Neanderthal DNA Is Really Human DNA? with Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson | Traced: Episode 12
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2022
- How are Neanderthals related to modern humans? What does Y chromosome research tell us about their ancestry-and ours? Does human DNA inform our understanding of biblical genealogies and the history of Neanderthals?
It’s groundbreaking scientific research that provides revolutionary discoveries about “race,” ethnicity, and even human history. And it’s only possible because the researcher, Harvard-trained Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, starts with the history and the timeline God has given us in his Word.
See the full playlist of Traced episodes here: • Traced: DNA's Big Surp...
Order the book now:
answersingenesis.org/store/pr...
Please help us continue to share the gospel around the world:
AnswersinGenesis.org/give
Much respect to this scientist for trying to explain this complex concept to us "dummies". You know it's not easy. He has so much data to show to defend his position, hoping the audience will remotely grasp it all. This is something that non-biologists need to get a handle on by rewinding and reviewing at many points.
That's a good one lol
He's not a scientist.
Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson has literally ZERO published peer reviewed research papers regarding even a single one of these topics....for a reason....a complete lack of any and all evidence of his claims.
@@_Kcirdnehsays who?
@@lindajakub624obviously a random youtube troll bot 🧌 🤖
So love AIG! I remember being in 7 grade and not liking to be told about we come from monkeys, so I was sent to office and they called my mother. After that all I had to do is go to study hall and I got my homework done. I really wish everyone had a mother like her ❤
Creationist scientists have done their own research on chimp DNA and found it is not 98% similar to humans. More like 84% making it impossible for chimps and humans to be common ancestors. So, in all reality you were right. Also look up what else creationists have found regarding chimp DNA. The number (98%) was only calculated after scientists intentionally used DNA that was already similar between the two. So, it was intentional. They wanted that number to exist.
Not only that, but it's impossible for a cell to have a beginning without all the parts in it already functioning. DNA, RNA and proteins all have to exist simultaneously for a cell to function so they can't figure out how it could have evolved. The answer, of course, is simple. It couldn't have. Strike another W up for creationism.
The only thing that can explain that is being created that way originally by an intelligent Designer. Evolution makes no sense at all when you get into the nitty gritty of it.
@@globalcoupledances not true. Actually the 84% covered the entire genome. That was comparing all DNA. Not just the DNA that was already similar, as evolutionists had done.
@@SK-bw2cv I saw that, as well. Evolution really has nothing to stand on. I don't even know why people still believe it. Probably because that is what we are conditioned to believe with unquestioning loyalty.
Really knowledgeable and informative content!
This Traced DNA video series has been very helpful and insightful for me after I received my DNA test results recently.
Looking forward to more and more! Read both books and watched the whole series so far. Always excited for a new chapter. The first time that real scientific method has been applied to the study of human origins. Hurrah!
I so badly want to watch this series, but finding it difficult to follow so much of it. You all are definitely well-versed and knowledgeable and best of all, Bible based. I wish I could understand more of it
#metoo
Yeah, it makes sense as I listen but it's mostly over my head.
But it is so interesting.
listen anyway. it comes to you the more you listen.
If only this info could be put into a 5th or 6th grade level,
with a presenter like Buddy Davis.
In the field, in the dirt, running the DNA sequencer machine,
working with other science disciplines, in the communities and cultures!
For those who do understand it it's also hard to watch... Mostly cause the amount of lying is just painfull.
I had been wondering how AIG was able to confirm that the Y DNA clock was accurate, and you went ahead and verified that for me in this video. Big thumbs up
Dr Jeanson has been more focused on Y DNA.
@@whyaskwhybuddry this video is all about assumptions and predictions with no evidence to support
So he proved to you that Africans dna clocks ticked faster?
So he has convinced you that human life didn’t originate in Africa.
I’m going to ask a personal question and I hope you are honest. Are you white?
@@whyaskwhybuddry nice observation but you should go on to say that you and I see a problem.
So you showed an 8 billion population growth chart and suddenly it looks nothing like the curve you used in the previous 20 videos.
Your older videos didn’t make that same curve even when you tried to add 2 data points on the y axis to confuse people.
The more This guy talks the more his lies shine through
This is great!!! Waiting for the next episode. 😊👍🏻
This is good stuff! Well presented, too.
National Geographic published a map of North America with all of the names of the Native American tribes. I was a teenager and I was surprised that the map was literally covered with the names of all the tribes. A similar map was also published of South America that was similarly covered with the names of the South American Native tribes.
Very interesting, thx so much! God's word is awesome, we're so privileged in having His word of truth!❤😄
I always love this! I binged watched the first 7! This Just proves what my heart knows to be true! Eyes up, for HE is coming back to take his Bride! Thank you Yeshua!
Christ and Sophia ♥
@@ready1fire1aim1who is Sophia
@@lindajakub624
Wisdom.
He is coming back to restore the Earth. We are not raptured up to heaven. That is not biblical.
