If that is true, then its all the more important to appropriately qualify scientific conclusions, rather than injecting silent assumptions into them. It leave them open to being overturned, as we have already seen here.
That is false. The motivation for including Homo erectus starts from the fossil record, not genetics. There is strong evidence that they are more human-like than ape-like. YEC’s have, for a long time, incorporated that into their model by saying the whole Homo genus is fully human and easily distinguishable from apes. Whether that is true or not is another question, but it is just flat out wrong to say that they have been constantly changing the bar on this one.
The more likely question is that EC writers fixated on the 6 kya date, and ignored the rest of YECs were saying. They probably just were not listening closely enough.
Not really. He is saying they are human, but we can’t measure the mtDNA correctly.
That’s about right.
It will be really interesting to see how Jeanson handles the TMR4A data. It is identical to his mtDNA analysis, but with far more data and much much better measures of mutation rate. MtDNA mutation rate is nearly impossible to measure directly, in contrast with autosomal DNA, which we can measure and have measured very precisely. That data, however, falsifies his position. I wonder if he will try and respond…
Also, I’ll say that some theologians have really appreciated TMR4A because it is easy to understand, and makes space for their position at an earlier date.