PS should review and comment on Dr. Jeanson’s claims:
Why does Jeanson propose massive autosomal heterozygosity (the wrong word, but there is no right one) in Adam and Eve but supposes that there was a single Y chromosome?
Here is a quote from the article that may answer your question :
« Because males are XY and females XX, Adam would have been created XY, and Eve, XX. Therefore, a single Y chromosome would have been present at Creation. Consequently, unless God created Adam’s gametes with Y chromosome differences (Carter, Lee, and Sanford 2018; Sanford et al. 2018), all modern Y chromosome differences would be the result of mutations since mankind’s origin »
It doesn’t, since Jeanson is claiming that God created Adam’s gametes with autosomal differences. So why is the Y chromosome supposed to be unitary?
Why, for that matter, isn’t he talking about Noah, the true Y-chromosomal bottleneck?
5 Likes
There are 2 ways by which God could have created allelic diversity in humans, either by introducing allelic diversity within autosomes of Adam and Eve (scenario 1), either by introducing differences within the gametes of Adam and Eve (scenario 2). I guess Jeanson has favored scenario 1, in which Adam’s Y chromosome is necessarily unitary.
A couple has one copy of the Y, but 4 copies of the autosome.
1 Like
But that’s not the degree of allelic difference he’s trying to explain. Jeanson is supposing that Adam’s germ cells were created as samples of different genomes, not the same genome as his soma. Ditto, one supposes, for Eve’s. Thus many more than four alleles at each autosome, and potentially lots of alleles at the various germ line Y chromosomes.
2 Likes
Still goes through a bottleneck of 1 at Noah.
2 Likes
One would think that a creationist would be the last person who would ignore this.
2 Likes
But Jeanson doesn’t seem to be talking about Noah. Why is that?
2 Likes
Jeanson is slowly inching towards TMR4A. The autosomal genome, following his logic, solidly disproves his version of AE. I wonder how he will deal with it.
2 Likes
Because there’s no certainty regarding Noah’s ‘sons’ actual parentage?
A creationist ignore some detail that trivially refutes his claims? Nah, that never happens.
Note that Jeanson throws out all pedigree-based mutation rate estimates in favour of data from essentially a single paper, Maretty et al. (2017). In doing so, he’s throwing out all studies that used trios or other long genealogical lines in favour of one that only looked at two generations, fathers and sons. As a result, the data is unable to distinguish de novo germ line mutations from somatic mutations, making it all but worthless for estimating a mutation rate for molecular clocks,
This is Jeanson making exactly the same mistake as he did in the past for mtDNA mutation rate studies, although in those articles he had the honesty to mention this caveat in the text. In this Y chromosome article, the word “somatic” doesn’t even appear once.
5 Likes
It is the same issue in this Mitochondria work, by the way. The difference is that actually teasing these two classes of mutations out is exceedingly difficult with Mitochondria, but easy with Y-Chromosomes.