Excellent work sir, my compliments to you and your associates! In my attempt to understand your work it seems that by focusing on Y chromosome DNA and looking for unique differences in the son versus the father you extract a per generation mutation rate. The details of the 'quality' of the studies seem to focus on the size of the groups and the coverage of the complete genetic material of the individuals sampled. This is my feeling reflecting back on the video. Are these factors documented in your book, 'Traced'?
Good info as usual AIG! Love it!
What we are not being taught matters as much as what we are being taught.
@@Bomtombadi1 Science came from creationism.
@@annemurphy9339 That makes no sense
What you're not being taught is more important than what you're being taught.
I am going to buy that book soon!
I must have either missed our not understood the part where this discussion explained if Neanderthal was human.
Was it human or not?
If not, what was it?
Exactly. Me too.
Another great video from answeringenesis
*Another garbage video with next-to-no facts
I've asked the following question of evolutionists but never get a satisfactory answer. How did we become male and female? How long did it take? And how did we have male to female sex during our evolution from pond scum through to apes and on to humans? Did male and female genitalia somehow evolve at the same time? So the parts could always fit together? For all male and female species? Was it easy or hard to find an opposite gender in order to mate? Some people think my questions are childish. Maybe. I've always been a questioner. But I really want to know!
@@globalcoupledances Thanks for your reply, much appreciated. As long as neither creationist nor evolutionist accept there are things we humans don't and might never know (e.g. the recent astronomical dismissal of the big bang theory, assuming it's not a hoax), we can at least keep learning, sharing, even debating...ideally without attitudes of hostility, disdain or indifference...as then learning and theorizing can be fun! I pity much of the academia at the moment. Once upon a time the "God's the Boss of me...mostly" 😂 Religious Culture tried (and STILL tries) to stifle questions, to enslave men's minds, yet, today in the "God's NOT the boss of me" Humanist Culture, the humanist intellectual society, at least, the ones that loves to look down on the "deplorable" and the "inappropriate" religious citizens...to even ask "what is a woman?" or "can men really get pregnant?" "aren't children a bit young for drag queen shows?" Is viewed by that Culture as a legitimate reason to immediately silence and destroy a fellow human being!
Well, I'll never stop asking my questions, forming my opinions, speaking my thoughts and beliefs...and, sad to say, my questions have been despised and patronized (with no real answer to my questions) on both sides of that particular fence. So thanks again for your respectful reply!
@@globalcoupledances Sorry, I meant to say "as long as creationists and evolutionists do accept....". Didn't mean to confuse!
@@globalcoupledances Thanks, but, maybe I'm just not expressing myself quite right? I do understand all kinds of marvelous things go on only now detected by modern science, but, I'm speaking of human, or animal, species being able to climb out of the 'pond' and evolve into male and female species? When did it start? How could the changes be sustained and also the species keep evolving? How long did take? How did the first animals, humans, mate and produce their off spring? Did the male and female of each species, who naturally require a male and female to procreate, unlike other species, evolve at the same rate? If s, how? If evolution takes place over such a long time, how did human, and animal, evolve as male and female and still be able to procreate and reproduce themselves? Sorry, but, nothing you've told me answers those questions. If you could direct me to a documentary or book, I'd be interested to try and better understand.
Evolution is only a theory, and it is Entirely Wrong
@@globalcoupledances sorry that you deny The truth that The GOD OF THE BIBLE CREATED HUMANS, MALE AND FEMALE
I’m so thankful that God gave some ppl this gift of intelligence and that they are using their gift to speak in defense of the Bible!!!!!
What time in the video did the neanderthal question get answered? I watched the video but must have missed the explanation?
It was an interesting video, but the title is apparently just click-bait. He only mentioned Neanderthals to say he didn't use that data...
I've had problems with earlier video's of not seeing the answer.
Its in the context of the work...watch it again
Yep. Typical. This is how it works for them to have many videos with titles indicating that they cover the same thing, but they don't really cover anything. Their videos of the true ancestry of Native Americans and who really lived here before Columbus is a great example of this. There's a bunch of them. They are click bait.😮
i really love this channel it gives me more understanding of the bible an helps me to know God's personality an makes me feel close to God thank you
Neanderthals are Japhethites and Denisovans are a mix of Japhethites and Hamites, not Semitic. It shows up on DNA maps and charts. Every grandson of Noah and their descendants have their own paternal Y chromosome haplogroup lineage! I can name all sixteen of them as follows…
The ancient civilizations are all descended from Noah who had sixteen grandsons that became the sixteen ancient the civilizations each with their own paternal haplogroup lineage. Gomer Europeans R, Madai Medes Q, Javan Greek sea people T, Tiras Thracians L, Tubal Italy K, Meshek Siberians N, Magog Asian O, Aram Aramean F, Asshur Assyrians G, Elam Elamites H, Arphaxad Arabs Hebrews I&J, Lud Lydians F2, Phut early Phoenicians E1, Mitzrayim Egyptians E3, Canaan Canaanites E2, Cush Cushites A B & C. D could have been from Canaan. C is the descendants of Nimrod.
