YEC science and misrepresentation/misinterpretation

[SLP]

About 7 years ago, I started a thread with a 'challenge'/question:

YEC scientist Jeff Tomkins wrote the following:​

"The authors wrote, "The maximum likelihood time for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago." Old-earth proponents now have a new challenge: to explain why after millions of years of hardly any genetic variation among modern humans, did human genomic diversity exploded only within the last five thousand years?
However, the same data conforms to and dramatically confirms biblical history. Since the author's date represents the maximum time, the actual DNA diversification event probably occurred even sooner. "​

How many YECs can spot the gaffe in this confident assertion from the ICR's genetics and science "expert"?
​

The original question was on a specific implication Tomkins made, but if one takes the time to review the paper he quoted, one can see some, shall we say, inconsistencies with his comical extrapolation. The thread went on for 4 pages with not a single creationist even attempting to address the challenge.

For now - can any creationists see Tomkins error?

 

[Norbert L]

There is a more important gaffe. The self centeredness of believing God wasn't doing anything prior to coming up with the idea of creating mankind. Much like during the time of Copernicus who found out that the Sun doesn't orbit the Earth. Some Christians didn't like that idea as well and considered it heterodox.

What ever Tomkin's gaffe is, it's far Far less important than silencing oppositional ideas in the public forum of intellectual debate. Basically to rely on a correct assessment of this article is like tripping over a twenty dollar bill in order to pick up a nickel.

 

[SLP]

There is a more important gaffe. The self centeredness of believing God wasn't doing anything....

So you could not see his error and have nothing of value to add. Understood.

 

[miamited]

Hi @SLP,

While I'm sure it is mere hyperbole, the gaff is that you can't have millions of years of study, if mankind is only 5-6k years in existence. I'm confident that his point is that there's been a whole lot of study to prove that the creation is several billions of years old.

God bless,
Ted

 

[SLP]

Hi Ted - I hadn't considered that, but the reason I had brought this up before (and now) has more to do with a technical/analytical issue, one that someone like Tomkins should have been aware of, given his background. I admit it is pretty subtle, and one sort of needs to have used these analytical techniques to see it.

 

[Bradskii]

...why after millions of years of hardly any genetic variation among modern humans, did human genomic diversity exploded only within the last five thousand years?

It didn't.

If Tomkins is discussing 'racial' differences (I put 'racial in quotes because it's not a scientifically recognised term) then differences between individuals in a group are greater than the differences between groups. And any group differences (lighter/darker skin, eye colour etc) occured after we left Africa about 60,000 years ago.

What 'exploded' 5,000 years ago was the rise of societies.

 

[miamited]

Hi @SLP

Hi Ted - I hadn't considered that, but the reason I had brought this up before (and now) has more to do with a technical/analytical issue, one that someone like Tomkins should have been aware of, given his background. I admit it is pretty subtle, and one sort of needs to have used these analytical techniques to see it.

Oh, well count me out. I don't think I've likely ever used the 'analytical techniques' in question. And I see that I've made a mistake in my claim also. It doesn't really say that there have been 'millions of years of study'. It makes the claim that there has not been much genetic variation over millions of years among humans.

I suppose that the gaff may be that he seems to be assuming that any genomic variation has only taken place in the last 5,000 years without offering any way of proving that than to believe the Scriptural creation account. I happen to be one of those, but I understand that even among believers, it's a hard understanding to prove and isn't widely accepted.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Norbert L]

So you could not see his error and have nothing of value to add. Understood.

Seems to me that your deeper puzzlement over this:

The thread went on for 4 pages with not a single creationist even attempting to address the challenge.

Was of more importance and of greater value than the question itself.

 

[SLP]

Seems to me that your deeper puzzlement over this:

Was of more importance and of greater value than the question itself.

No, it was dodging and going off topic.

And on that I am not the least bit puzzled, for creationists are much better at that than they are at actually discussing specific issues.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

About 7 years ago, I started a thread with a 'challenge'/question:

YEC scientist Jeff Tomkins wrote the following:​

"The authors wrote, "The maximum likelihood time for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago." Old-earth proponents now have a new challenge: to explain why after millions of years of hardly any genetic variation among modern humans, did human genomic diversity exploded only within the last five thousand years?
However, the same data conforms to and dramatically confirms biblical history. Since the author's date represents the maximum time, the actual DNA diversification event probably occurred even sooner. "​

How many YECs can spot the gaffe in this confident assertion from the ICR's genetics and science "expert"?
​

The original question was on a specific implication Tomkins made, but if one takes the time to review the paper he quoted, one can see some, shall we say, inconsistencies with his comical extrapolation. The thread went on for 4 pages with not a single creationist even attempting to address the challenge.

For now - can any creationists see Tomkins error?

Not sure what you're getting at, but modern humans are unusually lacking in genetic diversity compared to other mammals - it's been suggested that this lack of diversity is consistent with one or more population bottlenecks, most recently between 20,000 and 40,000 years ago.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's hard to spot just a single gaffe. I guess my immediate take is that we know that the indigenous people of Australia and the New World were already in place long before 5,000 years ago. Whatever differences there are in these gene pools were already in place before this alleged accelerated event.

Looking more directly at the paper, I guess the interpretive problem is that the main change at that point was that the population increased dramatically. YECs often like to use probability arguments, so surely they should understand that the more people there are, the more chances there are for genetic variants to appear. "The excess of rare variation across the exome is consistent with explosive human population growth".

 

[SLP]

Not sure what you're getting at, but modern humans are unusually lacking in genetic diversity compared to other mammals - it's been suggested that this lack of diversity is consistent with one or more population bottlenecks, most recently between 20,000 and 40,000 years ago.

It isn't that - it is re: the analytical technique he is misrepresenting.

 

[SLP]

HINT:


"The authors wrote, "The maximum likelihood time for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago." Old-earth proponents now have a new challenge: to explain why after millions of years of hardly any genetic variation among modern humans, did human genomic diversity exploded only within the last five thousand years?
However, the same data conforms to and dramatically confirms biblical history. Since the author's date represents the maximum time, the actual DNA diversification event probably occurred even sooner. "

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It isn't that - it is re: the analytical technique he is misrepresenting.

Ah, OK.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's "YEC science"?

 

[ottawak]

What's "YEC science"?

An oxymoron.

 

[BNR32FAN]

About 7 years ago, I started a thread with a 'challenge'/question:

YEC scientist Jeff Tomkins wrote the following:​

"The authors wrote, "The maximum likelihood time for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago." Old-earth proponents now have a new challenge: to explain why after millions of years of hardly any genetic variation among modern humans, did human genomic diversity exploded only within the last five thousand years?
However, the same data conforms to and dramatically confirms biblical history. Since the author's date represents the maximum time, the actual DNA diversification event probably occurred even sooner. "​

How many YECs can spot the gaffe in this confident assertion from the ICR's genetics and science "expert"?
​

The original question was on a specific implication Tomkins made, but if one takes the time to review the paper he quoted, one can see some, shall we say, inconsistencies with his comical extrapolation. The thread went on for 4 pages with not a single creationist even attempting to address the challenge.

For now - can any creationists see Tomkins error?

Well Homo sapiens as we exist today are only believed to have existed for around 300,000 years not millions of years. Is that what your referring to?

 

[AV1611VET]

An oxymoron.

I'm going to have to agree.

 

[Lost4words]

Accelerated growth started in the 1940's when McDonalds was born!