Rumraket
Active Member
Some transposons are junk, some are not. Mostly, they're junk.Transposons are really no longer considered by anyone to be junk dna.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Some transposons are junk, some are not. Mostly, they're junk.Transposons are really no longer considered by anyone to be junk dna.
I don't do this for you and the other BIASED atheists. I've chosen to do this to show FELLOW brothers in Christ that you evolutionary heavyweights of YouTube are not as smart as you think. I am enjoying this too much.
“Looking at SFT in the comments in between 1:01:20- 1:28:00 is pretty telling.
Jeanson used an unrooted tree diagram to support his assertion that none of the three nodes of the mitochondrial DNA tree, L M and N, is ancestral to any other. And that these represented the co-current existing wives of the sons of noah. However, as 54:00 Dan (creation myths) explained really well...you cannot determine the ancestral-descendant relationships of the nodes within an unrooted tree. From this tree alone, you cannot tell whether L is the ancestor of M an N or not. However, the major problem with this tree is that, no matter how you root it, two MUST be the descendants of one of these three. Which kills Jeansons claim that they are separate lineages that are not nested within each other. This should be pretty self-explanatory, but you can't really expect the average creationist to grasp such simple things, but it is astonishing to see this from someone who has a legit PhD. As we often say, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" but Jeanson isn't stupid. That's problematic to say the least.
Now I have had this conversation with SFT over two years ago, which I constructed a record of on the League of Reason forum, see thread New information, Genetic entropy and Junk DNA blablabla (scroll down a bit, or search for the word "jeanson" to find the relevant parts). One particular instance is where I had a convo with SFT in the YT comment section under the debate he had with Jackson Wheat. I pointed out that L and M are subsets of L. SFT responded with this (emphasis mine):
"BRO C'MON! This is why the atheists were angry in the chat. The Biblical Model was not falsified. Any biblical creationist who understands the data has NO REASON to give up the biblical based model, and any theistic evolutionist has ZERO excuse for compromising God's Word for a dumb theory. The N and M didn't come from L BECAUSE the L M N are very close together compared to other haplogroups. HOW can three haplogroups L M N that are CLOSE together be descended from one another? If they are close together, that means everyone descended from them instead. PLUS, the L that is connecting M and N shows much larger genetic differences from the rest of the L's like L1, L2, L0. SO how can the L come from the other L's if they are separated by so huge amounts of genetic differences? PLEASE just study the haplogroups, and that way, when doing these debates, I can be given an appropriate rebuttal. The atheists deserve strong rebuttals to my points, or else...they may CONVERT to biblical creation, do you want that?"
Notice the bold part? That's completely absurd. You cannot determine ancestor-descendant relationships by looking at how close the nodes are to each other. Just because three nodes are close, that certainly does NOT mean everything else descended from them. That's asinine. He just proved that he is an ignorant dipshit who doesn't have a single clue about the subject.
Here at 1:01:20 SFT claims that Jeanson knows where the root it is, but doesn't demonstrate it. Dan in the stream beautifully called out the flimsiness of this claim. Just put up or stfu. After Dan and CRISPR schooled SFT on this, he finally admitted at 1:03:29 and noted by Dan at 1:03:57 that if Jeanson send the rooted tree, it would look like M and N came from L. So SFT admitted Jeanson is wrong. And SFT does it again at 1:05:47 Jeanson is done by SFt's admission....end of the story....right...??....no....never with these people. The dead horse of creationism is a zombie horse. It will never stay put.
After SFT being childish and whining about not getting the respect that he doesn't deserve... SFT explains in his own terms why Jeanson uses an unrooted display over a rooted one.
1:08:35 "Jeansons point is that l m n all lived at the same time and so jeanson needs to unrooted display in order to allow for the more natural reading--That's where his predictions come in."
1:18:26 "essentially jeanson claims 3 roots l m n noah's 3 daughters in law so serious question --How else is he supposed to display it without it looking like m n came from l? legit question."
In other words, SFT is saying that the reason why Jeanson is using an unrooted display since a rooted display would clearly show that Jeanson is wrong. Wow!!!...holy shit...You cannot make this up. SFT is logically implying (without realizing) that Jeanson is dishonest. Jeanson is deliberately hiding the fact that his own data disproves his own position, and he hides it by using an unrooted display instead of a rooted one.”