Jeanson writes "Ultimate Scientific Rebuttal to Darwin’s Descent of Man?"

I included a question mark in the title because Jeanson did so in a recent Answers in Genesis article. Not only does Jeanson explain his latest research refuting Darwin and evolutionary biology in general, he also announces his upcoming book with the working title, The Hidden History of Humankind: Unexpected Links Among Ancient Civilizations. He implies that his studies of human DNA have led him to noteworthy discoveries.

1 Like

I am curious if there will be anything in the book that’s new and wasn’t discussed in the video series he did.

In poker, I think this would be called “going all in.” From what I’ve read about mtDNA and y-chromosome studies so far, he had provided many more specifics than mainstream scientists have. But will historians or other scientists take it seriously?

These and other findings will be released this summer/fall in a book (the current title is The Hidden History of Humankind: Unexpected links among ancient civilizations —though the title may change before it goes to press). In the book, I will be exploring the rise and fall of eight ancient civilizations or peoples: Ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, ancient Persia, ancient Israel, ancient India, ancient China, the Easter Islanders, and the Native Americans. With modern genetics, I will then try to answer the questions that most history books never address: Who did these people come from, and what happened to them after their civilizations fell?

In answering these questions for these eight peoples, I end up telling the story of the whole world.

Effectively, this book fulfills the testable predictions I made several years ago. In doing so, it meets the decades-old demands of the evolutionary community. The book does science; it advances our knowledge of the natural world. Rather than simply identify the shortcomings of evolution, it confirms testable predictions that I made in the past, and it makes more falsifiable predictions for the future.

If it’s anything like his last book, it won’t include anything novel compared to his articles in ARJ.

What specifics do you you think Jeanson has provided that mainstream scientists have not?

Jeanson’s article seems to focus on Darwin’s “Descent of Man”, but a lot has happened since that publication 150 years prior. Once again, may I direct you to David Reich’s volume Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past

David Reich runs a large lab at Harvard, staffed by scientists and support workers who have published DNA research dealing with human migration and population in the deep past. So far, I have not been able to track down any reference or argument Jeanson may have taken with the outline put forward by Reich, and I would welcome any such links. To work within a YEC framework, Jeanson would have to invalidate pretty much the entire findings of Reich et al.

Of course, there are many more researchers on this beat as well. To claim that Jeanson “has provided many more specifics than mainstream scientists have” just demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the literature. You may wish to avail yourself to some prior to Jeanson’s book hitting the stores.

or “bluffing” :cowboy_hat_face:


That’s very possible. But It’d be helpful if you’d actually quote and criticize what I said in particular:

Just a very quick skim of the link to Reich’s publications his team is doing whole genome studies. Difference 1. Difference 2 is that based on the video presentations I watched and what Jeanson wrote (I’ll cite again) below, he’s filling in gaps of information on or even correcting known history, while much of the publications mainstream scientists are doing is pre-history stuff. It’s a basic difference in interpretation of the data.

If this is the attitude, likely it will be ignored. But if anything written is ever discovered to corroborate or negate the history he presents…that’s when it gets interesting. Because it’s much more likely that known history will be uncovered.

Or more y-chromosome studies are done…

So what specific details is he giving about this recent history that is lacking from mainstream accounts? The question of how (in)valid his methods are will follow, but for now tell us what his claims are.

1 Like

Much interest does lie in pre-history, as there is not much interest concerning questions such as “where the pilgrims came from”, for instance. But there is endless publication which bleeds into, or is focused upon, Y chromosome and mtDNA studies which concern the historic era.

How about the Mongols?
The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols

Y-chromosomal analysis of clan structure of Kalmyks, the only European Mongol people, and their relationship to Oirat-Mongols of Inner Asia

or trans-Atlantic migration?
Y-chromosome genetic variation in Rio de Janeiro population

Niger-Congo speaking populations and the formation of the Brazilian gene pool: mtDNA and Y-chromosome data

or Portugal traces of the Berbers?
Y-chromosome lineages from Portugal, Madeira and Açores record elements of Sephardim and Berber ancestry

how about Indian Castes?
Phylogeography of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups reveal asymmetric gene flow in populations of Eastern India

An Ancient Mediterranean Melting Pot: Investigating the Uniparental Genetic Structure and Population History of Sicily and Southern Italy

Easter Island?
Y-chromosome-Specific STR haplotype data on the Rapanui population (Easter Island)

The Polynesian gene pool: an early contribution by Amerindians to Easter Island

I will leave ancient Egypt and native Americans as an exercise for the reader. Suffice to say, it is demonstrably wrong to assert that Jeanson is doing pioneering work concerning whole or sex linked chromosome study on populations, historic or otherwise.


