Biblical Genetics

Even though it was completed a quarter century ago, geneticists still struggle to estimate the number of genes in the human genome. They went from ‘hundreds of thousands' to “22 thousand”, then more recently to “about 19,500”. The number, however, has just exploded. Tens of thousands of new genes with important functions were discovered hiding in the ‘junk DNA'. Dr Rob explains what these new findings mean to the creation-evolution debate. Links and notes: Carter 2025 The dark proteome https://creation.com/dark-proteome Carter 2024 The incredible shrinking human genome, https://biblicalgenetics.com/shrinking-genome/ Amaral et al. 2024 The status of the human gene catalogue, Nature 622(7981):41–47; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37794265/ Prensner et al. 2024 What can Ribo-seq and proteomics tell us about the non-canonical proteome? https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.16.541049v1 Pennisi 2024 ‘Dark proteome' survey reveals thousands of new human genes, Science 386(6725):951–952; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39607933/ Podcast: https://biblicalgenetics.com/contra-creation-myths Carter et al. 2004 Cloning of anthozoan fluorescent protein genes, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part C 138:259–270; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15533784 Matz et al. 1999 Fluorescent proteins from nonbioluminescent Anthozoa species, Nature Biotechnology 17(10):969–973; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10504696/

Even though it was completed a quarter century ago, geneticists still struggle to estimate the number of genes in the human genome. They went from ‘hundreds of thousands' to “22 thousand”, then more recently to “about 19,500”. The number, however, has just exploded. Tens of thousands of new genes with important functions were discovered hiding in the ‘junk DNA'. Dr Rob explains what these new findings mean to the creation-evolution debate. Links and notes: Carter 2025 The dark proteome https://creation.com/dark-proteome Carter 2024 The incredible shrinking human genome, http://biblicalgenetics.com/shrinking-genome/ Amaral et al. 2024 The status of the human gene catalogue, Nature 622(7981):41–47; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37794265/ Prensner et al. 2024 What can Ribo-seq and proteomics tell us about the non-canonical proteome? https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.16.541049v1 Pennisi 2024 ‘Dark proteome' survey reveals thousands of new human genes, Science 386(6725):951–952; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39607933/ Podcast: http://biblicalgenetics.com/contra-creation-myths Carter et al. 2004 Cloning of anthozoan fluorescent protein genes, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part C 138:259–270; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15533784 Matz et al. 1999 Fluorescent proteins from nonbioluminescent Anthozoa species, Nature Biotechnology 17(10):969–973; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10504696/

In a recent presentation on human-chimp similarities to LOGOS Research Associates, I made the (correct) claim that most new mutations are lost. An opponent attempted to make hay of this, claiming it disproves the 'creationist' calculations of the time to Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. What he failed to understand, however, is that the Y and mt chromosomes are haploid and behave very differently to the rest of the genome. In fact, mutations occur in them in a ratchet-like manner and no degree of natural selection can change that. Do you want a lesson in population genetics? Tune in! Notes and links: My presentation to LOGOS Research Associates: "Chimp and Human (Dis)similarities by Dr. Robert Carter" Dan's attempt at a rebuttal: "Professional Creationist Makes Huge Admission" by Creation Myths An older video where I answer the same claims (Creation Myths ignores other people!): Genealogy vs Phylogeny: The War Continues Rupe and Sanford (2013) Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle: Haldane's Ratchet Carter (2023) Genealogical vs Phylogenetic Mutation Rates: Answering a Challenge Fixation (population genetics) on Wikipedia A shrinking date for Eve Natural Selection in Paradise The 'two circles' illustration

In a recent presentation on human-chimp similarities to LOGOS Research Associates, I made the (correct) claim that most new mutations are lost. An opponent attempted to make hay of this, claiming it disproves the 'creationist' calculations of the time to Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. What he failed to understand, however, is that the Y and mt chromosomes are haploid and behave very differently to the rest of the genome. In fact, mutations occur in them in a ratchet-like manner and no degree of natural selection can change that. Do you want a lesson in population genetics? Tune in! Notes and links: My presentation to LOGOS Research Associates: "Chimp and Human (Dis)similarities by Dr. Robert Carter" Dan's attempt at a rebuttal: "Professional Creationist Makes Huge Admission" by Creation Myths An older video where I answer the same claims (Creation Myths ignores other people!): Genealogy vs Phylogeny: The War Continues Rupe and Sanford (2013) Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle: Haldane's Ratchet Carter (2023) Genealogical vs Phylogenetic Mutation Rates: Answering a Challenge Fixation (population genetics) on Wikipedia A shrinking date for Eve Natural Selection in Paradise The 'two circles' illustration

In a recent Creation magazine article, I talked about an interesting new case study done on one of the world's most favorite cheeses, Brie, and its relatives Camembert and Roquefort. A long time ago, cheesemakers unknowingly selected non-sexually reproducing fungal lines for these cheeses. Now, many decades later, mutations have built up in this lines to the point where they are starting to have trouble reproducing. Rescue efforts are underway, but in the meantime this gives us an object lesson about the impossibility of evolution, specifically the survival of the first organisms, which would not have been able to go through sexual recombination. Links: The Creation magazine paper: creation.com/cheese-verge-of-extinction Signup for Creation magazine here: creation.com/en-us/creation-magazine The original research: Harmi, M., French cheese under threat, news.cnrs.fr, 16 Jan 2024. Additional info on Muller's ratchet: dl0.creation.com/articles/p145/c14588/j29_2_70-77.pdf About Dr. Robert Carter: creation.com/dr-robert-carter-cv