Noah must have had a lot more than 16 grandsons these are just the ones that were near the Hebrews and thus known to them. What about the far Eastern nations such as the Cinese, the Indonesians, the Australian aborigines etc
Tiras could perhaps be associated with the Tyrrenoi as known to the Greeks but Etrusci to the Romans. Thracian was an exonym given to the Thracians by the Greeks.
I do not think the answer about Neanderthals was given or related to this. It certainly was not the topic of discussion. All of these are somewhat difficult to follow. Where can I send in questions? I have a very important question to ask.
Love science. Thank you for what you are doing. Is there a way to do similar DNA testing with animals and or plants? Really hope someone answers me 🙏🏼
Hey guys, I love this series, but I have limited time to watch so I pick and choose based on titles. I was especially excited to find this podcast because I assumed it focused on Neanderthal DNA but at the end I was somewhat disappointed due it it only being mentioned once in a subordinate manner. Please be careful not to hype Dr.Jeanson's videos: they stand on their own just fine, thank you.
😂 you know that these videos come with section breakdowns, so you can scan over each section and not have to watch the whole thing. Click on 'more' under the title to get to it.
so what about neanderthal dna ?? i thought this one would be about neanderthal dna as the title says but .....nope , nada
Exactly.
It's explaining why reconstructed Neanderthal DNA is unreliable and not meaningful to use when examining Y-chromosome family trees.
I am loving this!
So is the answer Yes or No?
Concerning Dr. Jeanson's comments regarding Native American population decline following Columbus' landing in the Americas: "He makes nations great, and he destroys them; he enlarges nations, and leads them away." Job 12:23 and "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace." Romans 11:5
The guy on the left just needs to talk about what is right in front of him. He’s talking about like 5 different things with his own timeline. It’s impossible to follow him, at least in the first parts of the video. Can’t watch the rest cause my brain is already burnt out
You content is helping me process so much. I would like to know since I am literally the only female in my family interested in this, if I have a Haplogroup pie chart fr ok m my true ancestry off my raw dna can use that for comparing Haplogroups that I have? Like E1b and J? It seems I only hear mention of sublades and not so much the major group. My dad was 70 years old than me.
So glad to see God use His servants in all the fields to tell the truth and expose the falsehood! May Jesus guide and bless your and your service for Him!
Enjoying your work very encouraged to share with family and friends. I read about scientists digging up graves mostly in Europe to get DNA.( I am sure with permits) Came up with same understanding of young earth. The amount of mutations in our DNA the human race couldn't be more than ten thousand years old we would die out . Does this line up with your work? Or did your work look at this. Thanks again
So what exactly is the conclusion for Neanderthals?
That they died out probably 30,000 years ago
Jeanson's conclusion is that we cannot reliably reconstruct the DNA from such ancient samples, which really should not be a shock to anyone given how fragile the DNA molecule is (only lasts a few years in ideal lab conditions). So it is not meaningful to use Neanderthal reconstructed DNA sequences when doing ancestry research.
If you mean what is the conclusion overall (outside this video), it is that Neanderthals were fully human, post-flood and post-Babel, but still thousands of years ago. Nothing particularly interesting about them.
@@maxpeck1962 so inconclusive but the video title and thumbnail are pretty clickbaity by implying some sort of useful information was going to be presented.
@@Sam-fz3mx This video series is about his book Traced, which makes all kinds of fascinating observations based on a global Y-chromosome based family tree from living people. These latter videos in the series are responding to criticisms of his methods/conclusions. One of those objections is that he excludes reconstructed ancient DNA sequences such as Neanderthals. The video title is not "clickbait"; he is explaining the logical reason why he excluded reconstructed Neanderthal DNA. That reason being that he experimentally tested inclusion of such sequences which resulted in a very poor fit to known population growth data indicating that such reconstructed ancient DNA sequences are not trustworthy for whatever reason.
Thanks@@maxpeck1962 I wish that would have been explained better in the video.
Where can we get copies of Dr. Jeanson's papers??
Young earth Christian here. Just a question... Are you saying that neandtrathals built the ark? Or, are you saying the neandrithals lived before Noah and even though their bodies have been found, they loved before Noah? Thank you and be blessed.
Their is NO such thing as a Neanderthal. That would mean evolution is true and it’s not. Noah and his perfectly normal sons built the ark etc.
@@michiganwoodsman2199 Oh good! lol
Neanderthals were fully human. They were descendants of Noah. Nothing shocking about their existence.
