Can someone explain like I'm 5 yo, what's wrong with this refutation of Biologos?

So do evolutionary creationists. We just interpret the Bible differently.

Oh, good. I had this same question, but as a non-specialist, I thought, gosh, somebody else must have already addressed that question, it seems too basic. Thanks for raising the question for the sake of discussion.

And yet, @Eddie, I find nothing in what you right that uncovers any opposing reality…

I have largely moved out of the human sequencing arena (into pathogens), so I’m not up to date on technology. Last I heard, there were technologies becoming available for direct medium-range phasing of haplotypes, but most next-gen sequencing can’t tell you phase. It’s still usually possible to infer phase, though, and that’s what the 1000 Genomes project did, based on recurrence of combinations of alleles in the population, assisted by genotyping of some related individuals. (The HapMap project included trios for two of its populations to be confident in their ability to phase.) The phasing is quite good, and errors are unlikely to have major effects on this kind of question.

Yes but we did not consider to starting conditions he supposed, or see if there are other conditions that could work. In this, he has a valid point.

I’d have to give his paper a re-read to be sure about this, but it seems to me that if he wants to pack as much of present-day variation as possible into Adam and Eve, he would need to account for recombination between very closely linked variants, as we have been discussing. The reason scientists have not considered this starting condition is that we already have good evidence that known recombination rates could not accomplish it in less than 200 generations. Don’t forget that 1 centimorgan (i.e. one map unit, or 1% recombination frequency) is still on average 1 million base pairs long in humans. Recombining two variants that are only tens of base pairs apart is going to be vanishingly rare. Also note that most of the recombination is going to be post-flood, meaning it’s all going to have to occur in maybe 150-ish generations at most.

Don’t forget that this model is also completely ad hoc: he “knows” what the right answer already is, so he has to do his best to force fit the data to the known solution (Adam and Eve as sole genetic progenitors 6,000 years ago). No one, coming to the data without that presupposition, would feel the need for such ad hoc claims about mutation and recombination rates.

As I skim the article briefly, it seems he doesn’t even address recombination. Am I missing it, or does he really not even discuss it?

Could it have happened over a longer timescale? In other words, allowing for gaps in the genealogies in Genesis 5?

Also, would siblings mating cause more harmful mutations?

Dr Purdom is a scientist affiliated with answers in genesis. So she buys the statement of faith and the Bible, as she interprets it, is her ultimate guide. She did say that she does not argue with data, just interpretation of it

In that article he blows by the recombination rate, but I think there is an implicit assumption in the model that all the alleles (even within the same gene) are entirely unlinked. Jon Sanford tells me the model depends on recombination but does not give me rates.

So what is the best direct evidence of recombination rates.? HapMap estimates don’t work because they assume long time periods. Do we know this yet from direct measurement? We probably do, but I’m not as intimately familiar with the literature here as I am, for example, on information theory. How has centimorgan’s been measured?

Ultimately, I think this data will strongly contradict the model. However, I’m really curious how it would affect the reasons to believe model. Perhaps in that context, with a more ancient beginning to the process (say, 1 mya), the model could work for genomic data? Of course, this still leave a problem for the X, Y, and mitochondrial data.

Very interesting thought experiment…

No, because in this model, there is no harmful variation in Adam and Eve (except a sinful nature :slight_smile:). They are all added later on by random mutational events.

That has been available for a long time with pair-end reads. The problem is just as you say. Next-gen does not give you this. It is a major challenge in applying sequencing data in the clinic that, as of yet, is not solved. And because everyone has moved over to next gen, its not clear to me how solid the direct measurements of recombination rate are. Perhaps the HapMap data gets you there, but I am not clear on this.

I was thinking more of PacBio sequencing. Whatever the validation techniques used in 1kG (I simply don’t remember), I am confident that the crossover error rate was a lot smaller than the actual crossover rate.

1 Like

The best map of the sort you seek is the deCODE recombination map, based on their exhaustive database of Icelandic genetics. It has about 10 kb resolution.

1 Like

Also, we’ve had map units (cM) between human loci since the classical genetics era, based on direct observation of recombination rates. I’m old enough to have worked in the pre-genomics era, back when we actually had to map things through recombination, instead of just going online. :slight_smile: It was an open question how the human genome sequencing project data would mesh with prior recombination maps - there is not a strict correspondence between map units and base pairs - hence my saying it’s on average about 1 million bp per cM in humans.

Then, for goodness sake, @Eddie - - be more productive.

Bother me with facts the provide evidence to refute my assertions … do not bother me with the shrill squeaking of barn doors about how I am supposed to read at least one book by each and every person I comment upon …

Remember … it is not the mating of siblings that cause mutations … it is the lack of variety in the chromosomal donations that reveal mutations that already exist in both contributions to the embryo’s genetic store.

1 Like

So, can’t a YEC argue that since Adam and Eve were perfect and without defects, siblings could have kids without issues? What kind of evidence would one expect if the above were true?

What an odd set of conditions. What exactly would the YEC gain by asserting this position?

We know that Adam and Eve were not perfect … don’t we? Do genetically perfect people commit sin?

Wouldn’t a YEC just say that the genes were perfect … until the Original Sin corrupted all the genes of the Universe?

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.