In a recent Creation magazine article, I talked about an interesting new case study done on one of the world's most favorite cheeses, Brie, and its relatives Camembert and Roquefort. A long time ago, cheesemakers unknowingly selected non-sexually reproducing fungal lines for these cheeses. Now, many decades later, mutations have built up in this lines to the point where they are starting to have trouble reproducing. Rescue efforts are underway, but in the meantime this gives us an object lesson about the impossibility of evolution, specifically the survival of the first organisms, which would not have been able to go through sexual recombination. Links: The Creation magazine paper: creation.com/cheese-verge-of-extinction Signup for Creation magazine here: creation.com/en-us/creation-magazine The original research: Harmi, M., French cheese under threat, news.cnrs.fr, 16 Jan 2024. Additional info on Muller's ratchet: dl0.creation.com/articles/p145/c14588/j29_2_70-77.pdf About Dr. Robert Carter: creation.com/dr-robert-carter-cv

Gregor Mendel was the father of modern genetics. He wrote his most important papers on the topic just a few years after Darwin published the Origin of Species. What people don't realize is that Mendel's papers did not only describe how traits are passed down. He also explained how his ideas of genetics lead directly to an explanation of the origin of species. Was Mendel directly and purposefully contradicting Darwin? Links and notes: Crompton et al. 2024 Mendelian speciation, part 1—what is the abundant source of significant biodiversity, J Creation 37(3):110–120, 2023. Crompton et al. 2024 Mendelian speciation, part 2—latent genetic information, J Creation 38(1):77–86, 2024. Crompton et al. 2024 Mendelian speciation, part 3—fixation and reproductive isolation, J Creation 382):97–104, 2024. Crompton et al. 2024 Mendelian speciation, part 4—adaptive radiations and cis-evolution, J Creation 38(2):105–112, 2024. Gregor Mendel on Wikipedia "They believe in bigger miracles than I do" on YouTube.com Species were designed to change on BiblicalGenetics.com Species were Designed to Change on Creation.com Arguments we think a creationist should not use on creation.com Wort und Wissen

Gregor Mendel was the father of modern genetics. He wrote his most important papers on the topic just a few years after Darwin published the Origin of Species. What people don't realize is that Mendel's papers did not only describe how traits are passed down. He also explained how his ideas of genetics lead directly to an explanation of the origin of species. Was Mendel directly and purposefully contradicting Darwin? Links and notes: Crompton et al. 2024 Mendelian speciation, part 1—what is the abundant source of significant biodiversity, J Creation 37(3):110–120, 2023. Crompton et al. 2024 Mendelian speciation, part 2—latent genetic information, J Creation 38(1):77–86, 2024. Crompton et al. 2024 Mendelian speciation, part 3—fixation and reproductive isolation, J Creation 382):97–104, 2024. Crompton et al. 2024 Mendelian speciation, part 4—adaptive radiations and cis-evolution, J Creation 38(2):105–112, 2024. Gregor Mendel on Wikipedia "They believe in bigger miracles than I do" on YouTube.com Species were designed to change on BiblicalGenetics.com Species were Designed to Change on Creation.com Arguments we think a creationist should not use on creation.com Wort und Wissen

Dr Carter spent some time recently in New Zealand. While there, he stopped by a giant colony of gannets. These sea birds number in the millions but they create a bit of a taxonomic mystery. Are three living species of gannets and the eight living species of booby one 'created kind'? What about the cormorants? Should they also be included? Baraminology has not revealed the limits of the created kinds, so we have much work still to do. Notes and links: Species were designed to change, part 1 God Deliberately Engineered Life to Change, but How Much Change is Allowed? Biblical Biology 101 (my new book!)

Dr Carter spent some time recently in New Zealand. While there, he stopped by a giant colony of gannets. These sea birds number in the millions but they create a bit of a taxonomic mystery. Are three living species of gannets and the eight living species of booby one 'created kind'? What about the cormorants? Should they also be included? Baraminology has not revealed the limits of the created kinds, so we have much work still to do. Notes and links: Species were designed to change, part 1 God Deliberately Engineered Life to Change, but How Much Change is Allowed? Biblical Biology 101 (my new book!)

It is only natural for people to want to compare the Table of Nations (Genesis 10) to geography, linguistics, ancient history, and/or patterns in human DNA. The solution, however, is harder than most people think. Here, I list multiple reasons why it might actually be impossible to know where Shem, Ham, and Japheth belong even though Genesis is true. Notes and links: Carter, R., Can we place the sons of Noah on the Y chromosome tree? The solution is harder than most people think, 29 Oct 2024. Distribution map of haplogroup R1b in the Old World”, eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml. Carter, R.W., Patriarchal drive in the early post-Flood population, J. Creation 33(1):110–118, 2019; creation.com/patriarchal-drive. Additional references can be found in the main article.

It is only natural for people to want to compare the Table of Nations (Genesis 10) to geography, linguistics, ancient history, and/or patterns in human DNA. The solution, however, is harder than most people think. Here, I list multiple reasons why it might actually be impossible to know where Shem, Ham, and Japheth belong even though Genesis is true. Notes and links: Carter, R., Can we place the sons of Noah on the Y chromosome tree? The solution is harder than most people think, 29 Oct 2024. Distribution map of haplogroup R1b in the Old World”, eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml. Carter, R.W., Patriarchal drive in the early post-Flood population, J. Creation 33(1):110–118, 2019; creation.com/patriarchal-drive. Additional references can be found in the main article.

