Welcome to FCS Canada

Redmond Exploring

Exploring our Ancient Roots through DNA Analysis and other Evidence

In 2005, IBM and The National Geographic Society initiated a study to chart new knowledge about the migratory history of the human species, by using sophisticated laboratory and computer analysis of DNA contributed by hundreds of thousands of people from around the world. (1)

Anyone can participate.  To do so, people go to the National Geographic genographic website (2) and submit an application.  The National Geographic then sends a kit and you submit a swab of DNA and select what test you want done.

One of two tests can be selected.

Men can select an analysis of the Y chromosome, which is found only in males.  The National Geographic website explains why they use the Y chromosome. (3) The human body is made of some 50 to 100 trillion cells. Most cells have a similar basic structure.  An outer layer called the cell membrane and a nucleus that controls the cell and houses the genetic material in structures called chromosomes.

Chromosomes carry hereditary genetic information in long strings of DNA called genes. Each human cell has 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs.  22 numbered pairs of chromosomes and a single set of sex chromosomes xx in women and xy in men.

Spencer Wells, the director of the Genographic Project, in his book Deep Ancestry explains: “Some regions of shuffled chromosomes maintain themselves for many generations before they are broken up.  These are called haplotype blocks.  People who share markers, have a common ancestor. (4)

Why study the Y chromosome?  The Y chromosome is passed on intact through the male line, changed only by random mutational events. It is thus used to trace genetic lineages far back in time.

The second test, which men and women can select, is testing of the mtDNA.  Once again, Wells explains:

“The mtDNA is actually a piece of DNA that falls outside of the nucleus where the genome proper (like the chromosomes, such as the Y) is found.  The mtDNA is found inside a structure known as a mitochondrion, which lives out in the cytoplasm (or main body) of the cell.  The mitochondrion has its own membrane and DNA …” (5)

Your results will reveal your deep ancestry along a single line of descent (paternal or maternal) and show the migration paths they followed thousands of years ago.  Your results also place you on a particular branch of the human family tree.

Sounds simple and straightforward.  You would think an analysis of DNA would then produce a clear and accepted understanding of our origins.   It does not.

The great divide between those who follow humanistic theories, such as Darwinian theories on the evolution of species (6) and those who do not, continues in the interpretation of the data provided by these DNA tests.

Before we review what the tests show, let us note the position of the Catholic Church.

The Church has had a long tradition of confirming that God created all from nothing, and of the many instances of this confirmation, one can note Lateran IV, in 1215, and Vatican I in 1859.

Pope Pius XII reaffirmed this position in Humani Generis, issued in 1950, where he stated: “in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God…. the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.”(7)

Some Catholics, nonetheless, dissent from this position.  One notable dissident was Teilhard de Chardin, a very influential theologian of the 20th century.  Teilhard, while still a Jesuit student, became a member of the exclusive Count Begouen circle at Toulouse, the object of which was to propagate Darwin’s theory in France and to introduce it into the Catholic seminaries of Europe.  He became one of the most active propagandists for the evolutionists.  Indeed, he became involved in at least two frauds claiming man evolved from a lower animal form of life.  One was the Piltdown Man, used for 40 years to claim evolution, until proven to be deceptively stained human teeth.  A second was the Peking Man, discovered while he worked at Peking Union Medical College funded by the Rockefeller Institute, shown eventually to be a monkey. (8)

Teilhard influenced the development of theistic evolution.

Ian Taylor, a professor at the University of Toronto, who has written a fine book analyzing evolution, explains theistic evolution:

Theistic evolution places belief in evolution first and by whatever the latest scenario demands: that is, orthodox Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibria, etc.  There is the concomitant belief in the Deity and the thought that He directed the process of evolution to bring about planet earth and all living things…  Theistic evolution acknowledges intelligent design, but the Designer’s involvement extends from virtually none at all in the Deist position, in which God is limited to initial creation of the universe only, to the full theistic position…(in which) God is responsible for directing evolution of one species to another in a series of steps, while the last of these steps was the creation of humanoid characteristics in selected anthropoid bodies (Adam and Eve).”(9)

Now, back to what the DNA tests have revealed.

First, the data suggest modern human origins may be in the Near East, rather than Africa, as evolutionists propose.

My Y chromosome analysis can help us understand this better.  The analysis showed I belong to haplogroup R1b, M343 (subclade R1b1b2, M269) In parts of Spain and Ireland, more than 90% belong to this group. (10)

As you can see from the chart, it shows my origin in East Africa, descending from a Eurasian Adam.

Now let’s look at it more closely, starting from the final marker.

The first man with marker M343 lived in France or Spain and his descendants moved on to the British Isles including Ireland.  Those living in France developed the famous paintings, once identified as Cro-Magnon.  We hunted mammoths.  We made advanced tools and jewellery of ivory and other materials.

M173 was the marker of a man moving into Europe then going down to Italy, France and Spain. We were the first modern humans, or Homo sapiens, to move into Europe and our arrival heralded the end of the era of the Neanderthals living in this region. This culture has been classified as the Aurignacian culture. (11) Descendants with this marker remain very high in Western Europe, particularly concentrated in northern France and the British Isles.

M207 was a man whose descendants split into two, one going towards Europe, the other towards India.

M45, the next marker, was a man who had moved into central Asia.  Wells states: “We know he was living in this part of the world because the diversity associated with M45 is highest there, and only in this region do we see representatives of all of M45s descendant lineages.”(12) From this ancestor came the people who migrated to Siberia, then through North and South America.

M9, the next marker, lived in Iran or south central Asia.  From this ancestor, multiple groups split off.  Some went on to Europe.  Some went to India.  Some went to China.

