From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/5/2025 6:55 PM, sticks wrote:   
   > On 12/5/2025 11:53 AM, RonO wrote:   
   >   
   >>> I'm guessing you believe Nathaniel T. Jeanson's work is flawed.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> If you would present some of this work we could determine if that was   
   >> true or not.   
   >   
   > Though I have read a couple of his books, I don't consider myself able   
   > to present them in a fair manner.  I just thought you might be aware of   
   > his work.  Never mind.   
   >   
   >   
      
   Do not waste your time with this guy.  The first article that I looked   
   up was his Y chromosome analysis.  He was trying to have all humans   
   derived from Noah's Y chromosome.  In order to make something up he had   
   to root the phylogenetic tree incorrectly and he then made up 3 groups   
   that he claimed were from Noah's son's.   
      
   https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/native-americans-and-noah/   
      
   You can tell how awkwardly he mishandled the data by looking at what the   
   tree actually looks like.   
      
   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6707464/   
      
   They do not show the outgroup for Figure 1.  An outgroup is just a   
   sequence that comes from a closely related species where all the   
   individuals involved in the phylogenetic analysis (all the human Y   
   chromosomes) share the same common ancestor with the outgroup species.   
   The outgroup was likely chimps.  In the middle of figure 1 you can see   
   the root to the outgroup in the center of the phylogeny.  If Biblical   
   flood mythology were true Noah would be at the center of the phylogeny   
   because all extant human Y chromosomes would be descended from Noah.   
   Jeanson misplaces the root and claims that the true root (not Jeanson's   
   root) actually is a decending lineage from Ham.  Noah's sequence would   
   be among the longer branch length lineages attributed to Ham.  You can   
   tell that Jeanson's groupings are wrong because of the long branch   
   lengths under Ham that Jeanson claims is denoting time.  Jeanson does   
   not have Noah producing any more children because the Bible doesn't name   
   any.   
      
   You can tell that he did something wrong with the phylogeny because just   
   ask yourself why only a couple of Ham's children's descendants show the   
   same temporal branch lengths of the children of his two brothers with   
   most of Ham's children showing branch lengths much longer than all their   
   cousins.  The length of the branchs is actually sequence differences   
   between lineages.  the A lineage has the greatest sequence divergence   
   from all the other lineages.  You can see why that is from Figure 1 of   
   the real science paper.   
      
   Jeanson's analysis boarders on insanity.  The guy likely is insane.   
      
   The actual Noahcian phylogeny should show descent from 4 nearly   
   identical sequences.  Noah and his 3 sons.  The Y chromosome is less   
   than 3% of the human genome and we estimate that only 30 to 60 new   
   mutations are passed on to each offspring from both parents, but usually   
   more than half come from the father and the mutation rate seems to   
   increase with age because his sperm producing cells are constantly   
   dividing while females have produced all their eggs by around 2 or 3   
   years old.  How did Ham produce children with such divergent Y   
   chromosomes when they might have inherited a single mutation any   
   generation?  The guy is nuts.   
      
   What the true phylogeny actually indicates is that if Noah actually   
   existed then only 2 of his son's may have left any Y chromosome   
   descendants.  One son's descendants never left Africa, and some of the   
   other son's descendants never left Africa while a portion of them did.   
   There is no evidence for the existence of 3 male families.   
      
   Like mitochondrial maternal lineages there is a constant loss of Y   
   chromosome lineages over time because once a Y chromosome lineage   
   produces no male descendants the lineage becomes extinct.  You can see   
   this happening with the loss of surnames.  In Japan if you had no sons   
   you could get someone to marry your daughter and have him take the   
   family name, but that doesn't work for Y chromosomes.  No sons, no Y   
   chromosome in the next generation.  From the Genetic's paper you can see   
   that there has been periodic loss of lineages (coalescence) to one   
   branch where there should exist many just in the last couple hundred   
   thousand years.  You can see them in the length of branchs to each new node.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)