Testing Jeanson's Model: Y Chromosome Mutation Rates

And here is an excellent review which shows far more than just 2 studies, though I’ll have to go through some of the details to fish out those that meet whatever ad hoc criteria you think is necessary.


Seems like they are showing four studies that are family pedigrees (genealogical) rather than 2, and that the computed rates are pretty close to the evolutionary rate.


Question: What does “X-degenerate” mean?

1 Like

Because there’s coalescence around the theory of evolution. So you’d have to consider data only in pieces if you’d want to disprove it.

No, it doesn’t really affect me personally. Just makes him not a liar.

1 Like

Perhaps, but measuring mutation rate from pedigrees doesn’t depend on any assumptions of evolution. This is a place that the data would clearly show Jeanson correct and evolution false, if that were the case. Considering this data doesn’t bear out his hypothesis.

Are you certain you have actually considered the data? I watched the entire series of videos, and he compares his data to what evolution says about population growth. He is saying population growth proves him right, and he’s also making testable claims about history.

Could you tell me exactly where (at what time) in which video he talks about population growth? It really doesn’t have much to do with mutation rate.

Here, starting at 33:24 Smoking gun of human history (Part 6) - YouTube

I don’t understand what he’s trying to demonstrate there.

He says creationists and evolutionists agree on the human population trends over the past 3000 years.

And the evidence from the Y chromosome is consistent with those trends.

Therefore, humans have existed for only about 6000 years, and not hundreds of thousands of years.

He lost me at the last point. Did you understand what he was saying?

1 Like

Yes, he’s saying historians agree on population growth throughout known history. That population growth creates a specific curve.

Then he’s saying he used his y-chromosome mutation rate to create a family tree, and then takes all of the males from the family tree to estimate population growth throughout history.

His curve matches the historians’ curve.


How does this show that humans popped out of dust 6000 years ago, and don’t share common ancestry with another species on earth?

That is not a valid way to estimate population size, and it is frankly stunning if this is in fact what he did.


Here is Jeanson’s “paper“ where he generates all these curves, it’s more detailed than the video clip.

It’s really quite bizarre.

1 Like

Oh wow…

This is what he did. I’m nearly speechless. This is an indefensible approach on so many levels…so many…it is hard to know where to start…

1 Like

That was intensely painful. Jeanson is making up facts and fitting other made-up facts to them. It also has nothing to do with mutation rates. You understand that Jeanson’s force-fitting of the Y-chromosome tree to his model means that many human populations diverged from each other after 1500, right? But he doesn’t talk about the simple departure of that part of the data from reality. Further, he claims that it’s universally agreed that the population curve fits what he shows, but he shows a world population of only a few million in 1000 BC, and nobody agrees with that.

Perhaps most importantly, his initial assumption is wrong: the Y-chromosome tree doesn’t track population size. You would get a similar tree even if the population hadn’t changed at all in thousands of years. Jeanson seems completely unaware of coalescence theory, which you should look up.



Not popped out of the dust 6000 years ago. That only 8 people were alive 4500 years ago after the flood. Gotta get literal Bible history straight :wink:

The women likely shared common ancestry with others who died. The men didn’t, so y-chromosome history will only cover them.

This is just painful to watch. He just doesn’t know what he is talking about on this one, not even a little.

And there is this too…

He does say in the video it’s useless for evolution because it’s too small of a timescale, yeah. Otherwise, idk what’s the problem is but feel free to enlighten me :joy:

It doesn’t even make sense from within YEC. There is no way even other YEC scientists (e.g. Sanford, Wood, Carter) are going to agree with this analysis. It is just too way out there.

No, that’s not the problem. Even if you assume that the root of the human tree is much shallower than we think, i.e. even if you assume YEC, his method does not work. This shows Jeanson to be comically inept, even in his own terms. You desperately need to find a new hero.