M89, the next marker, is found in 90 to 95 percent of all non-Africans.  This man was born…in northern Africa or the Middle East.  Part of this group moved from the Middle East to Anatolia and the Balkans.

Finally, we have M168.  This marker, which identifies the line from the Middle East to East Africa, M168, goes further than the other markers in relying on evidence other than DNA.

In the explanation of M168, DNA concentrations are noted:

“Together M168 and L3a constitute a Eurasian Adam and Eve – everyone in Eurasia and consequently the Americas traces their lines of descent on their mother and father’s sides of the family back to them.  They are the maternal and paternal ancestors who gave rise to 85 percent of the world’s population.”

However, the explanation goes beyond this and emphasizes fossil evidence to give an African origin for Adam.

The information provided to me states:

“Skeletal and archaeological evidence suggest that anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa…The man who gave rise to the first genetic marker in your lineage, probably lived in northeast Africa in the region of the Rift Valley, perhaps in present day Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania, some 31,000 to 79,000 years ago.  Scientists put the most likely date for when he lived at around 50,000 years ago.  His descendants became the only lineage to survive outside Africa, making him the common ancestor of every non-African man living today.”

Wells, who supports evolution from Africa, identifies two haplogroups, A, with marker M91, and haplogroup B, with marker M60, and states that because these are found only in Africa, that everyone originates in Africa.

Wells gives reasons why he makes these two African markers the oldest. One is the fossil evidence.  Another is the practice of ancient cultural traditions, such as being hunter-food gatherers.  A third is greater genetic diversity with age.  A fourth is having an ancient language, specifically one with clicks. (13)

Other researchers do not incorporate fossils to claim an African origin.  They focus on the DNA evidence and stop in the Near East.

Patricia Balaresque and others state, when discussing the same lineage I have:

“Haplogroup R1b1b2 (R-M269) is the commonest European Y – chromosomal lineage, increasing in frequency from east to west, and carried by 110 million European men. … the geographical distribution of its microsatellite diversity is best explained by spread from a single source in the Near East via Anatolia during the Neolithic.

(They continue) The distribution of this lineage (paternally inherited Y chromosome), the diversity within it, and estimates of its age all suggest that it spread with farming from the Near East.  Taken with evidence on the origins of other lineages, this indicates that most European Y chromosomes descend from Near East farmers.”(14)

Professor Mark Jobling also notes movement from the Near East:

“European farming began around 9,000 BC in the Fertile Crescent – a region extending from the eastern Mediterranean coast to the Persian Gulf and which includes modern day Iraq, Syria, Israel and southeast Turkey.”(15)

Some DNA evidence shows movements from the Middle East to Africa.  For example, Fulvio Cruciani and others write about what they refer to as a back migration:

“evidence of a migration from Asia to sub-Saharan Africa that is fully supported by Y-chromosome data relies, at least for the moment, on the finding of haplogroup IX chromosomes in Cameroon.  An ancient human back migration from Asia to Africa has already been proposed by Altheide and Hammer (1997) and Hammer et al (1998, 2001) on the basis of nested cladistic analysis of Y-chromosome data” (16)

Hammer and others also show migration into Africa, though they do note some out of Africa. (17)

There is also disagreement with the other reasons given by Wells and others who support evolution.

Genetic diversity may not increase with age, as we shall discuss below.

Also, while click languages may have been complex, this seems a rather simplistic reason to credit it as being one of the oldest languages.  Fred Field, of the California State University, in his excellent study of languages, writes that within linguistics, there are at least four commonly held principles concerning the nature of language: 1. every language is, in principle, infinite; 2. all human languages are equally complex or challenging; 3. there are no primitive languages; 4. wherever humans have been found to exist, there is language.  He continues that language and the language facility reflect the cognitive abilities that every human being shares.  Assuming his second principle, other languages such as Sanskrit can readily replace click languages.  Looking beyond principles connected with language, one should note that the origin of writing is of critical importance.  In this regard, Woolley writes “All the archaeological evidence available seems to prove that true writing was first developed in southern Mesopotamia … the Egyptians took over the principle of writing ready-made from the Sumerians…that India owed its art of writing to the Sumerians cannot be proved, but it is highly probable  … On the whole it is probable the Chinese derived from Sumer the principle of writing”. (18)

There are serious, valid doubts on the fossil evidence.

Stephen Jay Gould, professor at Harvard, writes in the May 1977 issue of Natural History“ it is essentially an open confession that, although evolutionary trees are displayed in every textbook, it was a "trade secret of paleontology" that these were based on inference and not on fossil evidence. (19)

Taylor writes that the actual fossils are so incomplete they are open to any interpretation:

“ The overwhelming problem in the study of fossil man is that the actual fossil remains are extremely rare, and when they are found, the pieces are so broken, distorted, and incomplete that entirely different interpretations are possible. The field is thus wide open for speculation which, indeed, has been carried out with abandon, particularly in the case of flesh reconstructions, which become the interface between the knowledge of the scientist and the view offered to the lay public.”(20)

Others have questioned the differences in these species.  For example, William Hoesch writes:

Fossils classified as H. erectus all share a set of "primitive" traits including a sloping forehead and large brow ridges, yet these all fall comfortably within the range of what are called normal humans today.” And

“Studiously avoided in most museum depictions is the fact that fossils with a H. erectus anatomy that are younger than 400,000 years number well over 100, including some as young as 6000 years. Even more amazing is this: fossil humans that are easily interpreted as "anatomically modern" (i.e., non-H. erectus) have been found in rocks that are much older than 1.5 million years. From a dozen different sites have come cranial fragments, including one good skull, teeth, several arm and leg bones, a fossil trackway, and stone structure that each screams out "modern human." The trackways at Laetoli, Tanzania, dated at 3.6 million years, and tibia (leg bone) and humerus (arm bone) from Kanapoi, Kenya, dated at 3.5 million, are especially significant for these pre-date even "Lucy," the celebrated upright-walking ape”. (21)

