For those who don’t have access to the full paper, here is an excerpt from the study that empirically measured the substitution rates in the hypervariable regions of mitochondrial DNA:
We know the hypervariable regions have a higher substitution rate because we’ve empirically measured it.
They say the mutation rate is 20 times higher than expected, it also label these mutations as part of “hypervariable regions”.
Think about it, how can you prove that the rest of the mtDNA doesn’t mutate at the same rate, it just didn’t have time to mutate yet ? Are these regions are only assumed to be hypervariable because they need to explain why the rest of the mtDNA remain constant throughout human population ?
By forcing the assumption that mtEve is very old, it must mean a big section has low variability just because we observe no mutation in it…
And isn’t the number of generations to mtEve is calculated by number of mutations… in these hypervariable regions ?
From the consensus sequence of all humans, we only differ by ~20 mutations on average.
20 mutations on a 16 000 letter sequences, the 1-2 mutations directly observed in population studies are assumed to be in “hypervariable regions”, the 18-19 remaining differences are assumed to be in “low variability regions” so it doesn’t mess up the old age given to mtEve.
You observe the mutation rates in the various sections of the mitochondrial DNA over hundreds of generation events.
You identify which regions have high mutation rates and which do not.
You write up your results and submit your research paper to a peer-reviewed journal to make sure …
The journal publishes the paper. Here’s the link that @T_aquaticus provided:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ng0497-363.pdf
Since you were curious and asked about it, I promise you will learn a lot when you click the link and read up.
No.
The rate of mutations in the various regions of mtDNA were measured experimentally, as I just explained.
No one is forcing the assumption. Geneticists are simply using the mutation rates they have empirically observed.
Best,
Chris Falter
There’s no panic among scientists. The vast majority of geneticists and evolutionary biologists are no more than vaguely aware of the existence of creationists and don’t pay any attention their arguments. The small minority who do pay any attention are well aware of how bad those arguments are.
Here’s a study that looked at the whole mtDNA sequence, not just a few control regions (the study is also much more recent and has a large number of participants) :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4501845/
In the section “Inheritance of mtDNA variants” you can see that for the 333 families tested, mother and child share a total of 7238 variants with the reference sequence, children have 7273 total and mothers have 7266 variants, so the number of mutations is (7273-7238)+(7266-7238) = 63.
They don’t discuss it much, this rate of mutation is much higher than expected, even compared to previously found rates. And this is for the whole genome.
I am not sure however where these mutations are located in the genome. I intend to get into this subject more seriously and look at their data.
Just like dinosaur soft tissue was found for decades and called a “creationist hoax” until they had no choice to admit it ~10 15 years ago. Now they are stuck trying to explain why there is proteins like hemoglobin, flexible cartilage and cell membranes still intact after 65 million years old. “Oh it’s because of iron” haha yeah sure, very poor patching job.
BioLogos interviewed Mary Schweitzer. She doesn’t appreciate how creationists have appropriated and misrepresented her research.
If you believe 24/7 creation is really the only interpretation possible and ignore tons of evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that life was a simple construct that got way more complex over time, that’s fine—we may be wrong about the science (I don’t think we are, but as a scientist I have to leave that minute possibility open). I think that parents need to tell their kids that there are a lot of REASONS scientists say what they do, and virtually NONE of those reasons are to disprove God’s existence. That doesn’t enter in. I’ve had lots of students come into my office in tears over the years, saying, “I don’t understand…” The thing is, if you go with the scientific evidence and it turns out to be wrong, I don’t think God is going to punish you for that; God made us curious people. I believe we should step back a little bit and consider other views equally—anything less is doing God and your child a disservice.
I suspect the two cases are indeed very much alike – in both cases both the findings and the motivations of the scientists are badly misunderstood by creationists. But I’ll stick to a field I know well: genetics and evolution. I’ve worked in genetics for 20+ years and discussed all kinds of topics with hundreds, maybe thousands, of geneticists and evolutionary biologists; topics included molecular clocks, mutation rates, ancient DNA, and human evolution. In all of those discussions, the number of times that anyone (other than me) mentioned a creationist argument is zero. That is my basis for believing that researchers are not panicking over the possibility that a creationist argument might be strengthened by some finding. Now tell me what evidence you have that they are panicking over that possibility.
This is irrational. There is no chance whatsoever, no ‘minute possibility’. Just because one can arbitrarily, speciously calculate a meaningless ‘probability’ has nothing to do with reality. Any more than calculating the probability of any other absurdity.
That doesn’t really add anything to the discussion, and it strikes me as rather sexist that you would jump on something so absolutely not central to the overall communication, just to harp on how irrational it is.
There are so many comments on here that I’m unsure if this was addressed but just in case… mutation rates and substitution rates are not necessarily the same thing. Comparing mitochondria to see how they’ve evolved typically invokes substitution rates, not mutation rates.
Mutations happen spontaneously in an individual, but “substitutions” typically refer to fixation of an allele (which arise via mutations) in a population.
However, I think there is often ambiguity in how substitution is used.
Sexist?! Why not add anti-Semitic to that?
Science has nothing to apologize for in its rational premiss of physicalism.
I know. My contention was that men often should apologize because they ignore the substance of what women are saying and find fault with their pragmatics. It’s pretty clear to me that the parenthetical statement you took issue with and used to paint Schweitzer as irrational was a pragmatically oriented mitigation strategy to protect the face of people who think she is wrong, not part of a rational argument she was making.
It’s a privilege that as a man you aren’t expected to employ those kind of strategies to avoid being perceived as pushy, overbearing, and aggressive.
I’d have said the same if it was Marion.
I’m THAT blind.
I don’t agree with @Klax’s conclusion that it is irrational to believe that we are ABSOLUTELY certain about our science. I think it is important that we be humble and always accept that we could be wrong, even if we don’t see it at the moment. At the same time, I think your use of the word sexist is totally uncalled for. Throwing out accusations such as these only causes divide, and even if you think he was being sexist I think there’s a better way to address it.
Sexist is not a personal insult. It’s making people aware of a systemic issue. And I am going to continue to bring people’s attention to these kinds of issues.
You may do as you please, and say what you want, but sexist most certainly has negative connotations and I think there is a much more Christ-like way to respond than throwing out that term. I feel as if the usage of that word comes from a place of anger and not love.
It is true that I do not love sexism. 
Personally I appreciate it when scientists like Dr. Schweitzer make comments like this. I believe it shows humility and open-mindness. Which is to be lauded and encouraged not dismissed.
Conversely, an unwillingness to consider that there may be even a infinitesimal chance that one might be mistaken has always struck me as a bit arrogant and the idolisation of one’s own intellect (ie. A functional claim to divine omniscience). We rightly point out that this kind of close-mindless is vice among YECs; why then should it be considered a virtue for scientists?
Science can’t be absolutely certain in matters of science, by definition. QM is probabalistic after all. But the origin of life by abiogenesis and its subsequent evolution are not matters of science until it discovers more data. They are matters of rationality. It isn’t scientific to say that there is a distinct probability that my cup of tea will levitate because quantum uncertainty. Saying that science could be wrong in its assumption of physicalism COULD be true. But not with regard to the emergence of life. Rationally there are no rabbit skeletons in the Precambrian despite our not having looked in every pile of Precambrian rock and despite the fact that not all Precambrian rabbits would have been fossilized. Only with regard to the nature of the eternal force that has made the infinity of universes could there be a transcendent source, but that’s not Occamic.
“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.