The woolly mammoth is strongly associated with the Ice Age, but they survived until surprisingly recent times in the far north. Recently, the genomes of multiple mammoths from the last surviving population on Wrangel Island were sequenced. The scientists concluded the population was founded by 8 or fewer individuals and only 1 mitochondrial lineage was among them. They also estimated that the population grew to a few hundred before finally going extinct. This, it turns out, is a wonderful natural laboratory for biblical events. Consider that there were only 8 people on the Ark. How much genetic diversity would we expect to lose? Is that population too small to prevent so much inbreeding that humans would have gone into mutational meltdown? Etc. Etc. Dehasque M et al., Temporal dynamics of woolly mammoth genome extension prior to extinction, Cell 187(14):3531–3540.e13, 2024. Carter R, Biblical bottlenecks are not bad, biblicalgenetics.com, 27 May 2020. Carter R, Evolutionary bottlenecks are disastrous, biblicalgenetics.com, 2 Jun 2020. Carter R, Did we evolve from 10,000 people in Africa? biblicalgenetics.com, 19 Jul 2022. Carter R, Evolutionists predict super bottleneck (it would have killed us), biblicalgenetics.com, 9 Nov 2023. Carter R and Powell M, The genetic effects of the population bottleneck associated with the Genesis Flood, Journal of Creation 30(2):102–111, 2018. Carter R, Effective population sizes and loss of diversity during the Flood bottleneck, Journal of Creation 32(2):124–127, 2018. Carter R, Mutations and why you shouldn't marry your cousin, creation.com, 12 Aug 2017. Carter R, How carbon dating works, creation.com, 12 Apr 2022.

The woolly mammoth is strongly associated with the Ice Age, but they survived until surprisingly recent times in the far north. Recently, the genomes of multiple mammoths from the last surviving population on Wrangel Island were sequenced. The scientists concluded the population was founded by 8 or fewer individuals and only 1 mitochondrial lineage was among them. They also estimated that the population grew to a few hundred before finally going extinct. This, it turns out, is a wonderful natural laboratory for biblical events. Consider that there were only 8 people on the Ark. How much genetic diversity would we expect to lose? Is that population too small to prevent so much inbreeding that humans would have gone into mutational meltdown? Etc. Etc. Carter, R., DNA from the last woolly mammoths: surprising results support the Flood account, creation.com. Dehasque M et al., Temporal dynamics of woolly mammoth genome extension prior to extinction, Cell 187(14):3531–3540.e13, 2024. Carter R, Biblical bottlenecks are not bad, biblicalgenetics.com, 27 May 2020. Carter R, Evolutionary bottlenecks are disastrous, biblicalgenetics.com, 2 Jun 2020. Carter R, Did we evolve from 10,000 people in Africa? biblicalgenetics.com, 19 Jul 2022. Carter R, Evolutionists predict super bottleneck (it would have killed us), biblicalgenetics.com, 9 Nov 2023. Carter R and Powell M, The genetic effects of the population bottleneck associated with the Genesis Flood, Journal of Creation 30(2):102–111, 2018. Carter R, Effective population sizes and loss of diversity during the Flood bottleneck, Journal of Creation 32(2):124–127, 2018. Carter R, Mutations and why you shouldn't marry your cousin, creation.com, 12 Aug 2017. Carter R, How carbon dating works, creation.com, 12 Apr 2022.

Mike Lynch and colleagues published a paper that is devastating to thousands of past studies on natural selection. By sequencing DNA from multiple natural populations over several years, they showed that the net effect of natural selection is "zero" for most genetic variants. They caution that selection pressures in the natural world fluctuate. This cause the chromosomal targets of selection to shift over time, etc., meaning that many thousands of scientific studies that found evidence for natural selection are probably wrong. This paper is a gold mine of quotes, so Dr Rob quotes it extensively. Links: Daphnia: wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphnia Lynch et al., The genome-wide signature of short-term temporal selection, PNAS 121(28):e2307107121, 2024; pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38959040 Darwin's Bluff: the Mystery of the Book Darwin Never Finished by Robert Shedinger, see also amazon.com/Darwins-Bluff-Robert-Shedinger/dp/1637120370

Mike Lynch and colleagues published a paper that is devastating to thousands of past studies on natural selection. By sequencing DNA from multiple natural populations over several years, they showed that the net effect of natural selection is "zero" for most genetic variants. They caution that selection pressures in the natural world fluctuate. This cause the chromosomal targets of selection to shift over time, etc., meaning that many thousands of scientific studies that found evidence for natural selection are probably wrong. This paper is a gold mine of quotes, so Dr Rob quotes it extensively. Links: Carter, R., Natural selection in the real world is mostly ineffective, creation.com. Daphnia: wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphnia Lynch et al., The genome-wide signature of short-term temporal selection, PNAS 121(28):e2307107121, 2024; pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38959040 Darwin's Bluff: the Mystery of the Book Darwin Never Finished by Robert Shedinger, see also amazon.com/Darwins-Bluff-Robert-Shedinger/dp/1637120370

Neanderthals got their name from a valley that was, in turn, named after a beloved pastor and hymnwriter named Joachim Neander. Thus, since their first discovery, they have been associated with Christianity, believe it or not. Problem is, Neanderthals have been consistently used as arguments against the very foundation of Christianity: the Bible. Can we incorporate these enigmatic people into any sort of biblical history? If so, how? Dr Rob gives his solution here. Neanderthals are a post-Flood people group, descendants of Adam and Eve, and descendants of Noah. There were fully human, but also highly mutated. Joachim Neander: wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Neander Praise to the Lord, the Almighty: wikipedia.org/wiki/Praise_to_the_Lord,_the_Almighty Pettyjohn's Cave: walkercountyga.gov/discover/recreation/crockford-pigeon-mountain-wildlife-management-area/caving/ Virchow: creation.com/african-invasion-of-the-bodysnatchers POGs = People Outside the Garden: creation.com/review-swamidass-the-genealogical-adam-and-eve Questions about Cain: creation.com/cain-chronology Neanderthals POST Flood: creation.com/neanderthals-pre-flood Patriarchal Drive (article): creation.com/patriarchal-drive Patriarchal Drive (video): biblicalgenetics.com/old-fathers-are-genetic-poison/ Long branch attraction: wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_branch_attraction Not the Flintstones—it's the Denisovans: creation.com/denisovan An overview of the Denisovan puzzle: creation.com/denisovan-puzzle Neanderthal the changing picture: creation.com/neandertal-man-the-changing-picture Poznik's claim that most African Ys arose outside of Africa: Poznik, G.D. et al., Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chromosome sequences, Nature 48:593–599, 2016, nature.com/articles/ng.3559. Thumbnail photo by Jakub Hałun  Model of Homo neanderthalensis man in The Natural History Museum, Vienna - via Wikimedia Commons. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Homo_Sapiens,_Cro-Magnon_1_The_Natural_History_Museum_Vienna,_20210730_1223_1272.jpg.

