Maybe a polytomy at the root?
Everyone would have to be descended from those three nodes. In evograds midpoint rooted tree they clearly are not.
Itâs likely that two of the women would be more related to one another than the third, so it could be a dichotomously branching tree, but with a clear mtEve node followed by radiations from 3 Nodes fairly close that the root node.
3 Likes
If this were actually the case, all mt genomes would be nearly identical, and the tree would just look like a tiny blob with a few very short branches and massive polytomies.
But if we accept Jeansonâs idea (which is wrong) of a vastly greater mutation rate, we would expect longer branches. The shape of the tree would depend on how closely related Noahâs daughters-in-law were, how many generations there were between the Fludde and the dispersal from Babel, and such. If, say, the three women were maximally unrelated â all descended in the maternal line from different daughters of Eve â and if there were enough time between the Fludde and Babel for significant evolution, then we should see a basal trichotomy with 3 fairly long branches (time before the Fludde) each of which splits into a more or less bifurcating tree after the Fludde.
I should add that any geographic structure to that tree would depend on the descendants of the three women dispersing in coherent groups after Babel, which seems an odd assumption.
1 Like
I think itâs really difficult to overstate Jeansonâs blunder of interpreting these three nodes on an unrooted tree.
I think the greater blunder is in thinking that there could be any root, wherever placed, that would support his claim.
1 Like
Yes that does seem to be a major epicycle in his theory.
2 Likes
Especially given the patrilineal family descent universal in Genesis. But does Jeanson actually make that assumption or just seem unaware of the need for it?
2 Likes
Ah, yep, that makes sense. Just because you have three Noachian daughters-in-law doesnât mean you donât still need mtEve. I knew there was something thereâŚI just couldnât put my finger on it.
Well, yes, of course. Very good point.
Bingo. Either you have strictly-incestuous post-flood reproduction under each of the three patrilineal lines, or the mtDNA wonât show three geographically-segregated monophyletic groups.
Another nail in that coffin.
3 Likes
Hi David
Have you read the 2013 paper that Jeanson wrote which is on the AIG website. Can you make any comments on the strengths and weaknesses of that work?
So, some of the inferences being thrown around here are not correctâŚ
He wrote two ARJ papers in 2013 that are currently on the AiG website. Which one are you talking about?
You are going to have to provide more than a vague hint if you want to foster any sort of discussion.
For example, this isnât true.
Here is the paper that he references in his 2015 paper for establishing mutation rates.
âââ. 2013. âRecent, functionally diverse origin for mitochondrial genes from ~2700 metazoan species.â Answers Research Journal 6: 467â501.
Again, you need to do more than just say âthis isnât trueâ. You have to explain exactly what part of it isnât true and why.
If the patrilineal groups are going to be sorted geographically by maternal lineage, you need to have mothers in that group mate strictly with fathers in that group. The fathers bear the name and the geography and the mothers bear the mitochondria, and if both those are going to line up, you need that inbreeding. Exogamy produces mixing of lineages. At Babel, all the daughters of Shem have to wander in the same directions as the sons of Shem. They canât wander off with sons of Ham.
3 Likes
Can you explain why?
As far as I can tell, the only way to get three geographically-separate populations which all descend monophyletically from three female progenitors is if each population descends ONLY from one of those females.
Based on Genesis 10, YECs would say that the Japhethites, the Hamites, and the Semites all spread out into different directionsâŚthough Genesis 11 says ânot yet, everyone was at Babelâ so to make it consistent you have to say that the Genesis 10 statements speak of what eventually happened, later on.
By (improperly) identifying those three nodes as the three daughters-in-law of Noah, Jeanson is claiming that all the Japhethites had Japhethella mtDNA, all the Hamites had Hamella mtDNA, and all the Semites had Semella mtDNA. The only way for all the Japhethites to have Japhethella mtDNA is if no Semite or Hamite woman ever married a Japhethite, and so on for Hamites and Semites. You have to have that strict inbreeding even from the very first three families (incest) or the mtDNA lines mix from the very beginning.
Japhethâs daughters would only be able to marry Japhethâs sons, and his granddaughters could only marry his grandsons, and so forth.
1 Like
Please provide a link.
Well, you donât need completely strict inbreeding, as long as all the non-inbred maternal lines became extinct before the present. Conceivably thatâs what Joshua is getting at, if heâd only tell us. But if so, itâs a quibble.
1 Like