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]

So people that try to discredit Jeanson's work are not saying that some of the 63 homogenic mutations are false readings but they are trying to say that they are all false readings. That seems more than far fetched to me. There would have to be some documented evidence indicating that all of the 63 homogenic mutations are false readings.

Nonsensical irrelevant ramblings devoid of any logic and accuracy.

Q: Why are you boring me again with more misrepresentations, straw-mans and lies, huh?:-s

Sir i did not make the argument that all 63 variations are false readings. Please stop.
You only are embarrassing yourself.

My argument was that he can't be sure of his 63 number. Therefore he cannot make calculations with this number. Therefore his rate goes out the window.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 78 by alexxcJRO]

Yes, so how many of those 63 are not. Are you saying all of them?

Genet found 60 in his 193 sample.

To come up with a 6.4E-8 mutation per year. Would mean finding only 1 mutation per 100,000 samples. That is not even close to what we find.

It is also interesting that Genet found that mutations have increased over the 5000 years. That is exactly what creationist would predict going from extremely long life spans to shorter life spans.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 78 by alexxcJRO]

Yes, so how many of those 63 are not. Are you saying all of them?

Genet found 60 in his 193 sample.

This post reeks of extreme desperation.

It's funny how you try so hard to lead me into an argument.

Again my argument is that he can't be sure of his 63 number because of the 3 scenarios i presented. Therefore he cannot make calculations with this number. Therefore his rate goes out the window.

He did not account for the three scenarios because he does not want to follow the evidence where it leads(honest approach), but forces the evidence to fit his preconceived ideas(dishonest approach). His belief in an unfalsifiable claim(“by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.�) proves further his irrationality and dishonesty.

It's clear he is a joke and not a real scientist.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to alexxcJRO]

Again my argument is that he can't be sure of his 63 number because of the 3 scenarios i presented. Therefore he cannot make calculations with this number. Therefore his rate goes out the window.

Fine, how many of the 63 do you think are?

He did not account for the three scenarios because he does not want to follow the evidence where it leads(honest approach), but forces the evidence to fit his preconceived ideas(dishonest approach). His belief in an unfalsifiable claim(“by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.�) proves further his irrationality and dishonesty.

Do you think 2?

Ok, let's do the math on 2. 2/298 = 5.03E-3 take that number and divide by 25 for the number of generations. 2.01E-4 mutations per year. divide this by the number mutations 2 and you get about 10,000 years.

The number of mutations in not the problem it what these mutations are compared to is the issue. Jeanson compared the number of mutations to the number generations.

Genet compared mathematically masaged number of mutations to points in archeology that the phylogenetic tree is supposedly aligns to. Genet still could not use an actual number of mutations. He had to use the "Relation between Overall � Values and the Synonymous � Proportion" which came out to an asymptote at 0.4794.

You will love this!!!

Do you know he still could not use the generation method and had to compare this masaged number of mutations? I know you are dying to know. Let's do the math.

0.4794/193 (his sample) = 2.48E-3 divide this by 25. = 9.94E-5 mutations/year.

Now we do need to take 0.4794 and multiply by 2 to so we have at least one mutations. = 0.9588/9.94E-5 = 9646 years!!!! That's right 10,000 years again!!!!!

Genetics tells us that man has not been around longer that 10,000 years.
And not just man but every animal that has been studied in this manner has shown the same thing.

So unless you have some mathematical proof contrary to the calculations above. The discussion is over.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO]

Again my argument is that he can't be sure of his 63 number because of the 3 scenarios i presented. Therefore he cannot make calculations with this number. Therefore his rate goes out the window.

Fine, how many of the 63 do you think are?

He did not account for the three scenarios because he does not want to follow the evidence where it leads(honest approach), but forces the evidence to fit his preconceived ideas(dishonest approach). His belief in an unfalsifiable claim(“by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.�) proves further his irrationality and dishonesty.

Do you think 2?

Ok, let's do the math on 2. 2/298 = 5.03E-3 take that number and divide by 25 for the number of generations. 2.01E-4 mutations per year. divide this by the number mutations 2 and you get about 10,000 years.