Erick Von Fange, a professor at Concordia University in Ann Arbour, writes:

Hard work for the past 150 years has brought scientists no closer to finding the so-called 'missing link' between man and animal than when the search began. Every year or two another article appears in National Geographic with spectacular new discoveries about human evolution. Without exception they are without substance. The fossils are either fully human or fully apelike with nothing in between.” (22)

Richard Leakey who, with his father, was one of the leading archaeologists in East Africa and who was well aware of the Ethiopian finds which, by the way, are the fossils used to claim my African origin, wrote:

“Echoing the criticism made of his father’s habilis skulls, he added that Lucy’s skull was so incomplete that most of it was ‘imagination made of plaster of Paris’, thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusions about what species she belonged to.”(23)

Now, let us look at the genetic paths identified for mtDNA, the female side.

Those who support evolution give Eve a similar African origin.

The key evidence supporting this is the presence, in Africa only, of the L0, L1 and L2 haplogroups.  The following chart shows this:

Some who disagree with this interpretation, offer a different chart.

An example is Carter and his team.

They explain further: “Eve 1.0 is identical to the root node of macrohaplogroup R.  From R, the closely related M, N and L3 lineages diverged (small numbers indicate the approximate number of mutations that separate the nodes for each lineage…) One of the L3 lineages entered Africa and gave rise to the African-specific lineages, L2, L1, and L0…. Most of the differences we see in these lineages (specific to sub-Saharan Africa) are due to rare, homoplasic, or private alleles”(24)

Where the Y chromosome test uses the fossil record, language and culture to postulate an African origin, researchers in mtDNA use other facts to point to an African origin.

Carter and his team identify some of these facts used by evolutionists.  They state that option A, the origin in Africa, relies on certain assumptions, including “the need for mutations to accumulate in all lineages at an equal rate (a molecular clock), that mtDNA undergoes no recombination, and that all new mutations are free from natural selection”.  His team then shows how all three assumptions are wrong. (25)

“If the molecular clock is violated, a reliable phylogenetic tree for worldwide mtDNA haplotypes cannot be built.  Tests for a molecular clock have failed in African L2 clades of mtDNA. (Also) one of the newer studies (by Zsurka, 2007) seems to have found conclusive evidence for mitrochondrial recombination…(Thirdly) Several studies indicate that selection may also operate on mtDNA”. (26)

Further his team does not accept the main data used by the evolutionists to show an African origin, that of mtDNA clades from Africa.

“the African clades form… a cascading pattern with deep branches and the non-African lineages form a star-like pattern with short branches.  The evolutionary explanation is that these groups have been in Africa for tens of thousands of years longer than the lineages that left Africa.  However, there are a number of alternative explanations, all of which support the biblical model.  For instance, if the groups that eventually made up the African populations were restricted to smaller tribal sizes until recently, drift would have occurred more quickly and they would have diverged from the rest of the world, and from each other, at a higher rate.  Likewise, if the African groups have a different DNA repair system than the others (either defective or differential), this would also explain their more rapid divergence…Generation time is another consideration…(as is) lifespan differences.” Continuing, he adds, “many private mutations characterize the African sequence.  Private mutations are best explained as very recent mutations that have not yet spread into the population.  This also further evidence of a young mitochondrial genome.”(27)

They also reject the use of chimpanzee mtDNA sequences. (28)

There is further discussion on mtDNA below.

To summarize, the first result we can note on the DNA analysis is that there is disagreement on whether the first humans started in the Near East or East Africa, with the DNA evidence for a Near East origin being credible.

The following chart, the black being Y chromosome, and the gray being mtDNA, summarizes how the world’s population dispersed worldwide after leaving the Near East.(29)

A second observation that can be made from the DNA analysis is a questioning of the very fact of evolution.  Did we evolve from a common ancestor or were we created uniquely as Homo sapiens?

The National Geographic, in its atlas showing the timeline of the genographic program, notes: Dawn of Humans – shows a number of major hominid sites. Australopithecus hominids “disappeared about 1 million years ago though for a while they co-existed with Homo erectus. HOMO HABILIS: In sub-Saharan Africa some two million years ago, it is likely that one Australopithecus species began the direct line of human evolution by giving rise to the first species of the Homo genus, Homo habilis.” (30)

This evolution has been brought into doubt by an analysis of the DNA of the hominid or animal who lived concurrently with early Homo sapiens, and was often credited as being his precursor, Homo neanderthal.

Mitochondrial DNA analysis on a set of neanderthal bones has proven that Homo neanderthal is not in the line of evolution to humans.  Specifically, DNA has identified neanderthals as a distinct species from Homo sapiens.  They were an evolutionary dead end.  They lacked the cognitive abilities of humans. (31)

No tests have been possible to date with earlier hominids identified in the line of evolution, these including Homo erectus, Homo habilis and various species of Australopithecus.  It is most unlikely that any of these have any links to Homo sapiens.

Scientists are working to see if any extractable DNA can be analyzed.

As a result of this find, many of those who support evolution have been removing Homo neanderthal from the list of ancestors to Homo sapiens. (32)

Supporting the conclusions offered by DNA analysis is other computer analysis.

Dr. Charles Oxnard of the University of Western Australia, completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape. (33)

Doubts on the fossil evidence proving an African origin can only be increased by the fact that the earliest known archaeological site for Homo sapiens is the Near East.