@@maxpeck1962 why would anyone call them Neanderthals if they were perfectly normal? Why wouldn’t they simply be called humans? Neanderthals normally have or carry the condentation of being half ape half man etc
@@michiganwoodsman2199 Why would anyone call someone Asian or African? Because we like to put things in groups based on appearances. Neanderthals are a convenient name to describe ancient human remains that have been discovered. They look a little different, but not much different than some people alive today. The assigned age, perceived ape-like features, and the origin of the actual word originates from evolutionists who start with evolutionist presuppositions that I obviously don't share. From a biblical perspective they were simply a group of people post-Babel, possibly trying to survive the post-flood ice age. They used tools, buried their dead, played instruments, etc. Every evidence to date is consistent with them being fully human, not ape-like.
I watched the video, but I did hear if Neanderthal DNA is really human DNA. What and where is the DNA data from?
This is not in the playlist of this series
This really is stunning research. My only complaint is that the archeologic Geographical data appears to have been neglected. In this since. I would trust the bones in the ground more in these locations more than the souls that are living in these locations. And as Mr. Nathaniel has taught us the Displacement of peoples. Keys us in to the people groups that are currently on said continent did not originate there. So how the claim that these people are a particular ethnic group when in fact they may not be the one they are represented as today. Then they should be represented by the bones found in the ground elsewhere and not by the people group they're currently living amongst.
Funny?
You have to start with the latest. My father is half native american. No native american tribe or person now lives where they came or started from. Every tribe or sub culture has been chased around by others since they came here. Even from across the water.
For anyone reading this post I'm currently researching Neandertal ancestry in sub-Saharan populations, and attempting to determine if all indigenous sub-Saharans have Neandertal genes. If anyone can assist in clarifying this topic, or suggest academic papers/online resources I would be much appreciative. Thank you.
Just go to E. St. Louis, Camden, or Detroit. There is lots of fertile genetic material to work with in all these “enhanced” locations. That is if you don’t get mugged and shot.
I feel like less words could have been used to make the same points.
So true. Also, I think most 90 minute movies could be shortened to 30 minutes w/o ruining the story. 😴
Neanderthal discussion begins at 18:00 but is only a brief blurb in his ‘nahrative.’ The rest goes off on tangents.
Not that it matters much, I used 23& Me, they claim that I have more Neanderthal variants than 84% of their customers.
It seems contradictory and inconsistent to me that Dr. Dan dismisses the fast mutation rates because they are based on genealogy, rather than phylogeny, but is seemingly okay with genealogical mutation rates that do fit the evolution time line (eg. the low quality, from 2009).
Can you run the experiment with the slow rate of mutation as the null hypothesis and prove that the slow rate doesn’t match historical population growth?
I feel like I need some sort of science degree to understand what you are saying…I am sorry to ask but is there a way to teach this to a layman, someone who knows basic science when it comes to DNA? I watched for some time hoping I would eventually understand…but I didn’t.
I suggest watching his 2020 video series. It's long, like 25 parts, but he takes more time to explain things better. The book Traced was essentially his 2020 series in print form, with some new discoveries added since then.
@@SStupendous Didn't understand this particular video? Keep in mind this video was not intended to stand alone; it is part of a recent series featuring the new book Traced. If you don't want to purchase the book, I encourage you to watch the 2020 video series titled "A New History of the Human Race." He explains the concepts very well in layman's terms, and it's rather fascinating.
@@maxpeck1962 I don't need layman's terms because I'm not scientifically illiterate like the OG comment we're replying in a chain to, who doesn't understand - because this is not at all true. I know this is part of a series, and I'm saying, take out the Bible and there's no reason to believe any of this.
@@SStupendous Take out the bible and the genetic data still stands. The bible provides a good foundation to begin scientific research as it did in this case, a much better foundation than arbitrary philosophies of man (deep time, evolution, etc).
@@maxpeck1962 "The Bible provides a good foundation to begin scientific research"
There is #1: NO evidence of a global flood. #2: NO evidence of the Earth being 6,000 years old and not the current accepted age. This is the same book that instructs you to stone your bride on her father's doorstep if you discover she is not a virgin on her wedding night...
Models are so forgiving. Current "secular" population genetics focussed on the Y-chromosome, suggest a timeline that isn't Biblical, but have us descend from 4 males, roughly 50,000 years ago (with "bottle-neck events both before and after).
So what does it take to change the 50,000 year timeline to one of 4,500 years? Initially you need "only" to tweak the mutation rate in your model.
And as you already can predict what mutation rate you'll need to model a beginning at 4,500 years ago, the hunt is on.
Nathaniel Jeanson finally finds his dataset and there's much rejoice at Answers in Genesis. We have used science to disprove science - "our data are as valid as that of the secular sciences".
And at face value, that is correct if only temporarily: You have two data points - a mutation rate and a beginning date for diversification and yo draw ("model") a line and yipee! It fits.
If only, cause it doesn't end there.
You can (and should!) test your model with additional data, this time from archeological DNA samples, to validate your mutation rates and branching of populations into genetic haplotypes.
And there, the model fails.
"Something must be wrong with the sequence quality, so I left them out" Nathaniel Jeason explains in the video.
