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?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO]

Interesting paper, I found it very supporting of Jeanson's paper.

1st Genet also found 60 "overall mutations" in the genomes that he studied thus collaborating Jeansons study.

2nd I found the chart figure 2 very interesting, showing the expected mutations verses the observed mutations. The observed mutations were always much lower than the expected mutations. (so much for the predictive power of evolution)

3rd Genet calculated his mutations rate using an interesting means.

In his study Genet found 60 overall mutations just like Jeanson did. So Jeanson number of 63 overall mutations is really not in dispute. But that is not what he used to calculate is mutation rate. He also studied the synonymous mutations. But he did not use the synonymous mutation rate either.

He calculated his mutation rate by using (synonymous mutations/ total mutation/ total mutations) which equates to (synonymous mutations / (total mutations)2). The problem with this ratio is it creates asymptote.

The trend is obscured because the variance in synonymous � proportion varies dramatically for different � values, but the average proportion seems to approach an asymptote for older branches.

This means that there is an upper limit to this ratio. There would be no going over .5 it looks like. So simply by choosing this ratio Genet has guaranteed that his mutation rate will be what he wants it to be. WOW that is some kind of science. The fix was in man.

But it was nice to see how Genet did collaborate Jeanson paper. Thanks

[Replying to post 42 by alexxcJRO]
Quote:
Just ignoring ones points without a rebuttal looks really bad I am afraid.


Not when they have nothing to do with the discussion. It just makes the person who brought them up "look bad".

There is so much wrong with this post.

Q: So no more 7% or fake, generated genomes, huh?:))))

Making new unsubstantiated claims after rebuttal. Moving the goal post.
Imagining probably a fake problem while ignoring the real problem outlined by me with the 3 scenarios.

You are something.


Provide evidence for your claims. Saying Genet did that or that does not make it so.
It has been shown before you lied/invented things(7% thing, fake/generated genomes).

Q: Why do the three scenarios not show there is problem with the number of 63 variants in Jeanson's study, huh?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 43 by alexxcJRO]

“by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.�

That is correct and proven true.

Sir the “by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.� is an unfalsifiable claim.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

This subforum is designed to foster debate on issues which intersect science and religion. While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims.

Making a claim that any "apparent, perceived or claimed evidence" which contradicts the scriptural record is invalid is not science, and it closes the door on any legitimate debate on issues that do intersect science and religion. All you are doing is preaching, while pretending to be making science-based arguments. You've yet to support a single claim you have made with any real science ... everything reduces to some biblical reference or crackpot creationist website claim with a statement of faith (not science) behind it.

That is the stupidest rule ever for a forum that is supposed to be debating the intersection of science and religion. If as you are explaining is the way it is suppose to be interpreted.

1st. Religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." This is what people of faith believe and when the name of the entire forum is Christianity and religion. The sight is inviting people of faith to come in and debate their beliefs. Just like you debate your beliefs.

2nd. I am not sure why some beliefs are excepted and other beliefs are not. I have shown time and time again that what naturalist believe is nothing but mere faith in nature. Time and time again you have said that "evolution has nothing to do with origins." You are correct in saying that. But what you are failing to say is the faith that a naturalist must have in order for life to exist. There is no definitive theory on how life came into being. There is not even a workable theory. So every naturalist has to have faith that life could some how come into existence just by the forces of nature. That is not a scientific theory that is faith.

The same is true about the origins of the universe. You have to have faith that somehow through naturalistic means the universe came into being in some sort of rational way that allows us to think and to exist. There is no current theory that can produce a universe like the one in which we live. Have faith in science but it is still faith.

The naturalist still has his "theology" veil it in anything you want to veil it in but it is still theology because it is based on a belief system not fact.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 51 by alexxcJRO]

Sir the “by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.� is an unfalsifiable claim. Cool

See I told you it was true.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 49 by DrNoGods]

Which has nothing to do with the comment you quoted. I asked why there was a need for a 4500 year old study when we have physical evidence to disprove Noah's flood, and you reply that there are tales of global floods from other cultures. At least you admit that they are "tales" and not actual events. I suppose that is progress.

Quote:
It was more than one prediction. That was correct.

A person wins the lottery they are lucky. A person wins the lottery twice people are wondering if they are cheating or if they have a symptom. win the lottery 3 times people are investigating you and you better have some sort of system.