Neanderthals got their name from a valley that was, in turn, named after a beloved pastor and hymnwriter named Joachim Neander. Thus, since their first discovery, they have been associated with Christianity, believe it or not. Problem is, Neanderthals have been consistently used as arguments against the very foundation of Christianity: the Bible. Can we incorporate these enigmatic people into any sort of biblical history? If so, how? Dr Rob gives his solution here. Neanderthals are a post-Flood people group, descendants of Adam and Eve, and descendants of Noah. There were fully human, but also highly mutated. Joachim Neander: wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Neander Praise to the Lord, the Almighty: wikipedia.org/wiki/Praise_to_the_Lord,_the_Almighty Pettyjohn's Cave: walkercountyga.gov/discover/recreation/crockford-pigeon-mountain-wildlife-management-area/caving/ Virchow: creation.com/african-invasion-of-the-bodysnatchers POGs = People Outside the Garden: creation.com/review-swamidass-the-genealogical-adam-and-eve Questions about Cain: creation.com/cain-chronology Neanderthals POST Flood: creation.com/neanderthals-pre-flood Patriarchal Drive (article): creation.com/patriarchal-drive Patriarchal Drive (video): biblicalgenetics.com/old-fathers-are-genetic-poison/ Long branch attraction: wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_branch_attraction Not the Flintstones—it's the Denisovans: creation.com/denisovan An overview of the Denisovan puzzle: creation.com/denisovan-puzzle Neanderthal the changing picture: creation.com/neandertal-man-the-changing-picture Poznik's claim that most African Ys arose outside of Africa: Poznik, G.D. et al., Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chromosome sequences, Nature 48:593–599, 2016, nature.com/articles/ng.3559. Thumbnail photo by Jakub Hałun  Model of Homo neanderthalensis man in The Natural History Museum, Vienna - via Wikimedia Commons. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Homo_Sapiens,_Cro-Magnon_1_The_Natural_History_Museum_Vienna,_20210730_1223_1272.jpg.

There are two conflicting genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament. Anyone can see that the name lists in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are not at all similar. Worse, 1 Chronicles 3 adds a THIRD conflicting genealogy for a pivotal person in these lists, Zerubbabel, the first governor of Judah after they were restored from the Babylonian Captivity. In this episode, Dr. Rob presents a logical answer to the problem that follows Old Testament law and basic logic and that does not have to invoke improbable circumstances. The key is realizing that Matthew is probably not a genealogy. Instead, it is a list of the rightful kings of Judah. Jesus, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, was the rightful king and a descendant of David. His kingship and his descent from David are both attested to in the New Testament.

There are two conflicting genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament. Anyone can see that the name lists in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are not at all similar. Worse, 1 Chronicles 3 adds a THIRD conflicting genealogy for a pivotal person in these lists, Zerubbabel, the first governor of Judah after they were restored from the Babylonian Captivity. In this episode, Dr. Rob presents a logical answer to the problem that follows Old Testament law and basic logic and that does not have to invoke improbable circumstances. The key is realizing that Matthew is probably not a genealogy. Instead, it is a list of the rightful kings of Judah. Jesus, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, was the rightful king and a descendant of David. His kingship and his descent from David are both attested to in the New Testament.

In this, the 7th episode in our series on biblical genealogy, Dr Rob takes us deep into the genealogy of the nation of Edom. This was a people/tribe/kingdom that existed south of the Dead Sea and southeast of the kingdom of Judah, which dominated Edom for several centuries. There are several textual mysteries in Edom's data, but they can be solved satisfactorily if we think through the issues carefully.

In this, the 7th episode in our series on biblical genealogy, Dr Rob takes us deep into the genealogy of the nation of Edom. This was a people/tribe/kingdom that existed south of the Dead Sea and southeast of the kingdom of Judah, which dominated Edom for several centuries. There are several textual mysteries in Edom's data, but they can be solved satisfactorily if we think through the issues carefully.

Video Link: https://youtu.be/OTj_P8P1v6Q   In this, the 6th episode on biblical genealogy, Dr Rob explains where the nation of Edom came from, how they tie into the main biblical story, and how to handle several tricky textual problems in Genesis 36.      

Video Link: https://youtu.be/OTj_P8P1v6Q   In this, the 6th episode on biblical genealogy, Dr Rob explains where the nation of Edom came from, how they tie into the main biblical story, and how to handle several tricky textual problems in Genesis 36.      

In this, the 5th episode in our series on biblical genealogy, Dr Rob explains the origins of the nations that surrounded (and still surround) Israel. He explains who the Philistines, the Phoenicians, the Aramaeans, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the Edomites were while adding lots of interesting little factoids that help us better understand the Bible. Notes and links: Egyptian mummies and Hebrew perfume Who were the Philistines? The 'Table of Nations' (Genesis 10  and 11) The descendants of Seir, the kings of Edom, and the chiefs of Edom  

In this, the 5th episode in our series on biblical genealogy, Dr Rob explains the origins of the nations that surrounded (and still surround) Israel. He explains who the Philistines, the Phoenicians, the Aramaeans, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the Edomites were while adding lots of interesting little factoids that help us better understand the Bible. Notes and links: Egyptian mummies and Hebrew perfume Who were the Philistines? The 'Table of Nations' (Genesis 10  and 11) The descendants of Seir, the kings of Edom, and the chiefs of Edom  

In this fourth installment in a series on biblical genealogy, Dr Rob works through three challenging details that must be overcome if one is to use those genealogies to build a chronology of biblical history: how to link Genesis 5 and 11, how old Terah was when Abram left Haran, and how old Abram was when God made the "Promise".

