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 alexxcJRO]

Jeanson is conflating mutation rate(rate at which changes occur) with substitution rate( the rate at which the changes accumulate generation-to-generation).

Substitution rates are often much slower than mutation rates.

Counting somatic mutation as germline mutation is just dishonest/stupid. Smile)

Where in his paper does it say that Jeanson used somatic mutation rate in stead of germline mutation mutation rates?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO]

Jeanson is conflating mutation rate(rate at which changes occur) with substitution rate( the rate at which the changes accumulate generation-to-generation).

Substitution rates are often much slower than mutation rates.

Counting somatic mutation as germline mutation is just dishonest/stupid. Smile)

Where in his paper does it say that Jeanson used somatic mutation rate in stead of germline mutation mutation rates?

There is a nice debunking here:
https://www.filthymonkeymen.com/2016/05 ... tion-rate/

Enjoy.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 22 by alexxcJRO]

There is a nice debunking here:

Standard creationist "science" discredited yet again, and certain participants here are adept at parroting this nonsense to try and support the young earth belief, argue against evolution by natural selection, etc. 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. Doesn't make any sense, yet they never stop with the pseudoscience, made up assumptions with no basis in reality, god did it preconditions, and the like. Fortunately they have no impact on real science and can only hope to convince the gullible and the scientifically illiterate.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 22 by alexxcJRO]

There is a nice debunking here:
https://www.filthymonkeymen.com/2016/05 ... tion-rate/

Did you actually read this report or did you just look for the good parts?

If you read this filthymonkey's blog, you should know that this filthymonkey is basing his rebuttal on a 2009 paper published by Am J Hum Genet. Which the filthymonkey refers to in his blog.

But what this filthymonkey does not discuss is what makes Jeanson 2015, Ding et al. 2015; Guo et al. 2013; Rebolledo-Jaramillo et al. 2014 different from this 2009 study. The 2009 study only looked at 7% of the mitochondrial DNA genome the D-loop dna. Jeanson, Ding, Guo, Rebolledo-Jaramillo took their data from the entire mitochondrial DNA genome.


The filthymonkey also makes a quite a big deal about the Jeanson using Homoplasmic mutations instead of using heteroplasmic mutations. The filthymonkey also did not discuss the reason given for using homoplasmic mutations instead of heteroplasmic mutations. Jeanson used homoplasmic mutations because the fate of these heteroplasmic mutations is not entirely understood (i.e., it’s not clear how frequently these mutations are lost or how frequently they become the dominant copy in the cell). This was a conservative approach towards scoring mtDNA mutations in order to be generous towards the evolutionary model.

The Filthymonkey makes this comment.

Jeanson concluded from this that there were 35 variants found in children but not found in mothers and 28 variants in mothers not found in children (together these add to 63). At first this seems reasonable until you consider the fact that this line was specifically excluding heteroplasmies.

I am not sure if the filthymonkey understand that including heteroplasmic mutations would not help the problem. Jeanson's study was published in 2015 so there has been ample time for a rebuttal to be published correcting any incorrect calculations or assumptions. But there has not been any.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 24 by EarthScienceguy]

Jeanson's study was published in 2015 so there has been ample time for a rebuttal to be published correcting any incorrect calculations or assumptions. But there has not been any.

If he had published his work in an actual scientific journal rather than on a creationist website (AIG) you can be sure there would have been rebuttals (if a legitimate science journal would have actually published it, which they wouldn't as it would be destroyed during peer review). But he didn't, and obviously AIG aren't going to rebutt it because, like all of their "science", it reaches the required conclusion dictated by their statement of faith. Just another example of a creationist trying to challenge real science with pseudoscience to support religious beliefs.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 25 by DrNoGods]

If he had published his work in an actual scientific journal rather than on a creationist website (AIG) you can be sure there would have been rebuttals (if a legitimate science journal would have actually published it, which they wouldn't as it would be destroyed during peer review). But he didn't, and obviously AIG aren't going to rebutt it because, like all of their "science", it reaches the required conclusion dictated by their statement of faith. Just another example of a creationist trying to challenge real science with pseudoscience to support religious beliefs.

Creation science has an added criteria to our theories. They also have to harmonize with Biblical text. So most of the current theories on origins from secular sources would be immediately thrown out because they would not meet this minimum reality check.

Just like Humphrey's, and other creationist work was commented on by secular scientist. This will be commented on also if they can. If not look for a change in your theories.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 26 by EarthScienceguy]

Creation science has an added criteria to our theories. They also have to harmonize with Biblical text. So most of the current theories on origins from secular sources would be immediately thrown out because they would not meet this minimum reality check.

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.

[alexxcJRO]

But what this filthymonkey does not discuss is what makes Jeanson 2015, Ding et al. 2015; Guo et al. 2013; Rebolledo-Jaramillo et al. 2014 different from this 2009 study. The 2009 study only looked at 7% of the mitochondrial DNA genome the D-loop dna. Jeanson, Ding, Guo, Rebolledo-Jaramillo took their data from the entire mitochondrial DNA genome.

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/

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 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


“The substitution rate for the entire molecule was 1.665 × 10−8 (±1.479 × 10−9) substitutions per nucleotide per year, or one mutation every 3624 years. Using just the coding region and using the ratio of 1.57 (coding region/control region mutations) as a cross-check, we obtained a very similar value (1.708 × 10−8 ± 8.92 × 10−10 substitutions per nucleotide per year, or one mutation every 3533 years). The similarity of the values is not surprising considering that the ratio of the coding-region rate to the control-region rate in the eight partition calculations was 1.55."

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.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 22 by alexxcJRO]

There is a nice debunking here:

Standard creationist "science" discredited yet again, and certain participants here are adept at parroting this nonsense to try and support the young earth belief, argue against evolution by natural selection, etc. 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. Doesn't make any sense, yet they never stop with the pseudoscience, made up assumptions with no basis in reality, god did it preconditions, and the like. Fortunately they have no impact on real science and can only hope to convince the gullible and the scientifically illiterate.

[alexxcJRO]

If he had published his work in an actual scientific journal rather than on a creationist website (AIG) you can be sure there would have been rebuttals (if a legitimate science journal would have actually published it, which they wouldn't as it would be destroyed during peer review). But he didn't, and obviously AIG aren't going to rebutt it because, like all of their "science", it reaches the required conclusion dictated by their statement of faith. Just another example of a creationist trying to challenge real science with pseudoscience to support religious beliefs.

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.