boltzmann brain, black hole, or some sort of computer program. Take your pick. Those are the naturalist options according to the laws of science.

Me I prefer to live in a real and rational world.

[alexxcJRO]

We compiled a database containing published complete mtDNA sequences from NCBI with the Geneious software.

Q: We? Who is we?

These full mtDNA sequences were generated by a computer. They were not from actual individuals.
This is not based on actual observations of but on a computer program.

Q: What nonsense are you babbling about?

Q: Where did you got that 7% number?

But no genetics

Sir they compared their substitution rate to a rate based on looking at just synonymous mutations . They found it to be accurate.
This has been corroborated by

- archaeological dating for the settlement of the Canary Islands and Remote Oceania;
- yielding an age of modern human expansion in the Americas at ∼15 kya, consistent with the archaeology;
- accurately predicting the timing of the first modern human settlement of Europe and resettlement after the Last Glacial Maximum.

We could count all mutations but that still wouldn't help your hypothesis. It would actually make it worse.

Q: Where did I said that we need to count all the mutations? )

Man you are embarrassing yourself. Stop with the straw-man.

My 3 points show that the 63 homoplasmic variants does not necessarily mean genuine germline mutations.

So the 63 number could be much lower.
Therefore this study relevance goes out the window.

The other two studies he referenced were small and found no differences. Therefore no relevance.
His rate goes out the window. Sayonara. Cius. Bye bye.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 29 by alexxcJRO]

Off course he didn’t submit his work for peer review.
He does not want to find the truth and be a real scientist.
He just wants to fool the morons and the gullible.
A real scientist would not make such moronic statements of faith: “by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.�, believing in an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
These YEC aka “creations scientists� have become the laughing stock of religious world.
There are a joke in the scientific world. Smile

Except when ever we are proven correct like in this instance.

Q: Why does he not summit his work for peer review, huh?

Common we know why. He knows himself he is wrong, he knows himself he is propagating nonsense.

Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, is illogical dear sir.

Q: Do you not know that?

Q: How can he called himself a scientist while adhering to unfalsifiable claims?

He is just an embarrassment.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 37 by alexxcJRO]


EarthScienceguy wrote:

We compiled a database containing published complete mtDNA sequences from NCBI with the Geneious software.


Q: We? Who is we? Eh? Confused

This is from Am J Hum Genet paper the one the filthymonkey was quoting from

EarthScienceguy wrote:

These full mtDNA sequences were generated by a computer. They were not from actual individuals.
This is not based on actual observations of but on a computer program.



Q: What nonsense are you babbling about? Eh?

All of Am J Hum Genet 2000 mtDNA were generated by a computer program they were not actually mapped from actual individuals. They are made up.

Q: Where did you got that 7% number? Eh?

Jeanson's Paper


EarthScienceguy wrote:

But no genetics

Sir they compared their substitution rate to a rate based on looking at just synonymous mutations . They found it to be accurate.

You mean some computer generated mtDNA data.

This has been corroborated by

- archaeological dating for the settlement of the Canary Islands and Remote Oceania;
- yielding an age of modern human expansion in the Americas at ∼15 kya, consistent with the archaeology;
- accurately predicting the timing of the first modern human settlement of Europe and resettlement after the Last Glacial Maximum.

Yada, Yada, Yada. Has nothing to do with the genetic data set.


EarthScienceguy wrote:

We could count all mutations but that still wouldn't help your hypothesis. It would actually make it worse.



Q: Where did I said that we need to count all the mutations? Smile)

Man you are embarrassing yourself. Stop with the straw-man.

My 3 points show that the 63 homoplasmic variants does not necessarily mean genuine germline mutations.

So the 63 number could be much lower.
Therefore this study relevance goes out the window.

Wishful thinking.

The other two studies he referenced were small and found no differences. Therefore no relevance.
His rate goes out the window.

I am sorry the data does not support your theory. But that is the way the science ball bounces.