In this fourth installment in a series on biblical genealogy, Dr Rob works through three challenging details that must be overcome if one is to use those genealogies to build a chronology of biblical history: how to link Genesis 5 and 11, how old Terah was when Abram left Haran, and how old Abram was when God made the "Promise".

In this third installment in our series on biblical genealogy, Dr Rob explains why the data in Genesis 5 and 11 are so important. These are not just lists of names. The added ages allows us to piece together a timeline of biblical history. Problem is, you can't directly connect the two passages. A several-year ambiguity is created when you try. There are other interesting factoids that pop out when one studies the chronogenealogies, so you will enjoy this episode much. Links: SCAPER (a creationist organization in Norway) Undeland Mission farm The biblical minimum and maximum age of the earth Biblical chronogenealogies LXX vs MT articles Length of the Egyptian Sojourn

In this third installment in our series on biblical genealogy, Dr Rob explains why the data in Genesis 5 and 11 are so important. These are not just lists of names. The added ages allows us to piece together a timeline of biblical history. Problem is, you can't directly connect the two passages. A several-year ambiguity is created when you try. There are other interesting factoids that pop out when one studies the chronogenealogies, so you will enjoy this episode much. Links: SCAPER (a creationist organization in Norway) Undeland Mission farm The biblical minimum and maximum age of the earth Biblical chronogenealogies LXX vs MT articles Length of the Egyptian Sojourn

In this second installment on biblical genealogy, Dr Rob explains why all those names (or at least most of them) in the Bible are so important. This should be encouraging to anyone who struggles to read the Bible for comprehension.

In this second installment on biblical genealogy, Dr Rob explains why all those names (or at least most of them) in the Bible are so important. This should be encouraging to anyone who struggles to read the Bible for comprehension.

This is the first in a multi-part series on biblical genealogies. To understand what we are dealing with, we first need to know that there are two completely different types of name lists in the Bible. The first, an ancestor tree is easy. Ancestor trees are balanced and have a known number of people at each level. Even better, nearly all biblical ancestor trees only list fathers, so there is but one person at each level. The second, descendent trees, are the stuff of genealogical nightmares. Dr Rob makes it all easy. Here are some helpful images. Ancestor trees: 2. A descendant tree: 3. A mixed tree:  

This is the first in a multi-part series on biblical genealogies. To understand what we are dealing with, we first need to know that there are two completely different types of name lists in the Bible. The first, an ancestor tree is easy. Ancestor trees are balanced and have a known number of people at each level. Even better, nearly all biblical ancestor trees only list fathers, so there is but one person at each level. The second, descendent trees, are the stuff of genealogical nightmares. Dr Rob makes it all easy. Here are some helpful images. Ancestor trees: 2. A descendant tree: 3. A mixed tree:  

Human-chimpanzee similarity is a hotly-debated topic in the evolution-creation wars. Are we 98, 95, 90, or 85% similar? One way to get at the question is to ask what is the longest stretch of DNA that is shared between the two species. This is a very difficult question to answer! But, unperturbed, Dr Rob set out to answer it. Will our fearless hero be able to pull it off? Spoiler alert: not quite, but the path of discovery is still very interesting. LastZ github.com/lastz/lastz LastZ chaining github.com/hillerlab/make_lastz_chains Mummer4 mummer4.github.io/ Blast blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi Telomere-to-Telomere Consortium primate projects github.com/marbl/Primates Python python.org/ Standard Bases: A: Adenine C: Cytosine G: Guanine T: Thymine (in DNA) U: Uracil (in RNA) Ambiguous Bases (IUPAC Codes): These codes are used when there is ambiguity in the nucleotide present at a particular position: R: A or G (puRine) Y: C or T (pYrimidine) S: G or C W: A or T (Weak) K: G or T (Keto) M: A or C (aMino) B: C, G, or T (not A) (B comes after A) D: A, G, or T (not C) (D comes after C) H: A, C, or T (not G) (H comes after G) V: A, C, or G (not T) (V comes after U; U is replaced with T in DNA) N: Any base (A, C, G, T) (N for any nucleotide) Silver Comet Trail silvercometga.com/

Human-chimpanzee similarity is a hotly-debated topic in the evolution-creation wars. Are we 98, 95, 90, or 85% similar? One way to get at the question is to ask what is the longest stretch of DNA that is shared between the two species. This is a very difficult question to answer! But, unperturbed, Dr Rob set out to answer it. Will our fearless hero be able to pull it off? Spoiler alert: not quite, but the path of discovery is still very interesting. LastZ github.com/lastz/lastz LastZ chaining github.com/hillerlab/make_lastz_chains Mummer4 mummer4.github.io/ Blast blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi Telomere-to-Telomere Consortium primate projects github.com/marbl/Primates Python python.org/ Standard Bases: A: Adenine C: Cytosine G: Guanine T: Thymine (in DNA) U: Uracil (in RNA) Ambiguous Bases (IUPAC Codes): These codes are used when there is ambiguity in the nucleotide present at a particular position: R: A or G (puRine) Y: C or T (pYrimidine) S: G or C W: A or T (Weak) K: G or T (Keto) M: A or C (aMino) B: C, G, or T (not A) (B comes after A) D: A, G, or T (not C) (D comes after C) H: A, C, or T (not G) (H comes after G) V: A, C, or G (not T) (V comes after U; U is replaced with T in DNA) N: Any base (A, C, G, T) (N for any nucleotide) Silver Comet Trail silvercometga.com/