But no, that's the wrong answer: The correct answer is that the archeological data shows your tweaked model is wrong. It has been falsified by the archaeological DNA sequences. The dots that should lie on the interpolated line of the tweaked model, doesn't fit. The model is wrong.
And there's where the science ends for Answers in Genesis:
Because Answers in Genesis only pays lip service to a secular scientific process, when it can be coaxed into agreeing with them.
Answers in Genesis aren't looking for answers to questions.
They already have the answers and those answers must not be questioned!
So whenever scientific data does't support their 4,500 timeline since a Great Flood genetic bottle-neck, both data, science and scientific process is dismissed, wholesale!
The difference between "real" secular science and the pseudoscience that Answers in Genesis here propagate is this:
Science may create models and make predictions, based on data at hand. IF new data to test the model, doesn't fit the model, science learns from that. It is how secular science progresses! Science tries if modifications to the model will accommodate the new data - or whether an entirely new model is needed to explain the expanded dataset.
The approach of Nathaniel Jeanson and Answers in Genesis is that if additional data doesn't fit the desired model (the only one allowed) then the data must be dismissed! But that is "faking it" - the very thing Answers in Genesis and Young Earth Creationists (unjustifiably) accuse the secular sciences of propagating.
In above video, they openly admit it. And maybe they should just stop, there.
And it is, of course, just the tip of the ice berg: Y-chromosome is one thing to study. Another is mitochondrial DNA. It is as useful in the studies of ancestry as is the Y-chromosome: the Y-chromosome cannot recombine and is inherited from father to son, altered only by mutations. Mitochondrial DNA is likewise inherited from our mothers, altered only by mutations.
And looking at mitochondrial DNA shows that the genetic "Eve" - the common maternal ancestor - lies >100,000 years back.
Further down the ice berg of problems: The genetic diversity of most mammals is substantially higher than that of humans. And this is of course a problem for Young Earth Creationists, as all living animals must descend from forefathers that all arose from the same genetic bottle-neck that Noah's Ark represents and it must have happened 4,500 years ago.
So "we don't talk about that" at Answers in Genesis and among Young Earth Creationists.
Why? Because, as I stated above - both only pays lip-service to scientific reasoning: They have answers that must not be questioned, rather than questions in search of answers.
And that makes their approach not only non-scientific - it makes their approach anti-scientific! They try to fake an imitated scientific approach to use its resulting pseudo-science as a weapon in their war ON science.
When, in my youthful days, wrestling with the problem of there being no ZERO (0) year, I began to refer to it--not as a zero year--as a zero point. Made all the difference in the world.
Very interesting. I love God and hearing the truth about his creation. God bless you AIG and everyone. Love you all.
I remember reading about Squanto’s return to America…his subsequent journey back to his tribe…and finding no trace of them alive anymore. Agrees with the collapse of the Native American population we hear about.
Just a couple of questions... What caused the No. American Indian population to seemingly flat-line before 1492 (natural disaster maybe)? What permitted global population expansion 🏒 (small pox vaccine, or lack of catastrophic natural disasters, maybe)?
The flat line before 1492 is not the actual population, but the population inferred from genetic data from living survivors. The actual population was large before 1492 and suffered a massive die-off in the couple hundred years after 1492. This is from mainstream archaeologists btw. If you're asking why the die-off, probably some combination of disease introduced by the Europeans and warfare (with the Europeans as well as internally). I'm not aware of any evidence for a natural disaster as cause for the post-1492 population decline in the Americas.
I guess someone should tell the Nobel committee they got it as wrong with their decision to award the 2022 prize in Medicine and Physiology for the proof of human evolution through the study of extinct Neanderthal DNA
keep showing the facts
I understand most of the information about the y chromosomes but it would have been better to hear exactly how the Neanderthal DNA was analyzed.
How do you explain the carbon 14 dating of remains that have been found in association with human populations in the Americas dating back to 13000 YBP? Thank you for the outstanding analysis you are conducting!
I think someone suggested that carbon 14 hasn’t decayed at the same rate for all of time; it could have decayed faster in the past.
I wonder how Francis Collins would respond? James Watson?
Thank you for a wonderful explanation of the available evidence on this subject.
Why did you not talk about the subject in the title
Yes I am Binge watching
Binge watching this. :P
This is so potentially interesting, but so boring to watch. I wish this series could be redone with professional production … narration, graphics, a more streamlined presentation with less time spent in summarization of previous episodes.
If we have to answer for Neanderthal dna, then they must answer for the Paracas skulls’ dna. Genesis 6 explains both
I wonder how the numbers would change if the Septuagint timeline were used?
I believe he tested that variation in the 2019 paper (or maybe he just talked about it in the Q&A episode of his 2020 video series). There was better statistical agreement when using the Masoretic text timeline, but not an overwhelming difference.
So how many branches disappeared in the flood. How big could the population been pre flood and how far spread.
It appears from your timeline that Native American population flatlined in 1200-1300, not 1491. What am I missing?
Isn't the implications of saying 1491 is that Columbus wiped out the Indian population? I need this clarified, please.
