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

for the size differences and mutation rate differences of HVSII compared to the rest of the mitochondrial genome. Sigurðaróttir et al. (2000) calculated a rate of 0.0043 per generation for the entire mitochondrial control region. We can extrapolate the total number of mutations expected across the entire molecule without having to partition the data like Soares et al. (2009) did. We found 25.3 times more mutations genome-wide than in HVSII and 8.5 times more mutations genome-wide than in the control region. Taking this and applying it to the rate estimates in these two studies allowed us to estimate when each of the major haplogroup ancestors lived, with a purposefully large degree of uncertainty. As in the Y chromosome estimates above, the mitochondrial estimates varied widely among haplogroups and among the two rate estimates (Table 5). Discussion For years geneticists have known that there is a single paternal ancestor and a single maternal ancestor for all of humanity (Cann et al. 1987; Karafet et al. 2008). This is a direct prediction of the biblical model. It can also be explained in the evolutionary model, but only by assuming random mating on a global scale, and by invoking a bottleneck that would in any other species almost certainly cause extinction. The evolutionary model did not anticipate this discovery. Instead, the evolutionary model had to be radically modified to accommodate this remarkable development while invoking various ad hoc rescue mechanisms, specifically a long-term bottleneck among the African population. It is widely known that the inbreeding effects of any serious population bottleneck are deleterious, and having an effective population size of just a few thousand individuals for many thousands of years would cause population degeneration and population collapse, not radical evolutionary advance and explosive growth into all corners of the world. 1. We now know the sequence of each founding ancestor of each major lineage in both the chrY and chrM family trees. It is possible to reconstruct the actual ancestral sequence at any node in either the human chrY or chrM ancestry tree. This is not a theoretical construction, but a valid recreation of the original chromosome of historical individuals. The biblical patriarchs are in those trees, but they may or may not sit at one of these nodes. We cannot assume there should be 16 branches for the chrY tree, for example, just because Noah had 16 grandsons (actually, many of the names in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 are plural, indicting people groups rather than named individuals). Population dynamics are complex. Some lineages have doubtlessly thrived and multiplied, while some lineages have doubtlessly diminished and been lost. Not only do we actually know the sequences of these haplotype “patriarchs” and “matriarchs”, we can roughly approximate the time when they lived. In the same way, we can roughly approximate the time when the singular paternal patriarch (Adam/Noah) and the singular maternal patriarch (Eve) lived. Given a few reasonable assumptions, we obtain similar ages for both the primary male ancestor, and primary female ancestor. These dates have a wide margin of error, but on the low end they are very much closer to the expected biblical age than the expected evolutionary age (see tables 3 and 4 under results). 2. Approximation of the primary root sequences for chrY and chrM Even though the phylogenetic trees displayed a bold, star-like pattern, with the majority of lineages radiating from a central area, it is still difficult to pin down the exact location of the ancestral sequence in either tree. The evolutionists have an advantage here in that they use chimpanzee as a rooting lineage and assume that the ancestor is the most chimp-like of the sequences because any location with a chimpanzee reading is assumed to carry the ancestral allele. This does not mean that they believe some people are more closely-related to chimps than others but that some lineages branched off earlier. In the biblical model, however, we do not know if we are starting with a single chrY lineage or if the sons of Noah were quite dissimilar. The same is true of chrM. The Bible says nothing about how closely related the three daughters-in-law were to one another, so we do not know what to expect at the root of the tree. For these reasons, it is not possible to precisely identify the primary root sequences for either chrY or chrM, but we can still make good approximations, within a reasonable margin of error. From first principles, we would place Y Chromosome Adam/Noah somewhere along the branch between junction of haplogroups A through E and the root of macrohaplogroup F. Comparing the distribution of haplogroups A through E makes us conclude that the major ancestral node of these groups could quite possibly represent the Y chromosome of Ham. Since many Jewish men carry chrY haplogroup J (the naming of these groups had nothing to do with religious identity; “J” for Jewish is a fluke), and since they descend from Shem (but see Carter 2017), the root of haplogroups G, H, I, and J is a good candidate for the Y chromosome of Shem. Japheth would, then, be located at the root of the remaining haplogroups. But, several other possibilities exist. Even so, the number of mutations separating the major haplogroup ancestors is still not necessarily equal to the time that separates them. The placement of Mitochondrial Eve also has a large margin of error. However, a good candidate location would be at the junction of haplogroups L and M. Whether or not the three daughters-in-law shared the same mtDNA or different is a matter of speculation. In our earlier work (Carter et al. 2008) we identified the ancestor of macrohaplogroup R as the “Eve” sequence. This was a tentative conclusion and we directly stated that further modifications of that placement were possible, with the most likely scenario involving moving Eve to macrohaplogroup N or even beyond it toward haplogroup L3. Here we would like to suggest that Eve is most likely to be located along the long branch that connects macrohaplogroup L/M to macrohaplogroup N. The daughters-in- law, therefore, would be arrayed around her, leading to the major starburst pattern seen in the data. Alternatively, she could represent the L/M ancestor. Remember, if any of the daughter-in-law were sisters, we could be starting off with fewer than three major lineages. The evolutionary model is not nearly as clear-cut as many believe. For example, in 2013 a major new branch was added to the Y chromosome tree (Mendez et al. 2013). This new line was discovered by a genealogy testing company and resulted in a Carter et al. ◀ Y Chromosome Noah and mitochondrial Eve ▶ 2018 ICC 144