:roll_eyes: uh…how am I supposed to know besides the article that’s linked and that I cited already?

I’m assuming he’s reinterpreting a lot of that data. But idk. Have to see what is cited when the book comes out.

I don’t know anything more than you guys know except I watched the video series.

You answered your own question.

It’s been 9 months since I watched it and I don’t remember details and honestly have way too many other things to do to watch it again: including reading his first book before the second one is published. But the video series is somewhat similar to the list I already cited so I’d expect overlap and that’s why I didn’t think other claims were worth mentioning. But it sounds like he has a specific focus that’s slightly different for the book. I do remember the series generally covering the Pacific, but that’s not mentioned in the article, and I don’t remember it covering Easter Island specifically - though maybe that’s my own memory being faulty. Mostly I came away with a sense that I notice facial features more often now rather than just skin tone after he pointed them out and I notice now how that relates to migration of each of these people groups and how they’re related, even if skin tone is different. I also came away realizing that humans have sailed everywhere since the beginning of time. It was kinda cool to think about the original Japanese being black, if I remember right, stuff like that. I also think there’s so much more we could learn about native american history now. I just felt like I learned a different history than our Western-Civilization-oriented one, and generally things clicked together for me about how people could migrate everywhere to get what we see today in a short amount of time. I enjoyed the holistic story more than the details. But I think convince the historians on the specific details before the scientists with this one actually. :slightly_smiling_face:

Have you looked into how “mainstream scientists” use genetics to reconstruct this history? If you think Jeanson is some kind of pioneer in this regard, my guess would be no.

1 Like

Wouldn’t you be better off reading something by someone with at least a shred of credibility?


Is this a matter/anti-matter situation? Reich is a Harvard scientists and Jeanson is, as we are told every time he is mentioned at AiG, a Harvard-trained PhD. Do their messages cancel each other out or must both be telling the truth given their credentials, right?
But seriously, I would be shocked if Jeason has anything more to say in this next book than he has in that long video series. I bought Replacing Darwin because I thought he might have something new to add that I should be aware of and the book had nothing new in it. I will not be giving money to AiG for this book.

If by “Ultimate” he means that after this one he’s done, that sounds good to me. Less creationist nattering is always an improvement.


No, no pioneering really as far as I can tell, just the first creationist to do it. Which makes it interesting, since known history is well, known. So if he can keep filling in known history as more genetics information comes out, it may be a few years or a few decades, who knows?–then it should be pretty obvious that humanity is young, or it’s not. That’s exciting. I’d like a definitive answer in my lifetime.

Maybe you can request a complimentary copy in exchange for a review?

Well, based on my philosophy about good/evil and humanity, I’d at least better check out what others with the same view have to say. But anyway, I did place David Reich’s book on hold at my library yesterday.


Is it time to add Jeanson’s latest bombastic claim to the list? :slightly_smiling_face:

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism


I believe there are lists too with warnings of the imminent downfall of a globe earth, vaccine usage and germ theory.

Jeanson uses a faster mutation rate for the Y-chromosome than evolutionists do. Evolutionists’ timeline is too long to catch more recent events in their trees. In the video series he goes through and explains correlations in human history with his sped up human Y-chromosomal tree.

I couldn’t disagree more.

I’d say that credential-wise, being faculty at Harvard is at least 1000x above merely having a PhD from Harvard.

There’s also a huge difference between being tenured (like Reich) and not tenured at Harvard, as one’s job is opened up to a nationwide competition during the tenure process.

Of course, in science, we judge competence by productivity, and there’s no comparison there either.

A very quick skim of titles is not evidence.

Definitely. Reich isn’t cherry-picking.

To credibly claim that Jeanson is filling in gaps, one would need to have broad knowledge of the information from that field.

What data, specifically? Didn’t you just note that Reich does whole-genome studies that Jeanson ignores? How can ignoring most of the data be described as “a basic difference in interpretation of the data”?

How could one credibly claim that data are being interpreted differently without looking at the data and those other interpretations?


What an amazing compliment to Darwin’s work. I hope that 160 years from now people are writing rebuttals of the GAE. That would be truly amazing.