The first sites known of Homo sapiens is the Qafzeh Caves in Israel.  The Skuhl cave is another early site, a few meters from Qafzeh.  These are in lower Galilee, near Nazareth. Skuhl Cave is a rock shelter located on the slopes of Mount Carmel in Israel. The following graph shows this first site, noted as the black dot.  All the other dots represent Neanderthal and earlier hominid sites.  These surround it. (34)

 

This has led some to comment on the weak nature of the claims for an East Africa origin for modern man.  For example, Ofer Bar-Yosef, a professor at Harvard, writes:

“The sites in East Africa are poorly dated by comparison to Western Eurasia where debates continue due to wealth of evidence.  In poorly known regions, ‘the less you know – the clearer is the picture’.” (35)

A third observation from the DNA analysis is that the timeframe for modern human existence on earth may be a lot shorter than has been postulated by evolutionists.

Evolutionists hold to a long period of time.

The National Geographic atlas, states, “ ”Adam” is the common male ancestor of every living man.  He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa until at least that time”. (36)

Regarding the Y chromosome male side, up to 79,000 years ago is estimated.

For example, the analysis of my DNA indicates 31,000 to 79,000 years ago as the time of the first man, or ‘Adam’.  Indeed, it offered dates for each of the seven markers in my lineage.  These dates, which are questionable, are

M343

30,000 years ago

Associated with Cro-Magnon

M173

30,000 years ago

Associated with Aurignacian culture

M207

30,000 years ago

Glaciers expanding

M45

35,000 years ago

Hunter, food gatherers

M9

40,000 years ago

Eurasian clan spreads far and wide

M89

45,000 years ago

Moving through Middle East

M168

50,000 years ago

Earliest lineage outside Africa

Cro-Magnons are associated with the Aurignacian Culture, essentially suggesting they were the same groups moving across Europe.  While my chart gave a date of 30,000 years ago, this culture has been dated from 10,000 to 40,000 years ago, with some findings dated as recent as 3500 to 5000 years ago. (37)

Others who have studied the same Y chromosome lineages suggest a much more recent time period.

Balaresque, Patricia et al

Neolithic expansion

4,577 to 9,063 years ago with spread of agriculture from Anatolia in the Middle East

Pinhasi, Ron, et al

Neolithic expansion

9,000 to 10,500 years ago spread from Middle East

Chikhi, Leones et al

Neolithic expansion

Below 10,000 years ago

(38)

Those who select more ancient dates for European populations rely on archaeology as well as interpretations of various DNA haplogroup analyses.  They emphasize that there was a Paleolithic people in Europe into which Neolithic farmers from the Near East immigrated.  Many of these studies note the Basques as being among these Paleolithic people.

Others are not sure if the Basques are part of an earlier Paleolithic group.

Chikhi writes:

It is worth stressing again that the analyses presented here rest on the use of Basques (or Sardinians) as descendants of Palaeolithic people. Because the Basques are likely to contain an unknown proportion of Neolithic genes, there is reason to believe that the Palaeolithic contribution has actually been overestimated, even though we cannot say by how much.” They conclude “the genetic contribution of Neolithic farmers had to be between 65 and 100% “(39)

Elsewhere he writes:

All estimates of times since separation of populations other than Saami, but including Sardinians and Basques, were below 10,000 years. These dates are rather recent, and so hereafter we only give upper bounds of their estimates. We do not believe any of these figures should be taken at its face value; clearly, it is the trend of the data that contains useful information, and not the exact numerical estimates. However, the overall pattern emerging is one in which, even using a long generation time (25 years) and the lowest mutation rate, there is no evidence of European population splits predating the diffusion of Neolithic technologies, as inferred from archaeological evidence. Using the mutation rates recently estimated from pedigrees for Y chromosome tetranucleotide microsatellites would further reduce the time elapsed since population separations.” (40)

Another summary of Y chromosome analyses of the Basque people concludes that the Basques were not part of the supposed Paleolithic peoples into whom Neolithic groups immigrated, but rather were part of the Neolithic expansion.

“Studies of the Y-chromosome found that on their direct male lineages modern Basques have a common ancestry with other Western Europeans. The similarity includes the predominance in their male populations of Y-chromosome Haplogroup R1b, now considered to have been spread through Europe from southwest Asia in the Neolithic period or later, between 4,000 to 8,000 years ago.”(41)

To summarize, if DNA evidence shows that people in Europe either arrived with the Neolithic immigrants, or after them, then they may have been the first Homo sapiens to arrive and the populating of Europe by Homo sapiens from the Near East could have happened anytime from 4000 to 10,000 years ago.  This is very different from the evolutionist interpretation, which suggests settlement in Europe some 45,000 years ago by Paleolithic peoples who were later joined by Neolithic immigrants from the Near East. 

This significant difference in time is also reflected in the mtDNA interpretation.

Evolutionists state the first Homo sapiens female to be very ancient.

Doran Behar and others provide details on mtDNA and how they agree:

“Both the tree phylogeny and coalescence calculations suggest that Khoisan matrilineal ancestry diverged from the rest of the human mtDNA pool 90,000150,000 years before present” (42)

Wells states: “Mitochondrial Eve represents the earliest female root of the human family tree.  Her descendants, moving around within Africa, eventually split into two distinct groups…The older group is referred to as L0...Haplogroup L0 likely originated in East Africa around 100,000 years ago.”(43)

However, considerable recent mtDNA analysis suggests Eve may have been very recent.

