Let us place that phrase in context. I removed references. NRY = non-recombining region of the Y chromosome.
Finally, direct dating from NRY sequence variation puts the origin of R1b-M269 in the Early Bronze Age, ~4500 years ago (ya), consistent with the growing ancient DNA record, where a surge in R1b-M269 is indeed seen at that time. Note, though, that R1b-M415, a branch ancestral to R1b-M269, was found as early as 14,000 ya in Italy and 7,000 ya in Spain. Moreover, lack of structure of STR variation within R1b-M269 points also to an explosive growth.
You cannot mount a credible argument by presenting that a mainstream paper says âexplosive growthâ and Jeanson says âexplosive growthâ, and therefore that is evidence in favor of Jeansonâs idea. There are large viruses and large stars, but relative to what? The timing and degree of the appearance and spread of R1b haplogroup is one aspect of the study of the people of Europe and that comprises an extensive body of inter-related research. While a more complete picture is always desired, the archeology, history, and genetic data all fit consistently in an overall narrative which is incompatible with the YEC timeline, as is demonstrated in the paper you referenced.
This is particularly likely given that you have completely failed to state how âThe Western European variants are evidence that the evolutionary clock doesnât make sense.â
Possibly because you have not given a clear indication of what you think this âmain hypothesisâ is. Do you mean the claims made in the â6,000 Yearsâ subsection of Appendix B (which you quoted from a few days ago as âFrom page 218â)?
Your analysis pretty much strengthens my previous impression that Jeanson doesnât understand Population Genetics.
I will note that not only does Jeanson completely ignore ancient DNA, but he also seems to fail to cite any medieval DNA evidence that the migrations that he claims carried the haplotype to various areas actually contained the haplotypes in question (and at times even seems to simply assume, without any evidence, that a migration into an area happened at the right time). This renders the whole thing a simple overlay of his timeline onto human history, rather than providing any supporting evidence to buttress it.
One question on the phylogeny/genealogy issue: if you are assuming (as YECs would) that all human y-haplotypes are descended from Noah and his sons (the only males to survive the flood), wouldnât phylogeny (populations) converge to genealogy (individuals) at that point, in an event similar to a âFounder Effectâ bottleneck?
Thanks for the review. I was definitely curious what would stand out the most to scientists if they read the whole book; so thanks for satisfying some of my curiousity. Lots of thoughts about the video, and I want to respond earlier posts in this thread I havenât gotten to alsoâŚbut itâs late, and I gotta just get this one out of the way before I go to bed and tackle everything else another day
OK, this figure in the book was left out of the video
And you may want to re-check the location of the geography mentioned in the paper you cited. Granted the map was small, so maybe by âdown hereâ you didnât mean central Africa. Hehe.
It should be noted that the Aksumite Kingdom only briefly ruled Yemen, having invaded the Himyarite Kingdom there at the request of Justin I of the Byzintine Empire (518-527), and losing it in the AksumiteâPersian wars (570-578). This makes them an unlikely conduit for large-scale genetic flows --particularly as they were more a trading empire than a colonising one.
Hehe.