Are you saying the Neanderthal DNA is degraded by age and so doesn't accurately reflect what it was when they were alive?
The graph shows about 1000 BC (time of David) the world's population was about 50 million. But with the census of Israel at the time - the entire population was perhaps 4-5 million - which makes me think that the graph is understating the population of early human history. The big spike after 1800 had to do with the industrial revolution, the increased food supply, and increase of material comforts, and health improvements - running water, etc.
Israel is not the entire world.
@@maxpeck1962 Right, my point is that 50 million, considering Israel's census is too low an estimate.
Keep in mind the ancient world (in terms of people) was much smaller than today. During the reign of King David, Israel was a much more influential "superpower" than it is today. I'm no expert in regional population history data, but on the surface it does not sound unreasonable to me that the population of ancient Israel was 10% or more of world population. Besides, the source of population history data that Jeanson is using is not in dispute between evolutionists or creationists; that's why he is using that source to test various genetic family tree structures, because it represents an independent data set which is not disputed.
@@maxpeck1962 Thank you
As you claimed in a previous episode, there were other people living in North America before the ‘Native Americans’ arrived. So isn’t the term ‘Native American’ a misnomer for the people who slew the previous inhabitants?
Obviously, but people have so long associated the term with these people that at this point it would cause more confusion/misunderstanding not to use it.
Flatlining. Due to reduced human population events, but also that we have very limited samples of past populations, and not enough of present populations, though much more, which reduces overlap between the two groups.
You lost me when you said one match was so good and one was so bad 21:00 The "bad" one (Neanderthal) looks as good if not better than the "good" one. The bump on the bottom at about 1500 AD could have been attributed to any number of environmental factors but the rest lines up. The "good" one is quite a bit off over the last 1000 years compared to the "bad" one so I don't get it. But then again, I'm not a hockey player lol
I didn’t hear anything about Neanderthals in this video, but I’m certain they were pre-flood and are the people that lived hundreds of years.
I see 90 year olds who are halfway to Neanderthal today. I can imagine what we would look like at 600 years old.
It makes me wonder if the decay rate did increase but after the deluge. You see commentary on the breaking of the so-called firmament ("rakiah")and thus the increase in radioactivity reaching the earth.
It just takes more FAITH to believe in evolution, and BLIND FAITH at that.
Can you explain why no one has found EVEN ONE rhino bone under a T-Rex EVER. (Hint: it’s because they they didnt exist at the same time).
The first generations from Adam to Noah was let’s say 7 generations BUT! They LIVED sometimes up to or around a thousand years! Biblically speaking. Can THIS leave a DNA trail?
EXCELLENT! How can I be of help as a Black America Lawyer and Christian ✝️
The pop up banners are very distracting!
Well after watching this presentation I still am left wondering where Neanderthals fit in, assuming they actually fit in at all. We’re they humans or were they some sort of apes?
That is exactly what my grandpa told me 55 years ago
There are only 9 generations between Noah and Adam, and they had presumably better DNA and a better earth/ecosystem that protected them from genetic variation after each descendant. If Neanderthals are pre or post Flood, they shouldn't have much variation between them and Noah/Noah's offspring, right? * * *
I presume they are groups of people who left before Babel or even after, but were more isolated in their genetic variation and got more isolated due to the Ice Age after the Flood and had to live in the caves. I would imagine that pre-Babel, groups/clans still split off and went their own way in search of land or to scout out resources for the larger group back at Babel and eventually got genetically locked into a non-diverse genetic group.
Clearly after the Flood, the people and animals still had vary adaptive genetic coding that could bring about fast, rapid changes and within a few generations most of that great genetic coding was gone. People quickly stopped living to be hundreds of years old. The original animal common ancestors brought on the ark which carried the data to be able to let their offspring diversify was rather quickly slowed in the new world they lived in.
At 8:00 , Dr Jeanson talks about how science/geologists make the assumption about the rate of erosion of the Grand Canyon. There is plenty of evidence to show that the Ice Age across North America, which saw miles - MILES! high ice across much of it suddenly melted very very fast. At one point out west, the flow off the glacier was so much that more water was flowing off of the glacier than all the world's rivers and streams combined per second. It carved out so much of the lands out west that 'whenever' that event occurred, it likely skews the ability of scientists nowadays to say with any certainty how long certain features took to erode into what we see today.
* * * ETA - I mean protected them from coding errors vs. their original genetic programming that allowed such a wide range of genetic difference between generations.
@WhatsHaplo'ing, not necessarily. Neanderthal, being Post Flood survivors, lived in European Caves clicking with Radioactive material which would mutate their DNA. Add to this "The Founder Effect" and high inbreeding and you get many differences between Noah's other children and Neanderthal in Europe.
Today, people who've undergone Cancer Treatment have a lot of DNA mutations than their siblings.
They’re humans. They’re not related to the apes or primates. Even in today’s present world, we can see many individuals of short statures who still look like chimpanzees.