Michael Hammer, of the University of Arizona, writes ”We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor.”(44)

Ann Gibbons writes: “regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.  For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”, the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people…lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa.  Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.  No one thinks that’s the case” (45)

Pitman notes a 1987 mtDNA study of 136 women in which, after thousands of computer runs “the ‘African origin’ for modern humans does not hold a statistical significance over other possibilities” (46)

He quotes Mark Stoneking, a Berkeley biochemist who was one of the original researchers on mtDNA who once thought offspring received all copies of mother’s mitochondria and it mutated only every 300 to 600 generations, but now acknowledges that the theory of an African Eve has been invalidated.” (47)

Pitman continues:

“Scientists who study historical families and their genetic histories started questioning the mutation rates that were based on evolutionary phylogenetic assumptions.  These scientists were “stunned” to find that the mutation rate was in fact much higher than previously thought.  In fact it was about 20 times higher at around one mutation every 25 to 40 generations (about 500 to 800 years for humans).  It seems that in this section of the control region, which has about 610 base pairs, humans typically differ from one another by about 18 mutations.  By simple mathematics, it follows that modern humans share a common ancestor some 300 generations back in time.  If one assumes a typical generation time of about 20 years, this places the date of the common ancestor at around 6000 years before present.”(48)

Finally, Pitman references a study by Evelyn Heyer et al, published in the American Journal of Human Genetics in 2001.  This presented their findings of the mtDNA mutation rate in deep-rooted French-Canadian pedigrees.  Their findings “Confirmed earlier findings of much greater mutation rates in families than those based on phylogenetic comparisons…For the HVI sequences, we obtained 220 generations or 6,600 years, and for the HVII sequences 275 generations or 8,250 years.” (49)

To summarize, analysis of mtDNA mutation rates suggest Eve lived some 6000 years ago, rather than the 90,000 to 150,000 years ago proposed by evolutionists.

Given that much of the proof for long periods is based on scientific dating of fossils, those who question and reject these dates are openly questioning and rejecting the validity of this scientific dating.

Taylor has done excellent research on carbon 14 and potassium argon dating analysis.

He quotes some excellent research by Whitelaw who subjected 15,000 published C14 dates to statistical analysis by ranking, and then has applied the correction factors using the acknowledged 30 percent difference in rates, and the entire data reduce to a remarkably sharp beginning point, about 5,000 years ago. This, again, is confirmation of the Genesis record for the time of the Flood and a good reason to question openly all the long ages given by the other radiometric methods, reckonings we have been assured are based on sound scientific principles. (50)

Taylor then comments on the C14 data, writing:

“We may reasonably conclude that within the dating range of calibration standards, perhaps the past five thousand years, the carbon 14 method is probably a good indicator of true age, especially when carried out by the new high-energy technique.  For material believed to be older than this, however, the results obtained are all subject to interpretation, according to the presuppositions of the investigator, and the exercise then passes from the area of true science into that of pseudoscience.”(51)

When it comes to the other radiometric methods, such as the potassium/argon, there are no independent test methods; thus there can be no primary calibration standards. The use of fossils to calibrate the radiometric method, meanwhile, is simply adding to an already circular situation. Any consistency found with various radiometric methods is simply consistency within test methods based on the radio-decay phenomenon and, as we have seen, these are all subject to the same assumptions. The acceptance of the extreme ages given by these radiometric methods is, therefore, not based on good science but rather on philosophical grounds, because they appear to give support to Lyell's geology (52)

Supporting the doubts on much of the scientific dating for fossils and other artifacts is evidence provided by magnetic field observations that suggest ancient dates are improbable.

Von Fange writes:

“For the past century and a half careful measurements of the earth's magnetic field have been conducted. The rapid decay of the magnetic field is startling. Assuming that this rate is constant, scientists are able to show mathematically how strong the magnetic field was in the distant past. Instead of an age in the millions or billions of years, however, the magnetic field can be projected back in time less than 20,000 years. The world could not exist with the powerful magnetic field projected beyond 20,000 years. This finding is strong evidence for a young earth (53)

As a final note on recent timing, we quote Taylor on population growth:

“ the world's population today would be almost exactly what would be expected from the four couples surviving the Genesis Flood some five thousand years ago and would take into account all the natural disasters.”(54)

Finally, we can refer briefly to some historical sources to complement the DNA analysis. Substantial information exists that attests to a recent, well known history from the time of Adam and Eve to the present.

To start, one can note a few of the many dates for the creation of man offered in historical documents.

Young’s concordance

7000 BC creation earliest date

Douay Rheims bible

Flood 1656 year of the world (AM anno mundi); Joseph born 3934 AM

Ussher

4004 BC creation

Orthodox Jews

3760 BC creation

Masons

4000 BC creation

Anglo-Saxon (Parker) chronicle

5194 BC creation; creation to flood 2242 years

Scaliger

4713 BC creation

Mayans

3113 BC time since flood

(55)

Taylor notes that “Robert Young's concordance, and in the popular twenty-second edition, under "creation", will be found a list of thirty-seven computations of the date of creation from a possible list of more than one hundred and twenty. Of these thirty-seven, thirty are based on the Bible and seven are derived from other sources -- Abyssinian, Arab, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Indian, and Persian. Not one of these ancient records puts the date of creation earlier than 7000 B.C. In all the hundreds of thousands of years over which hominid man is alleged to have evolved, it is surely more than coincidental that ancient civilizations, which were by no means ignorant of timekeeping by astronomical methods, should all begin their historical record at this arbitrary date. In addition, all the myths and legends, however bizarre, speak of instant creation just a few thousand years earlier.”(56)

Discussing the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Cooper writes,

“… from the Creation to the year AD 33, the year of the Crucifixion, was a period of 5226 years. In other words, as far as the Saxons were concerned, the world was created about 5200 BC…From Adam to the Flood were 2242 winters.”(57)

Discussing Scaliger, Cooper writes that Scaliger analyzed the three basic cycles upon which all workable calendars are built.  These are the Solar Cycle, completed every 28 years, the Metonic cycle, completed every 19 years and the Roman indiction, started every 15 years.  Scaliger realized that there must obviously be points when all three cycles begin and end together, so, noting carefully the age of each cycle at the moment when he began his calculations, he counted the years backwards until he came to that year when all three cycles began together.  And that was the year 4713 BC. (58)

Major European historical documents also support a recent history.