https://youtu.be/-jpoxCZgZKQ Is the human genome highly functional or mostly junk? This is a question that is not only being asked in the creation-evolution debate; it is a question raging in the ivory tower as well. The 'old guard' is much more likely to resist any claim that large swaths of the genome are useful. The 'young punks' in science is more willing to accept the obvious fact that the genome is highly functional. Who is going to win? In this episode, Dr Rob puts a few more nails in the coffin of junk DNA.. Notes and links:' Carter 2023 What proportion of the human genome is actually functional? And how much variation is tolerable? Chen et al. 2023 A genomic mutational constraint map using variation in 76,156 human genomes Moran 2023 What's in your genomes? 90% of your genome is junk

https://youtu.be/-jpoxCZgZKQ Is the human genome highly functional or mostly junk? This is a question that is not only being asked in the creation-evolution debate; it is a question raging in the ivory tower as well. The 'old guard' is much more likely to resist any claim that large swaths of the genome are useful. The 'young punks' in science is more willing to accept the obvious fact that the genome is highly functional. Who is going to win? In this episode, Dr Rob puts a few more nails in the coffin of junk DNA.. Notes and links:' Carter 2023 What proportion of the human genome is actually functional? And how much variation is tolerable? Chen et al. 2023 A genomic mutational constraint map using variation in 76,156 human genomes Moran 2023 What's in your genomes? 90% of your genome is junk

Is the human genome highly functional or mostly junk? This is a question that is not only being asked in the creation-evolution debate; it is a question raging in the ivory tower as well. The 'old guard' is much more likely to resist any claim that large swaths of the genome are useful. The 'young punks' in science is more willing to accept the obvious fact that the genome is highly functional. Who is going to win? In this episode, Dr Carter highlights four new studies that ratchet the argument toward high function. Notes and links:' Carter 2023 What proportion of the human genome is actually functional? And how much variation is tolerable? Zhang et al. 2023 FOXP3 recognizes microsatellites and bridges DNA through multimerization Walter 2024 Are non-protein coding RNAs junk or treasure? Stepankiw et al. 2023 The human genome contains over a million autonomous exons Chen et al. 2023 A genomic mutational constraint map using variation in 76,156 human genomes Moran 2023 What's in your genomes? 90% of your genome is junk  

Is the human genome highly functional or mostly junk? This is a question that is not only being asked in the creation-evolution debate; it is a question raging in the ivory tower as well. The 'old guard' is much more likely to resist any claim that large swaths of the genome are useful. The 'young punks' in science is more willing to accept the obvious fact that the genome is highly functional. Who is going to win? In this episode, Dr Carter highlights four new studies that ratchet the argument toward high function. Notes and links:' Carter 2023 What proportion of the human genome is actually functional? And how much variation is tolerable? Zhang et al. 2023 FOXP3 recognizes microsatellites and bridges DNA through multimerization Walter 2024 Are non-protein coding RNAs junk or treasure? Stepankiw et al. 2023 The human genome contains over a million autonomous exons Chen et al. 2023 A genomic mutational constraint map using variation in 76,156 human genomes Moran 2023 What's in your genomes? 90% of your genome is junk  

No, the size of the genome has not changed, but the number of genes we thought it contains certainly has. After lots of double checking, there are fewer known protein coding genes today (~19,000) than there were when the human genome was first published, and even that count (~23,000) was shockingly small, according to the predictions of the world's top geneticists. The nature of the genome has consistently surprised people, but mostly because they applied Darwinian concepts to it. Instead, the genome is a wonderful testimony to the engineering prowess of God, who built something unexpected. LInks: GeneSweep One-gene-one-enzyme Central dogma of molecular biology Amaral et al. 2014 The status of the human gene catalogue, Nature 622(7981):41-47. What on earth is a ‘gene'? Slicing and dicing the genome The Barrier has been breached: new discoveries are challenging neo-Darwinism

No, the size of the genome has not changed, but the number of genes we thought it contains certainly has. After lots of double checking, there are fewer known protein coding genes today (~19,000) than there were when the human genome was first published, and even that count (~23,000) was shockingly small, according to the predictions of the world's top geneticists. The nature of the genome has consistently surprised people, but mostly because they applied Darwinian concepts to it. Instead, the genome is a wonderful testimony to the engineering prowess of God, who built something unexpected. LInks: GeneSweep One-gene-one-enzyme Central dogma of molecular biology Amaral et al. 2014 The status of the human gene catalogue, Nature 622(7981):41-47. What on earth is a ‘gene'? Slicing and dicing the genome The Barrier has been breached: new discoveries are challenging neo-Darwinism

A slew of videos has recently come out arguing for and against the work of Dr Jeffrey Tomkins, who claims humans and chimps are only about 85% similar. His detractors have made some massive blunders and I attempt to document them here. This is not to gloat, however. I understand that all humans are bigoted, biased, myopic, jealous, envious, etc., including all scientists. So, we'll apply James 3:1 ("Not many of you should presume to be teachers...for know that we will be judged more strictly)  and Philippians 2:3... (Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit...) to the situation as we outline multiple lapses of logic and analysis that have been done in an attempt to discredit Tomkins' work. To be fair, though, the main person in my crosshairs has admitted to making these mistakes. I am only documenting things for posterity. Notes and links: James 3:1–2 patternsofevidence.com/patterns-plus The 3rd Commandment Dr Jeffrey Tomkins Blast Gutsick Gibbon, A Professional Creationist Agrees with Me: Tomkins Wrong, 30 Dec 2023. Roohif, Jeffrey Tomkins is allergic to controls, 29 Dec 2023. Note: I made several mistakes when describing Roohif's results. First, he was looking at older trace read datasets, not the contig database I (and Gutsick Gibbon, and Tomikins in his 2018 paper) have been working with, so his conclusions about vector, etc., contamination do not apply here. Second, I stated that he only tested a few of the problematic areas, but he actually performed several thorough tests. Third, I also conflated his analysis on non-aligning subsequences in Blast matches with his analysis of the sequences for which Blast failed to find any alignment at all. After being challenged on a few of these points, and upon re-watching the video, paying attention this time (!) I stand corrected. Yet, that was but a small portion of my presentation and I included it almost as supplementary information, trying to cover all bases. In retrospect, I could easily have left it out entirely. Gutsick Gibbon's Blast program on Github: GGBlast Philippians 2:3–11