There are canyons similar to the American grand canyon in at least Africa and Greenland.
So the ice melt most likely would have carved out most rivers in these countries after the flood.
@@whyaskwhybuddry Wow, the only thing from this I got from this video. Your sensible comment!
@@garytakvorian6204 the Neanderthals if post flood, must be from the sons and daughters in law of Noah.
Everything else was destroyed and buried in the sedimentary layers formed during the 600th year of Noah's life.
Were these people descended from Shem, ham, or japheth's wife? Is the question.
I had my DNA sequences through 23&me and it said I have 230 neanderthal variations
Is there a graph of population in Europe when the Black Death plagues hit ? Shouldn't it be somewhat similar to what the Indian graph looked like when they got illnesses they could not fight off? Would the European population have flatlined at certain points in history like late 13 hundreds when whole villages were dying and maybe 50 % in the cities were dying. Was wondering if that had been graphed. I honestly don't completely understand the whole thing - how you can take present DNA and figure out so much from just that.
Another thing I'm wondering about is the gene that everyone gets from their mother which is in the mitochondria - Why hasn't this maternal gene been studied and traced? Could they tell where populations had migrated from and tell if there was any dye off of population shown by a flatline? Eventually wouldn't that gene lead to Noah's wife and before her, Eve? This needs to be studied so it can be compared with the male's Y chromosome studies and to see if they agree and how they agree.
Homo Neandrathasis and Homo Sapeins (Neandrathals and us). We are not the same species
The definition of species seems pretty mixed up sometimes but even a simple google search can tell you that Neandrathals and Homo Sapiens are not the same species
Jeanson continues to bring up testability as rather gold standard but the evolutionists have not demonstrated any verifiable hypothesis. They can’t create even the simplest form of life in a laboratory. They cannot show any example of a “change in kind.”
Jeanson claims that by looking at standard mutational error rates it can be determined how closely related different ethnic groups are and how many generations have occurred. This would have to assume that present rates of Y chromosome mutations have remained consistent since the beginning. This would also mean that the human (and animal genomes) are accumulating more mutations (none positive, many detrimental , some fatal) every generation. Would like for him to comment on what he thinks will be the eventual effect of this. It appears to me that rather that evolving as the evolutionists claim, we are in fact devolving into programmed entropy to degeneration and sterility.
#Answers in Genesis
#Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson
could CRSPR be used to edit the roughly 1000 or so mutations that have occurred since the 1st generations to get back to 900 plus year lifespans?
Could CRSPR also be used to bring back the Nephilim?
I would think both scenarios would now be possible assuming the original uncorrupted DVA could be found.
So where exactly is Neanderthal DNA in moder human DNA?
We were taught obvious lies for years even our ears tingles, and thanks, you guys gives us a break, may God bless you.
Am I just stupid, but I did not hear you say if the Neanderthal was human or not 😢
My son asked me the other day to explain to him why there is Black and White people? I had no answer. I said I'll get back to him on it. Could someone please explain to me how this has come about? As the Bible clearly states that from ONE man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the Earth. Thanks in advance.
It just means that the 8 people on the ark carried genes for various amounts of melanin - look up the science of skin color, hair type, and eye type. Later on if light people only married light people in certain areas and dark people only married dark people, eventually larger populations in separate areas would appear more and more different. People in the U.S. and beginning to intermarry more, so eventually Americans as a population will be generally light brown with less obvious differences between groups.
@@valeried7210 What a repulsive thought.
@@annemurphy9339 why? What's repulsive?
@@valeried7210 Losing all the beautiful diversity of mankind.
@@annemurphy9339 it's not going to be lost. The diversity will just be different when different gene pools mix, but it will still be diverse. I just meant far into the future, skin color may not be the thing that's the most obvious difference between Americans. It could be hair type, etc.
There is a very good reason why use of ancient DNA does not work in his model, and that is they pre-date the mythical flood.
In astronomy there are a number of models to explain observations without the requirement for dark matter. One of these, MOND, it reproduces the outer celestial objects roration to a very good fit to the observed data. Does that make it true? No, because it fails outside its boundary conditions. The hypothesis has multiple parameters which were adjusted to match the specific observed data.
We know that population growth does not follow a simple model as it frequently encounters bottlenecks or a mass extinction event. For instance, the population growth in the last 200 years has been driven by improved resource availability and medication. The increase after the great plague was due to improved hygiene. Based on thus, is the Traced model being massaged to fit the known population data? If this is the case then the model will always create a hockey stick population growth.
The native Americans population predictions are suspect since just because there was a 90% reduction is population it does not mean you can eliminate 90% of the dna lines. Multiple lines could continue but with a smaller population.
Other suspect claims:
* Noah's family based on myth. Even the bible does not claim to include all sons and daughters.
* No family line terminates.
* 25 years generations.
* 12 tribes of Isreal. Even biblical scholars dispute some of the Exodus claims.
