The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

chromosomal recombination (Lesecque et al. 2013). Africans also have higher rates of recombination than non-Africans (Hinch et al. 2011). If gene conversion is correlated to recombination rates, this might explain some of the differences among populations we are seeing in our data. 10. Estimating the age of the primary root sequences for chrY and chrM: Given that we can reconstruct the primary root sequences for both chrY and chrM, we can very roughly estimate the age of those ancestral sequences. To do this, however, one must assume some sort of a molecular clock. Given that our data clearly shows significant differences in the rate of mutation accumulation among the different lineages, these age estimates require a large margin of error. What is the chrY mutation rate? Using detailed genealogical knowledge, Helgason et al. (2014) reported a rate of 8.71x10 -10 per site, per person, per year for the Y chromosomes of a selection of Icelandic males. We must point out that modern Icelandic males are hardly an acceptable analogue for all males throughout all history. Skov et al. (2017) translated that into a rate of 3.14x10 -8 per site, per person, per generation (using a back- calculated generation time of 36 years) for the X-degenerate portions of the Y chromosome. They reported a higher rate for the heterochromatic areas and a lower rate for the ampliconic areas, but most of the 1000 Genomes data is in the X-degenerate areas so we can ignore the other sections. For comparison, Xue et al. (2009) reported a similar rate of 3.0x10 -8 per site, per person, per generation, but they also noted that their rate depends upon an assumed generation time and an assumption about the time to the human/chimpanzee split. The 1000 Genomes Y chromosome data spanned 26,111,460 nucleotides on the Y chromosome. If we exclude any gaps greater than 2,000 nucleotides, total coverage is reduced to 10,406,614 nucleotides. Since most gaps are very large, increasing the cutoff to >= 10,000 nucleotide gaps has little appreciable effect on total coverage (the total span increases by only 1.5%). The age estimates for each chrY haplogroup ancestor, using two vastly different rate estimates, are shown in Table 4. Clearly, it is not possible to simply scale the data linearly. Our discovery that mutation rates are not constant among the haplogroups solves this dilemma and allows us to explore alternatives without being held back by evolutionary molecular clock assumption. What is the chrM mutation rate? Quoted mitochondrial mutation rates can be quite variable and depend on method (phylogeny vs. genealogy), area sampled (e.g., hypervariable region vs. total chromosome) and type of mutations studied (synonymous vs. non- synonymous, coding vs. non-coding, etc.). The lack of a standard measure is a well-known problem in molecular clock estimates in mitochondrial studies (Loogväli et al. 2009). Yet, we are not concerned with the absolute rate so much as an approximation. If widely-discordant evolutionary rates match a general biblical timeframe, there is little need to attempt to determine the exact rate. Plus, once we discovered that mutation rates can vary significantly from one group to another, we realized that a single rate that can be applied to all of humanity across our entire history should not exist. For example, Soares et al. (2009) attempted to divide the mitochondrial genome into eight fractions and calculate an overall expected mutation rate. Their figure of 1.7x10 -8 mutations per site, per year (or one mutation every 3,624 years) was ridiculously low and is entirely influenced by the assumed human-chimp split time of 6.5 MA. We reject all phylogenetic mutation rates as unrealistic. On the other end of the spectrum, Madrigal et al. (2012) used a genealogical method to measure a rate of 1.24 x10 -6 per site, per year in the second hypervariable section (HVSII). This amounts to approximately 1 mutation every-other generation, after accounting Carter et al. ◀ Y Chromosome Noah and mitochondrial Eve ▶ 2018 ICC 143 Haplogroup Min Gens Min Years Max Gens Max Years A1 209 6,282 3,560 106,800 B 137 4,112 2,330 69,900 C 118 3,526 1,998 59,950 D/E 111 3,331 1,887 56,625 G 77 2,313 1,311 39,326 H 79 2,377 1 ,347 40,406 I/J 79 2,372 1,344 40,332 L/T 76 2,280 1,292 38,757 N/O 73 2,183 1,237 37,105 Q/R 77 2,319 1,314 39,428 Average 104 3,110 1,810 52,900 Haplogroup Min Gens Min Years Max Gens Max Years L1 153 4,603 1,245 37,336 L5 152 4,565 1,234 37,027 L2 126 3,781 1,022 30,669 L4/6 91 2,745 742 22,264 L3 72 2,161 584 17,526 M 87 2,612 706 21,183 I/S 81 2,429 657 19,699 N 75 2,263 612 18,359 R 67 2,013 544 16,324 Average 100 3,020 816 24,500 Table 4. Age estimates for the major Y chromosome haplogroup founders. The minimum number of generations and years are based on the work of Jeanson and Carter (2017). The maximum number of generations and years are based on Xue et al. (2009). The last row shows the average age across all haplotype ancestors. Clearly, one cannot simply apply a linear rate estimate to the distance data, especially since the different branches have had demonstrably different rates of mutation accumulation. Table 5. Age estimates for the major mitochondrial chromosome hap- logroup founders. The minimum number of generations and years are based on Madrigal et al. (2012). The maximum number of generations and years are based on Sigurðardóttir et al. (2000). As with the Y chromosome data, these estimates cover a huge range, reflecting a large margin of error. The last row averages across all haplogroup founders. Since mutation rates are not consistent, it is not actually appropriate to apply a linear rate esti- mate, but we do so here to illustrate the difficulties anyone has in assigning dates to these historical events.