Bill Cooper has done an excellent study of these ancient documents, in his book entitled After the Flood.  Bill spent twenty-five years reading old chronicles and documents in the British Museum and many other locations and has assembled possibly the most complete collection of early manuscripts on the origin of the European people.

These include genealogies of the Irish, Anglo-Saxons, Danish, Norwegian and British peoples.  In one genealogical comparison, he included known Roman authors.  He shows a Chinese genealogy. (59)

All have fairly complete renderings of history. All go back to Noah, some even to Adam.

Their timelines are all recent.  For example, one of the major works, Nennius, History of the Britons, notes that from Adam until the passion of Christ was 5228 years. (60)

Lest we too quickly reject the relevance and value of these historical documents, it is worth noting that some geneticists have commented favourably on these historical texts in their DNA analysis.  For example, Laoise T Moore, and others, in their study of theY chromosome signature of hegemony in Gaelic Ireland, write:

“our results do seem to confirm the existence of a single early-medieval progenitor to the most powerful and enduring Irish dynasty.  They also lend support to the veracity and remarkable knowledge preservation of the genealogical and oral traditions of Gaelic Ireland”(61)

Finally, we might note that Cooper discusses a dispersal of peoples:

“Interestingly, the dispersal is depicted in Genesis as having occurred in the fifth generation after the Flood, and we note in these ancient genealogies that after the fifth generation the Irish and continental pedigrees diverge in a most pointed way in exact accordance with the genesis account.”(62)

We will close the essay with a few references to the first humans, Adam and Eve, offered by a visionary, St Anne Catherine Emmerich, whom Jesus allowed to see Adam and Eve before and after they left the Garden of Eden.

St Anne Catherine Emmerich, who wrote The Life of Jesus Christ, was born in 1774 and died in 1824.  In volume 1 of this work she writes:

"I saw Adam created, not in Paradise, but in the region in which Jerusalem was subsequently situated.... (Later) I saw Adam borne up on high to a garden, to Paradise...(Later) God sent a deep sleep on him...then from his right side...God drew Eve...

(After being expelled from Paradise) ...Mankind at first numbered two, then three, and at last they became innumerable.  They had been images of God; but after the fall, they became images of self, which images originated in sin.  Sin placed them in communication with the fallen angels.  They sought all their good in self and the creatures around them with all of whom the fallen angels had connection...

It was to the region of Mount Olivert (63) that I saw Adam and Eve come (after being expelled from Paradise)…

I once had a vision of Mount Calvary...(It was) full of caves.  (A companion of Elias entered one and found a skull)  Instantly an angel appeared before him, saying "That is Adam's skull" and he forbade its removal...Christ's cross stood in a straight line above that skull at the time of His Crucifixion."(64)

In conclusion, DNA analysis offers us an unprecedented opportunity to understand our origins.  It traces Homo sapiens back to a first couple that we know as Adam and Eve.  It suggests that claims of evolution of Homo sapiens from earlier species are unlikely.  It suggests a much shorter timeframe for man’s existence on earth.  Finally, it complements many historical and religious documents.

Footnotes

  1. (1)
  1. (2) Google search with the words genealogy+y+DNA to see some of these.  
  1. (3) . 
  1. (4) Wells, Spencer, Deep Ancestry Inside the Genographic Project, (National Geographic: 2006, Washington), pp.36-8 
  1. (5) Ibid, pp.58-9. 
  1. (6) Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, (John Murray,  
  1. (7)
  1. (8)  
  1. (9)  

(10) This analysis is provided online at https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html.  In order to view it, you need a genographic project ID, which is provided to everyone who submits a sample.  The details noted on each marker is provided after you enter your project ID 

(11) The Aurignacian and Cro-Magnon have been characterized as the same culture. See  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian and http://www.elephant.se/cro-magnon.php.  

(12) Wells, op cit, pp.100-1. 

(13) Wells, op cit, pp.133-55; some researchers do not accept the Eurasian haplotypes as a subset of the African ones. Michael Hammer; Tatiana M Karafet; Alan J. Redd; Hamdi Jarjanazi; Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti; Himla Soodyall and Stephen L. Zegura, “Hierarchical Patterns of Global Human y-Chromosome Diversity”, in http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/7/1189.full, although accepting an early out of Africa range expansion, state:  “our present NRY tree and that of Underhill et al. (2000) clearly indicate that haplotypes found outside of Africa are not a subset of those found within Africa.” 

(14) Patricia Balaresque; Georgina R. Bowden; Susan M. Adams; Ho-Yee Leung; Turi E.King; Zoe H. Rosser; Jane Goodwin; Jean-Paul Moisan; Christelle Richard; Ann Millward; Andrew G. Demaine; Guido Barbujani; Carlo Previdere; Ian J. Wilson; Chris Tyler-Smith; Mark A. Jobling,  “A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages” in http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000285 

(15) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1244654/Study-finds-Britons-descended-farmers-left-Iraq-Syria-10-000-years-ago.html#ixzz0dBImdMju ; Wells, op cit, p.63 notes that people expanded quickly due to the invention of agriculture in the Karacadag region, a part of Anatolia.