The number of mutations in not the problem it what these mutations are compared to is the issue. Jeanson compared the number of mutations to the number generations.

Genet compared mathematically masaged number of mutations to points in archeology that the phylogenetic tree is supposedly aligns to. Genet still could not use an actual number of mutations. He had to use the "Relation between Overall � Values and the Synonymous � Proportion" which came out to an asymptote at 0.4794.

You will love this!!!

Do you know he still could not use the generation method and had to compare this masaged number of mutations? I know you are dying to know. Let's do the math.

0.4794/193 (his sample) = 2.48E-3 divide this by 25. = 9.94E-5 mutations/year.

Now we do need to take 0.4794 and multiply by 2 to so we have at least one mutations. = 0.9588/9.94E-5 = 9646 years!!!! That's right 10,000 years again!!!!!

Genetics tells us that man has not been around longer that 10,000 years.
And not just man but every animal that has been studied in this manner has shown the same thing.

So unless you have some mathematical proof contrary to the calculations above. The discussion is over.

Boring me with irrelevant nonsense.

I hope you know everything you posted does not refute my argument which shows the sloppy work of Jeanson. How he is a joke of a scientist.

Nothing you posted refutes the fact that he can't be sure of his 63 number. Therefore his rate goes out the window. Therefore he is a joke.

It's clear he fudged the numbers to get to his biblical age.

Also there is plenty evidence that goes against your nonsensical ramblings, against YEC.

Plenty hominid and modern human fossils older then 5000/10000 years.
Plenty evidence against an young Earth.


https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_ ... t_creation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils

[John Bauer]

Does genetics disprove a literal Adam and Eve?

No, it does not.

However, what it does disprove is the belief that they were (1) the first human beings and (2) the sole progenitors of all human beings. But that hardly rules out their existence.

[Tcg]

Does genetics disprove a literal Adam and Eve?

No, it does not.

However, what it does disprove is the belief that they were (1) the first human beings and (2) the sole progenitors of all human beings. But that hardly rules out their existence.

You make an interesting point. What is left, however, of a literal Adam and Eve given that both your points are accurate?



Tcg

[John Bauer]

You make an interesting point. What is left, however, of a literal Adam and Eve given that both your points are accurate?

Quite a lot, actually. But all of their significance is entirely religious, pertaining to redemptive history. They have nothing to do with the origins of our species.

[rikuoamero]

You make an interesting point. What is left, however, of a literal Adam and Eve given that both your points are accurate?

Quite a lot, actually. But all of their significance is entirely religious, pertaining to redemptive history. They have nothing to do with the origins of our species.

Them being the supposed first humans ever, our common ancestors, and of them having disobeyed God is pretty much the sum total of their characters. If one erases all of that...just who or what are you talking about then? What is redemption history?
It's like saying Adolf Hitler is still important in terms of being one of the most influential persons of the 20th century...but one disagrees that he was the leader of Germany. So who are you talking about then if not the Fuhrer?

[John Bauer]

You make an interesting point. What is left, however, of a literal Adam and Eve given that both your points are accurate?

Quite a lot, actually. But all of their significance is entirely religious, pertaining to redemptive history. They have nothing to do with the origins of our species.

Them being the supposed first humans ever, our common ancestors, and of them having disobeyed God is pretty much the sum total of their characters. If one erases all of that...just who or what are you talking about then? What is redemption history? (...)

Well, no, that is not "pretty much the sum total of their characters." Those who understand biblical Christianity [1] or at least have made a study of the Bible at one time or another know very well that there's a great deal more to them—especially Adam. For just a quick example, there are profound theological implications in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. One could develop a long expositional sermon series on just this Adam and Christ motif alone and its far-reaching consequences for the doctrine of the gospel.

-- John Bauer

Footnotes:

[1] The expression "biblical Christianity" here is meant to distinguish a theological system from the cultural Christianity so evident in the modern West, which is extraordinarily light on theology and doctrine (to put it politely).