A slew of videos has recently come out arguing for and against the work of Dr Jeffrey Tomkins, who claims humans and chimps are only about 85% similar. His detractors have made some massive blunders and I attempt to document them here. This is not to gloat, however. I understand that all humans are bigoted, biased, myopic, jealous, envious, etc., including all scientists. So, we'll apply James 3:1 ("Not many of you should presume to be teachers...for know that we will be judged more strictly)  and Philippians 2:3... (Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit...) to the situation as we outline multiple lapses of logic and analysis that have been done in an attempt to discredit Tomkins' work. To be fair, though, the main person in my crosshairs has admitted to making these mistakes. I am only documenting things for posterity. Notes and links: James 3:1–2 patternsofevidence.com/patterns-plus The 3rd Commandment Dr Jeffrey Tomkins Blast Gutsick Gibbon, A Professional Creationist Agrees with Me: Tomkins Wrong, 30 Dec 2023. Roohif, Jeffrey Tomkins is allergic to controls, 29 Dec 2023. Note: I made several mistakes when describing Roohif's results. First, he was looking at older trace read datasets, not the contig database I (and Gutsick Gibbon, and Tomikins in his 2018 paper) have been working with, so his conclusions about vector, etc., contamination do not apply here. Second, I stated that he only tested a few of the problematic areas, but he actually performed several thorough tests. Third, I also conflated his analysis on non-aligning subsequences in Blast matches with his analysis of the sequences for which Blast failed to find any alignment at all. After being challenged on a few of these points, and upon re-watching the video, paying attention this time (!) I stand corrected. Yet, that was but a small portion of my presentation and I included it almost as supplementary information, trying to cover all bases. In retrospect, I could easily have left it out entirely. Gutsick Gibbon's Blast program on Github: GGBlast Philippians 2:3–11

Chromosomal recombination is an essential part of the life cycle of all sexually reproducing organisms. Yet, the system is complex, involving hundreds to thousands of proteins and RNAs. It also involves DNA repair pathways, which are themselves incredibly complex. The newest available information on recombination tells us it is mutagenic, meaning that recombination erodes the very places where recombination happens. How did such a system arise by chance? Can we assume the recombination rate has always been the same? What happens when a new allele arises in the protein that controls recombination? What is the mutation burden caused by this important system? Finally, how does this affect the creation-evolution debate? Links and notes: 15 Questions for evolutionists, #8 How did sex originate? Geeking out about DNA damage repair, June 2023. Grey et al. 2018 PRDM9, a driver of the genetic map, PLoS Genet 14(8):e1007479. Altemose et al. 2017 A map of human PRDM9 binding provides evidence for novel behaviors of PRDM9 and other zinc-finger proteins in meiosis, eLife 6:e28383. Robert Carter gets everything wrong?, creation.com, 10 Jul 2021. Hussin et al. 2011 Age-dependent recombination rates in human pedigrees, PloS Genetics 7(9):e1002251. Wang et al. 2012 Genome-wide single-cell analysis of recombination activity and de novo mutation rates in human sperm, Cell 150(2):402–12. African origins and the rise of carnivory, creation.com,19 Dec 2020. Hinch, A.G. et al., The landscape of recombination in African Americans, Nature 476:170–177, 2011. Hinch et al. 2023 Meiotic DNA breaks drive multifaceted mutagenesis in the human germ line, Science 382:eadh2531.

Chromosomal recombination is an essential part of the life cycle of all sexually reproducing organisms. Yet, the system is complex, involving hundreds to thousands of proteins and RNAs. It also involves DNA repair pathways, which are themselves incredibly complex. The newest available information on recombination tells us it is mutagenic, meaning that recombination erodes the very places where recombination happens. How did such a system arise by chance? Can we assume the recombination rate has always been the same? What happens when a new allele arises in the protein that controls recombination? What is the mutation burden caused by this important system? Finally, how does this affect the creation-evolution debate? Links and notes: 15 Questions for evolutionists, #8 How did sex originate? Geeking out about DNA damage repair, June 2023. Grey et al. 2018 PRDM9, a driver of the genetic map, PLoS Genet 14(8):e1007479. Altemose et al. 2017 A map of human PRDM9 binding provides evidence for novel behaviors of PRDM9 and other zinc-finger proteins in meiosis, eLife 6:e28383. Robert Carter gets everything wrong?, creation.com, 10 Jul 2021. Hussin et al. 2011 Age-dependent recombination rates in human pedigrees, PloS Genetics 7(9):e1002251. Wang et al. 2012 Genome-wide single-cell analysis of recombination activity and de novo mutation rates in human sperm, Cell 150(2):402–12. African origins and the rise of carnivory, creation.com,19 Dec 2020. Hinch, A.G. et al., The landscape of recombination in African Americans, Nature 476:170–177, 2011. Hinch et al. 2023 Meiotic DNA breaks drive multifaceted mutagenesis in the human germ line, Science 382:eadh2531.