And you still don't understand the fundamental problem. It doesn't matter what a "theory" predicts if it is based on known, false initial conditions or assumptions. This is grade school level science 101 yet you clearly cannot grasp this simple concept. If a "theory" requires that "god aligned all the H atom nuclear spins" (as Humphrey's claimed), then it is not within the realm of science and nothing it predicts has any value or meaning. Why you can't understand this simple point is beyond me, but you keep defending Humphrey's "theory" despite it violating this fundamental rule of (real) science.

Yes it does matter. If fact using Humphrey's equation you too can make a prediction. What it the magnetic field around Kepler 186f? We can calculate it using Humphrey's equation and his assumption of 6000 years. Actually out that far it would be more than 6000 years. I do not believe it would be more than 100,000 years. Humphreys describes a universe in which the Earth is in a gravity well because of its unique position in the universe.

Quote:
Yes it does because the structure of the Earth before the flood determined how the flood occured. Because creation was only 1500 years before the flood.


What? More utter nonsense.

Genetic theory does not say that.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 50 by alexxcJRO]

Q: So no more 7% or fake, generated genomes, huh?Smile)))

No, just actually read the paper. Usually it is something simple like that.

Making new unsubstantiated claims after rebuttal.

Genet is the one that said that his ratio made a asymptote.

Imagining probably a fake problem while ignoring the real problem outlined by me with the 3 scenarios.

The lost of mutation is not the problem There are more mutations lost in heteroplastic mutations than there are in homoplastic mutations. The question is not the lost of mutations but which method is best at getting around the lost mutations.

Genet uses his ratio of (synonymous mutations / (total mutations)2)/ (by some number he really does not make clear what it is) I am assuming that it is the number of base pairs examined because that would give the number he came up with.

You are something.

Thanks everyone says that.

Provide evidence for your claims. Saying Genet did that or that does not make it so.

Genet said them not me.

It has been shown before you lied/invented things(7% thing, fake/generated genomes).

I do this for fun man. I skim when I can. If I have to read the entire article I do. But otherwise I skim the article for something simple.

[alexxcJRO]

No, just actually read the paper. Usually it is something simple like that.

It’s simple like that, that you lied that there were fake/generated genomes in the study, not of real people.

Genet is the one that said that his ratio made a asymptote.
The lost of mutation is not the problem There are more mutations lost in heteroplastic mutations than there are in homoplastic mutations. The question is not the lost of mutations but which method is best at getting around the lost mutations.

Genet uses his ratio of (synonymous mutations / (total mutations)2)/ (by some number he really does not make clear what it is) I am assuming that it is the number of base pairs examined because that would give the number he came up with.
Genet said them not me.

You lied already sir.

I don’t believe anything you said about any ratio, “that by choosing this ratio Genet has guaranteed that his mutation rate will be what he wants it to be. WOW that is some kind of science. The fix was in man.� , that he found “60 overall mutations�.

You could have lied and invented things here too.

Saying does not make it so. Prove it.

Even if there were some problems with the study from 2009. It's irrelevant to my argument for the three scenarios
outlined by me before kill Jeanson's ratio.

Answer the question:

Q: Why do the three scenarios not show there is problem with the number of 63 variants in Jeanson's study, huh?

I do this for fun man. I skim when I can. If I have to read the entire article I do. But otherwise I skim the article for something simple.

Sir the fact remains that you lied, no matter how desperately you want to skip over it.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 51 by alexxcJRO]

Sir the “by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.� is an unfalsifiable claim. Cool

See I told you it was true.

Of course is true that the “by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.� is a unfalsifiable claim.

And your joke of a scientist believes irrational things.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 57 by alexxcJRO]

Of course is true that the “by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.� is a unfalsifiable claim.

And your joke of a scientist believes irrational things. Cool

Its still true.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 56 by alexxcJRO]

You lied already sir.

Then why are you still posting. A mistake is a mistake. Call it what you will.

I don’t believe anything you said about any ratio, “that by choosing this ratio Genet has guaranteed that his mutation rate will be what he wants it to be. WOW that is some kind of science. The fix was in man.� , that he found “60 overall mutations�.

Do the math, or read the paper. Either one.

You could have lied and invented things here too.

Do the math it is all there.

Saying does not make it so. Prove it.

Genet said it not me it is all in his paper.

Even if there were some problems with the study from 2009. It's irrelevant to my argument for the three scenarios
outlined by me before kill Jeanson's ratio.

Answer the question:

Q: Why do the three scenarios not show there is problem with the number of 63 variants in Jeanson's study, huh?

I did post 55