(16) Fulvion Cruciani et al, “A Back Migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa is Supported by High Resolution Analysis of Human Y-Chromosome Haplotypes”, The American Journal of Human Genetics, vol.70, issue 5, May 2002; also in http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=. 

(17) Hammer, Michael F.; Tatiana M Karafet; Alan J.Redd; Hamdi Jarjanazi; Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti; Himla Soodyall and Stephen L. Zegura, “Hierarchical Patterns of Global Human Y-Chromosome Diversity”, in http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/7/1189.full.  They explain this diagram as follows: “Inferences from nested cladistic analysis of Y-chromosome data. Intercontinental signals are indicated by arrows between continent ideograms (note: arrows are not meant to indicate routes of migration), and intracontinental signals are shown by arrows within circles (empty circles for Europe and the Americas denote the absence of intracontinental signals). Solid arrows represent population history events (contiguous range expansions and long-distance colonizations), while population structure processes (recurrent gene flow restricted by isolation by distance and long-distance dispersals) are indicated with dashed arrows (and, in one instance, a dashed line between Asia and Oceania where no polarity could be inferred). The widest solid arrow denotes early range expansion out of Africa at the level of the total cladogram”.  The cladogram is a tree diagram used to illustrate phylogenetic relationships.  

(18) Field, Fred,” The Language Facility – Evolution, Design, or?” in http://www.ldolphin.org/languagefac.html. Regarding other complex languages, see Taylor, op cit, p.249.  Regarding writing, see Leonard Woolley, The Beginnings of Civilization, (New York, New York American Library, 1965, p.364, quoted in Curt Sewell, Biblical Chronology and Dating of the Early Bible”, available at http://ldolphin.org/sewell/sewellchron.html. Sewell was a scientist at Lawrence Livermore Labs.

(19) Gould 1977b, 14, quoted in Taylor, op cit, p.169; for a good explanation of Lyell’s system of geology, see Turner, op cit., pp.80-1. 

(20) Taylor, op cit, p.206.  Robert E. Lee, “radiocarbon: Ages in Error”, Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol 19(3), 1981, pp.9-29 writes, “the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results.  There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.  This whole bless(ed) thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends on which funny paper you read.” 

(21) Hoesch, William A., “How Coherent is the Human Evolution Story?” in www.icr.org/article/how-coherent-human-evolution-story/; see also Richard E Green; Adrian W Briggs; Johannes Krause; Kay Prüfer; Hernán A Burbano; Michael Siebauer; Michael Lachmann and Svante Pääbo,The Neandertal genome and ancient DNA authenticity”, in The EMBO Journal, v28 (17), Sept 2, 2009 and online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725275/?tool=pubmed 

(22) Dr. Erick A. Von Fange, Time Upside Down, chapters of this book are updated at different times, and one recent update was 2003, p.35.  This book can be downloaded from http://www.rae.org/index.html; Dr. T.N.  Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission USA) in ‘The Fresno Bee’, August 20, 1959, quoted in N.J.Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor’s New Clothes, (Royden Publications, UK, 1983), states “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.  In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”  See http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm. 

(23) Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3 and quoted in Quotes from Leading Evolutionists, in http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm. These quotes are taken from Dr. A. Snelling, The Revised Quote Book, Creation Science Foundation, Australia.  For details on Ethiopian fossils, see Taylor, op cit, p.241. Lucy is a key fossil in the Ethiopian series.   

(24) Carter, R.W., Criswell, D, Sanford, J, “The ‘Eve” Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence”, in A.A. Snelling ed., Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, (Pittsburgh: 2008), pp.111-116 

(25) Ibid. 

(26) Ibid; see also Robert W Carter, “Mitochondrial diversity within modern human populations”, Nucleic Acids Research, 2007 May 35(9): 3039-3045, available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1888801/?tool=pubmed. This has more details on the significance of the macrohaplogroup R 

(27) Carter, “The ‘Eve Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence”, p.112-3; commenting on cladistics, Taylor, op cit, p.153 writes that cladistics supposes sudden jumps from one ancestral form to another – unprovable jumps.  Nonetheless, they are accepted by the American Museum of Natural History and the British Museum. 

(28) Carter, “The ‘Eve” Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence”, states:  “The human and chimp mtDNA sequences are substantially different, we do not know the ancestral chimp sequence, and we do not know the degree of degeneration that has occurred in chimp lineages. Each of these factors will affect placement of the root.”; see also Deem, Richard, Descent of Mankind Theory: disproved by Molecular Biology, in http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html 

(29) Wells, op cit, p.106. 

(30) https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html, comments on item 5. 

(31) Ibid; see also Deem, Richard, op cit; and Caramelli, David; Lucio Milani; Stefania Vai; Alessandra Modi; Elena Pecchioli; Matteo Girardi; Elena Pilli; Martina Lari; Barbara Lippi; Annamaria Ronchitelli; Francesco Mallegni; Antonella Casoli; Giorgio Bertorelle; Guido Barbujani, “A 28,000 Years Old Cro-Magnon mtDNA Sequence Differs from All Potentially Contaminating Modern Sequences”, in http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002700. 

(32) For example, Wells, op cit, p.138. 

(33) Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, (University of Washington Press, 1987), quoted in David Buchna,  “Lucy’s Knee Joint Revisited”, in http://www.rae.org/lucy.html 

(34) https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html), see 200,000 to 60,000 years chart; see also http://archeology.about.com/od/qterms/qt/qafzeh_cave.htm; Wells, op cit, p.128;

(35) Ofer Bar-Yosef, “Human Migrations: The Cultural Records”, http://www.wkdialogue.ch/fileadmin/original_presentations/ wkd_20060915_ofer_bar-yosef_human_migrations.pdf 

  1. (36) see 200,000 to 60,000 years chart. 