* Claim that you dial the clock back to a single person over thousands of years.
* Claim the use if evolutionary DNA gives a bad fit. He is basically using a model which may not work outside its boundary conditions.
* Lack of actual predictions. Most of it is fitting his model to existing data. What does his model predict for the population in 100 years time? What would his model predict if it is moved forward in time rather than backwards?
* Consistency. AiG have not demonstrated consistency with the the estimates from other branches of science other than a lot of hand waving and magic. As he did with ancient DNA, they just discard evidence that does not fit with their model. There is zero evidence that the Grand Canyon erosion was much faster in the past. It is more than just fossil evidence. Also need to look at climate change and plant life evidence which could not occur if the erosion occurred if the erosion occurred in just forty days. They also have failed to show the presence of dinosaurs at the time of the mythical flood.
@psalm2 Well said.
This a case of having a result and focusing on data that may support that outcome and ignoring everything else. There is a lot of hype focused on what may support the outcome.
Where are the extrapolations backward in time of the black lines, at what point do the black lines go asymptotic. Your blue lines seem to go asymptotic around -1900 to -2100 or there about before you drop them dramatically downward to the axis of the time line to a quite sudden population zero.
So, what you are saying is that following the Y chromosome, you have a genetic pathway back in history from a living data set. You are able to piece together information of genetic conectivity and common ancestors. Yet, if a population, such as Neanderthals have no living descendants, their pathways are not recorded in the matrix. Without data, you cannot predict. So, if you did get Neanderthal genetic data, you also do not have a starting point to accurately fit that into or along side the data from the living data set. Apples and oranges? Very interesting research.
Just a thought. How would the much longer lifespan of mankind for about 2000 years affect the rate of the male Y chromosome mutation rate. Wouldn’t it be much slower because of their “healthier “ bodies?
Unanswerable question because the Earth ain't 6K years old..
That is a good question. The extended lifespan would mean even less generations back to Adam.
@@marktapley7571 Assuming we all came from Adam, who definitely ate a special fruit a talking snake told his wife to!
I think you are on to something, but I'd take it a different way. The early generations after the flood had lifespans of 400+ years. Initially they pass their genes on after 40 years of life, so each generation has 40 years of mutation. They continue mutating for 360 years without passing that on, then we dig them up and wonder why they have so many more mutational differences than their children. It's 3 mutations per generation in living people, but after 400 years of life, wouldn't you have 10 times the mistakes in your dying body than what you had when you passed them on?
@@misterray3786 You don't seem to know much on how genetics works, no offense? If I lose an arm, get a lipoma on my head and develop chronic lung cancer, I don't pass on these "mistakes" down to my children if I live over 400 years, and all the other things I acquire. From your thinking, if we lived long enough, each of us would somehow completely change our DNA and become something other than human. That's not how it works.
"It's 3 mutations per generation in living people, but after 400 years of life, wouldn't you have 10 times the mistakes in your dying body than what you had when you passed them on?"
This makes no sense. Any concept of how trivial the differences are in genetics of each generation? Something like 3 genetic mutations doesn't turn you into the hulk. A person born in 1200 BC is not very different to someone born in 1990 AD genetically, although the differences are there. If someone born in 1200 BC were somehow alive today and had children, they'd have similar genetic characteristics to them, not have completely different ones... and if they lived for another, say, thousand years somehow, their genetics wouldn't have completely changed from their childrens'...
Either way, take or leave what I've said, mean you no offense; you may find it hard to apply real-life science to Jewish mythology.
I recommend a series by Prof Walter Veith who is a biologist and zoologist. He gives amazing evidence of a worldwide flood amongst other things. I think it is called the Genesis question.
Question why would you not date the Neanderthals from Before the Flood of Noah and the common human ancestors from After the flood of Noah?
Could not the "Neanderthals" be those people that God destroyed in the flood?
These are so cool!
I really hope you do one on the Jews. People like to say that modern day Jews are not really descended from Jacob which is crazy to me. I would love to see how their blood line goes back and if it is closer with less variation and intermarriage than other people groups as they seem to be.
Well, its a fact that most ashkenazim and some sephardim are most related to north anatolian groups and Iranians. And ashkenazis are maternally mainly European. I dont doubt they have levantine admixture, but theyre more anatolian, and cluster with greeks and Italians. But because they converted to judaism, theyre as Jewish as anyone originally from the levant today.
what does Biology have to do with the age of the planet? Ask a Geologist next time.
How come Europeans weren’t devastated from Native American diseases? Why did it only affect one culture and not the other?
I do not think he ever answers the question in the title. Interesting stuff, sure - but fails to really deal with why there exists a type of human who is so morphologically different from modern humans (bone density, proportional differences between torso, arms and legs, supra-orbital ridge, etc.). You can assert they were fully human - but thus far, no evidence has been offered to prove that assertion.
Great content, but a hugely misleading title. All we got about Neanderthal DNA is that it didn't fit his model, so he ignored it. ...?!