Does Jeanson Associate Y-Adam with Noah?

Why not node 8?

Why not indeed? Any node you pick is equally reasonably identified with Noah, as there are no criteria by which he can be recognized. But any node also has problems. The three descendants of 8 (if we root the tree there) are 9, 7, and 193. First, those aren’t the groups that Jeanson’s figure identifies. Second, the same problems of mutation rate and group membership afflict that one too, but even worse. Japheth steals even more souls from Shem, though Ham only loses a few. Again, there is no place you could root the tree so as to result in the three groups in Jeanson’s figure.


It looks like they are the groups his figure identifies to me. 9 - Shem 7 -Ham 193 - Japheth.

Lol, what?

By golly, you’re right. I was misreading a very short branch. But the mutation rate problem remains. Node 9 is not a credible root.

Further, there’s deceptive labeling. Most Europeans on the tree belong to Shem’s group, though groups N and R, where most of them are, are labeled “Siberia” and “C. Asia”.

1 Like

I was looking at ISOGG, mostly getting confused. :upside_down_face:You’ll have to be more specific for me to engage. Assuming you meant node 8 this time.

N is most dense in Siberia. Even mainstream science has the origin of R1a and R1b in Central Asia. So the labels are referring to his inference of the place of origin.

Sorry, yes. Node 8 isn’t credible. Node 9 isn’t credible. The only credible roots lie within African populations. The point is that you can’t go around assuming that mutation rates differ by a factor of 5 or more between human populations.

That’s not what the tree shows. There are only a few Europeans sampled that were not in N or R. So to label a minority node “European” and leave out almost all Europeans sampled is dishonest.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.