Scientific review pending. This track will assess scientific methods, evidence selection, claim wording, model comparison, and case conclusions.
Scientific Audit · Public record
How strong are the conclusions?
A conclusion is only as auditable as the path connecting its wording to observations, sources, analytical limits, and revision rules.
Use this page to find the project’s sources, methods, review status, and correction record.
Public beta · scientific review pending
Independent human specialist review has begun on selected biblical, hermeneutical, and theological statements.
Scientific reviewer recruitment does not mean that scientific external review has begun or that any reviewer endorses the Project.
Mark Shlapobersky, PhD, remains responsible for the published content, corrections, and review-status accuracy.
Audit chain
Follow the claim all the way through.
- 01Claim
- 02Source
- 03Evidence role
- 04Limit
- 05Assessment
- 06Revision
Sources & evidence
Trace nine preserved entries from source and DOI to analytical layer, evidence role, and limits on use.
Inspect sources →Detailed testing framework
Audit the rules that keep Ancestry, Major Biological Transformation, Temporal Adequacy, and Biblical Interpretation distinct.
Inspect the framework →Reviews & Corrections
See current review status, correction policy, failed hypotheses, and version history without invented external endorsement.
Inspect the record →Current Assessments
Enter the investigation record and distinguish completed ancestry assessments from work still in progress.
Inspect assessments →Standing safeguards
Transparency is not the same as external validation.
Common ancestry remains the prevailing scientific interpretation. MALH remains a working alternative and is not presented with equal default support. Biblical interpretation is not scored as scientific evidence. AI-assisted and internal expert-role evaluations are not independent external human review. External review is critical evaluation, not endorsement.