My new video made quite a splash! Apparently, lots of Christians are asking questions about the DNA we can now pull from very old skeletons. How do they do it? What are the data telling us? How is it even there, if the bones are as old as claimed? Without revealing too many details about what is in the main presentation, here I am just talking about ancient DNA and its implications for the creation-evolution debate. I also throw in a few things I was not able to address in the main presentation, including the genetics of ancient Canaanites and Philistines found in and around Israel. Notes and links: You can order Ancient DNA: Illuminating the Tapestry of Biblical Human History at creation.com (physical DVD or streaming format): creation.com/en/landing/ancient-dna How reliable are genomes from ancient DNA? (Creation.com) Patriarchal Drive in the early post-Flood population (Creation.com) Patriarchal Drive (BiblicalGenetics.com) Ancient History vs the Table of Nations (BiblicalGenetics.com) Extensive mixing of Israelites and non-Israelites in biblical history (Creation.com) The genetic history of the Israelite nation (Creation.com) The Israelites: forging of a nation (Creation.com) Genetics of modern Jews (BiblicalGenetics.com) Early Israel was a hotbed of interracial mixing (BiblicalGenetics.com) The Jews, Israel, and false notions of 'race' (BiblicalGenetics.com) Who were the Philistines? (Creation.com) Ötzi Mitochondrial Eve and the Three 'Daughters' of Noah (Creation.com) The High-Tech Cell (Creation.com) Feldman et al. 2019 Ancient DNA sheds light on the genetic origins of early Iron Age Philistines, Sci Adv 3;5(7):eaax0061, 2019. Haber et al. 2017 Continuity and admixture in the last five millennia of Levantine history from ancient Canaanite and present-day Lebanese genome sequences, Am J Hum Genet 3;101(2):274-282, 2017, Rylands Fragment of the Gospel of John Georgia Institute of Technology

My new video made quite a splash! Apparently, lots of Christians are asking questions about the DNA we can now pull from very old skeletons. How do they do it? What are the data telling us? How is it even there, if the bones are as old as claimed? Without revealing too many details about what is in the main presentation, here I am just talking about ancient DNA and its implications for the creation-evolution debate. I also throw in a few things I was not able to address in the main presentation, including the genetics of ancient Canaanites and Philistines found in and around Israel. Notes and links: You can order Ancient DNA: Illuminating the Tapestry of Biblical Human History at creation.com (physical DVD or streaming format): creation.com/en/landing/ancient-dna How reliable are genomes from ancient DNA? (Creation.com) Patriarchal Drive in the early post-Flood population (Creation.com) Patriarchal Drive (BiblicalGenetics.com) Ancient History vs the Table of Nations (BiblicalGenetics.com) Extensive mixing of Israelites and non-Israelites in biblical history (Creation.com) The genetic history of the Israelite nation (Creation.com) The Israelites: forging of a nation (Creation.com) Genetics of modern Jews (BiblicalGenetics.com) Early Israel was a hotbed of interracial mixing (BiblicalGenetics.com) The Jews, Israel, and false notions of 'race' (BiblicalGenetics.com) Who were the Philistines? (Creation.com) Ötzi Mitochondrial Eve and the Three 'Daughters' of Noah (Creation.com) The High-Tech Cell (Creation.com) Feldman et al. 2019 Ancient DNA sheds light on the genetic origins of early Iron Age Philistines, Sci Adv 3;5(7):eaax0061, 2019. Haber et al. 2017 Continuity and admixture in the last five millennia of Levantine history from ancient Canaanite and present-day Lebanese genome sequences, Am J Hum Genet 3;101(2):274-282, 2017, Rylands Fragment of the Gospel of John Georgia Institute of Technology

African cichlids are a diverse group of fishes that have frequently been used as evidence for evolution. Yet, now that the genomes of several hundred species have been published, the true history of this group has been revealed. All parties must now acknowledge that the many species arose quickly, from a common stock. In many ways, African cichlids fit beautifully into the biblical model of 'created kinds'. Links: Meier et al. 2023 Cycles of fusion and fission enabled rapid parallel adaptive radiation in African cichlids, Science 381:1428. Carter R 2021 Species were designed to change, creation.com. Carter R 2021 Species were designed to change, biblicalgenetics.com. Common aquatic macroinvertebrates Map of the biodiversity of amphibians, etc., in North America

African cichlids are a diverse group of fishes that have frequently been used as evidence for evolution. Yet, now that the genomes of several hundred species have been published, the true history of this group has been revealed. All parties must now acknowledge that the many species arose quickly, from a common stock. In many ways, African cichlids fit beautifully into the biblical model of 'created kinds'. Links: Meier et al. 2023 Cycles of fusion and fission enabled rapid parallel adaptive radiation in African cichlids, Science 381:1428. Carter R 2021 Species were designed to change, creation.com. Carter R 2021 Species were designed to change, biblicalgenetics.com. Common aquatic macroinvertebrates Map of the biodiversity of amphibians, etc., in North America

Darwin's finches have long been considered an icon of evolution. A recent analysis included 40 years of morphological measurements and genealogy tracing among four finch species on a small island in the Galapagos chain. This was coupled to 30 years of DNA sampling, including the recent sequencing of nearly 4,000 finch genomes from the same small island. The results tell us a LOT about biblical views of speciation, natural selection, and 'change over time'. Notes and links: Carter R, Galápagos finches, rapid speciation, and recent creation, Creation.com, 9 Nov 2023. Wieland C, Speciation conference brings good news for creationists, J Creation 11(2):135–136, 1997. Kaloyirou N, The remarkable Captain Robert FitzRoy, Creation 40(1):14–17, 2017. Lightner JK, Identification of a large sparrow-finch monobaramin in perching birds (Aves: Passeriformes), J Creation 24(3):117–121, 2010. Enbody ED et al., Community-wide genome sequencing reveals 30 years of Darwin's finch evolution, Science 381(6665):eadf6218, 2023.