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 38 by alexxcJRO]

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

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.

He did submit it for peer review.

And anyone can read his work and believe me they did.

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

What? He made a very specific claim. How is that not falsifiable?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 36 by EarthScienceguy]

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.

It really is incredible that you believe this, but simply stating it doesn't make it true. Creationist "theories" have never predicted anything without first assuming the answer and then creating imaginary assumptions and "god did it" scenarios. It is pure and utter nonsense and always has been.

Only if you know of a 4500 year old study.

Why is there any need for a 4500 year old study? We have plenty of evidence today to disprove the Noah's flood myth. If you really think a 4500 year old study were needed it is just more proof that you don't understand even the very basics of how science works. Plus, there were people living around the globe and written language 4500 years ago, and not one mention of a global flood. It is a myth.

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

No they don't. You're again just stating things as it if were true.

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.

Again, more proof that you don't understand even the basics of science. But you've proven that many times with the defense of Humphrey's nonsense on planetary magnetic fields. You are happy with garbage assumptions like the planets all started out as balls of H2O, and god swooped in and aligned all the H atom nuclear spins. The very fact that you think this is OK because it coincidentally produced a few ballpark numbers speaks for itself. Can't you see why it is a major problem to formulate a "theory" from nonsensical assumptions known to be false? It is a simple concept to grasp ... garbage in, garbage out.

You mean like the Big Bang theory that fails to predict elements in there correct proportions. You mean I should believe an uncaused event produced this universe. That is not rational at all.

And yet again, you resort to origins whether it has anything to do with the discussion or not. Who cares if the Big Bang hypothesis is correct or not when talking about Noah's flood? How the universe came into existence has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there was a global flood a measly 4500 years ago!

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.

More of the same. Creation "science" is as ridiculous as the myths it tries to defend. Fortunately just a small minority of scientifically illiterate people actually believe it has any merit, and they are blinded by their faith to the point that they can't see how utterly wrong it is in every respect (as real science has shown conclusively). You're fighting a battle that was convincingly lost many centuries ago.

[alexxcJRO]

This is from Am J Hum Genet paper the one the filthymonkey was quoting from
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.
You mean some computer generated mtDNA data.
Yada, Yada, Yada. Has nothing to do with the genetic data set.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic and accuracy born out of dishonesty and/or chronic stupidity and/or cognitive dissonance . 😊)

"We compiled a database containing published complete mtDNA sequences from NCBI with the Geneious software. These included the complete mtDNA sequences from several papers6–9,11–25,41–52 and several deposited by Family Tree.
...
A list of the published complete mtDNA genomes used is shown in Table S1, available online. A total of 2196 complete mitochondrial genomes were used in the final analyses.
For comparative and calibration purposes, we used two sequences of Pan troglodytes,57,58 one of Pan paniscus,58 and two of Gorilla.58,59 Additionally, all of the available complete mtDNA genomes from primates were retrieved from NCBI, again with the Geneious software. A list is shown in Table S2. We later included the complete mtDNA sequence of the Neanderthal for comparison.60
...
We constructed phylogenetic trees by using the reduced-median algorithm61 of the Network 4 software"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... po=7.91855

It clearly says they took complete genomes from published papers(real people) and put them in the Geneious database for easy use.

They generated phylogenetic trees by using the reduced-median algorithm61 of the Network 4 software.

They did not generated the mDNA genomes but the phylogenetic trees which were using the complete mDNA genomes.

It's like this:

I take all the profiles of the real people on this forum containing all the useful information: name, age, gender, religious affiliation and put it a java, c ++ database.
And then use this database to generate certain percentages reports.

I did not generate fake profiles of fake people but certain percentages reports using real profiles from real people.

You are done sir.

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

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic and accuracy born out either dishonesty and/or chronic and/or stupidity and/or cognitive dissonance. )

Saying does not make it so.

Just ignoring ones points without a rebuttal looks really bad I am afraid.

Sir the 3 scenarios show Jeanson could have counted a somatic mutation as a germline mutation.

He did not account for this 3 possibilities. Just assumed that if a homoplasmic variant exists in the lymphocyte of a mother then it must also exist in the lymphocyte of her child unless a mutation has occurred in the germline – this couldn’t be more wrong. Mutations can happen in somatic cells and heteroplasmic states can be lost due to bottlenecks.

So please either address my point or admit you have nothing.

[alexxcJRO]

He did submit it for peer review.

Q: So he summited his nonsensical ramblings from here: “https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-genome-mutation-rate/“ to scientific peer review?!

Q: Where?

Please provide the evidence.

Observation: I hope you know i was talking of scientific peer review.

What? He made a very specific claim. How is that not falsifiable?

Sir please don’t straw-man. Looks really bad.

You know I was talking about this: “by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.�

[EarthScienceguy]

[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

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 42 by alexxcJRO]

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".

[EarthScienceguy]

[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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 41 by DrNoGods]

Why is there any need for a 4500 year old study? We have plenty of evidence today to disprove the Noah's flood myth. If you really think a 4500 year old study were needed it is just more proof that you don't understand even the very basics of how science works. Plus, there were people living around the globe and written language 4500 years ago, and not one mention of a global flood. It is a myth.

Not true in fact most older cultures have tales of global flood from around the world.

Quote:
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


No they don't. You're again just stating things as it if were true.

Not in the least pick one if you like and we can go through it.

Again, more proof that you don't understand even the basics of science. But you've proven that many times with the defense of Humphrey's nonsense on planetary magnetic fields. You are happy with garbage assumptions like the planets all started out as balls of H2O, and god swooped in and aligned all the H atom nuclear spins. The very fact that you think this is OK because it coincidentally produced a few ballpark numbers speaks for itself. Can't you see why it is a major problem to formulate a "theory" from nonsensical assumptions known to be false? It is a simple concept to grasp ... garbage in, garbage out.

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 yet again, you resort to origins whether it has anything to do with the discussion or not. Who cares if the Big Bang hypothesis is correct or not when talking about Noah's flood? How the universe came into existence has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there was a global flood a measly 4500 years ago!

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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 46 by EarthScienceguy]

That is correct and proven true.

You are clearly missing the whole point of this Science and Religion debate section of the website, as outlined in the guidelines (underline mine):

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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 47 by EarthScienceguy]

Not true in fact most older cultures have tales of global flood from around the world.

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.

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 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.