(37) For information on Cro-Magnon and Aurignacian cultures, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian and http://www.elephant.se/cro-magnon.php. 

(38) Pinhasi, Ron; Joaquim Fort; Albert J. Ammerman, “Tracing the Origin and Spread of Agriculture in Europe”, in http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030410 They state:” agriculture is most likely to have originated in the area that today includes north-east Syria, northern Mesopotamia, and part of south-east Turkey near the site of Çayön”; Barbujani; G & L. Chikhi, “DNAs from the European Neolithic”, in web.unife.it/progetti/genetica/Guido/pdf/Barbujani-Chikhi.pdf provide a good analysis of the role played by DNA analysis in determining the extent of Neolithic vs Paleolithic origin of modern European populations.  They state that a model of demic diffusion provide “evidence of a major dispersal of people in the Neolithic period”. See also Barbujani, Guido & Giorgio Bertorelle, “Genetics and the population history of Europe” in web.unife.it/progetti/genetica/Giorgio/PDFfiles/pnas2001.pdf for further comments on Paleolithic vs. Neolithic; Chikhi, Lounes; Giovanni Destro-Bisol; Giorgio Bertolele; Vincenzo Pascali; Guido Barbujani, “Clines of nuclear DNA markers suggest a largely Neolithic ancestry of the European gene pool”, in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21201/ 

(39) Chikhi, Lounes; Richard A Nichols; Guido Barbujani; Mark A Beaumont, “ Y genetic data support the Neolithic demic diffusion model”, at http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/11008.full

(40) Chikhi, Lounes, et al,  “Clines of nuclear DNA”. 

(41) The Basque people entry in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_people, under genetics.   

(42) Behar, Doran and others, “The Dawn of Human Matrilineal Diversity”, in The American Journal of Human Genetics, vol.82, issue 5, 24 April 2008, pp.1130-40.  

(43) Wells, op cit, pp.176-7. 

(44) US News and World Report, 12/4/1995. 

(45) Ann Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock”, Science, v.279, pp.28-9, January 2, 1998. 

(46) Pitman, Sean D., DNA Mutation Rates and Evolution, August 2001, updated August 2008, P.6, this is available online at http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/dnamutationrates.html  

(47) Ibid.

(48) Ibid.

(49) Ibid, p.11

(50) Whitelaw (1970) quoted in Taylor, op cit, p.305 

(51) Taylor, op cit, p.307; see also Isotope Dating Review of Basic principles and Problems, Greater Houston Creation Association, available online at http://www.ghcaonline.com/Articles/articles.html which notes that C14 has a half life of 5730 years; see also http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm, which discusses Carbon 14 dating and its limitations; see also Larry Vardiman; Andrew A Snelling and Eugene F Chafifin, eds, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, 1998, available online at http://www.icr.org/article/radioisotopes-age-earth/ 

(52) Taylor, op cit.  Taylor writes (pp.241-2) on the Ethiopian fossils that are considered a major potential source of early man that Donald Johanson researched in the Great Rift Valley in southern Ethiopia along the Omo River and uncovered 197 hominid bones, but no skulls.  It was announced as Lucy and dated, with potassium-argon dating at 3.1 to 5.3 million years. 

(53) Von Fange, Eric, Time Upside Down, online version available at http://www.rae.org/indev.html, p.24; (CRSQ , 1972, 9:1, p.47). 

(54) Taylor, op cit, p.324; see also Rev William A Williams, “The Evolution of man Scientifically Disproved in 50 Arguments”.  One of the arguments discusses population.  Available online at www.creationism.org 

(55) Bill Cooper, After the Flood, (New Wine Press: Chicester, 1995), pp.51, 67-71. A copy of this excellent book can be downloaded from http://ldolphin.org/cooper/contents.html; see also Taylor, op cit, p, 273-4; for a good analysis of Ussher and Bible versions of dates; also see Curt Sewell, op cit.  For example he notes the three main versions of the Old Testament and gives the dates calculated for the flood for each: Masoretic 1656 AM (anno mundi or year of the world), Septuagint 2262 AM and Samaritan 1307 AM. 

(56) Taylor, op cit, p.273

(57) Cooper, op cit, chapter 9.

(58) Ibid.

(59) These chronicles include Nennius, ‘Historia Bittonum’ (The History of the Britons); Geoffrey of Monmouth, Tysilio Chronicle’; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Welsh Annals; Ehelwerdi Chronicorum; Prosa Edda; Saltair of Cashel; Cin of Drom Snechta (The Book of Invasions); Beowulf; Traux, E, Genesis According to the Miao People, Impact article April 1991.  For further details on location and content of these manuscripts, see Cooper, op cit.

(60) Cooper, op cit, p.56

(61) Moore, Laoise T.; Brian McEvoy; Eleanor Cape; Katherine Simma and Daniel G. Bradley, “A Y-Chromosome Signature of Hegemony in Gaelic Ireland”, in

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380239/

(62) Ibid, p.70; An interesting study of the Y chromosome in Anglo-Saxon Britain shows closeness between Anglo-Saxons and Danes and distance between these two and the Welsh, reflecting the differences in lines of descent from Japheth; see Weale, Michael E; Deborah A Weiss; Rolf F Jager; Neil Bradman; Mark G, Thomas, “ Y chromosome evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration”, in http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/7/1008.full 

(63) It is also known as The Mount of Olives, Mons Olivertus, Mt. Olivert, and Mt. Olivet. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11244b.htm

(64) Emmerich, St. Anne Catherine, The Life of Jesus Christ, (TAN Books and Publications Inc: Rockford, Ill, 2004) Vol 1, pp.6-18, 26, 29.

igure 2 

Special Features