11/11/2014

Geneticists Duel Over Dates for Y-Chromosomal Adam | Answers in Genesis

News to Know

Geneticists Duel Over Dates for Y-Chromosomal Adam

by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on February 11, 2014

Molecular clock dates were too old to suit the evolutionary story.

FOX: Who was 'Adam'? Genetic 'man'-hunt catches eye of Vatican scientists
Molecular clock dates were too old to suit the evolutionary story.
Setting the molecular clock to ring for Adam is creating controversy among geneticists. Rather than acknowledging the limitations
of their craft, genetic clock-makers are resorting to pejorative assessments of each others science.

This family tree illustrates the reason Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA is useful for tracing ancestry. Only males have Y chromosomes. Unmixed
with DNA from the mother, these are the easiest-to-track portions of the male genome. Mutation patterns on the Y chromosome can be matched with
similar patterns from other men whose DNA is in the database. In this way, people can be grouped according to their shared common ancestors.
Similarly, even though everyone has mitochondrial DNA, it is passed on through the mother without much opportunity for alteration, so its mutation
patterns can also be traced. The effort to determine how long ago people shared a common ancestor, however, is flawed by many unverifiable
assumptions. Image: saypeople.com

Y-Chromosomal Adam from Cameroon

The story of this AdamY-chromosomal Adam, not the historical Adam of the Biblebegan when the family of a deceased AfricanAmerican named Albert Perry sent Mr. Perrys DNA to the National Geographic Genographic Project.
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/molecular-clock/geneticists-duel-over-dates-for-y-chromosomal-adam/

1/5

11/11/2014

Geneticists Duel Over Dates for Y-Chromosomal Adam | Answers in Genesis

Over time, harmless point mutations in chromosomes produce unique combinations that can be used to trace ancestral relationships
and even geographical origins. The Y-chromosome provides the easiest-to-track ancestral clues in men since it is passed on through
males without the parental shuffling that happens on other chromosomes.
Mr. Perrys Y-chromosome didnt match any of the data on file. The search for his roots led to Camaroons tiny Mbo population. This
ethnic group genetically has so little in common with the rest of the genetically-mapped world that authors of the latest study of Mr.
Perrys Y-chromosome say its uniqueness justifies its moniker the Y-chromosomal Adam haplotype.

Clocking Controversy
Molecular clock dating of Mr. Perrys Y-chromosome led to a now-controversial paper in the 7 March 2013 issue of the American
Journal of Human Genetics. Commenting on his study, Michael Hammer explained, Our analysis indicates this lineage diverged from
previously known Y chromosomes about 338,000 years ago, a time when anatomically modern humans had not yet evolved. This
pushes back the time the last common Y chromosome ancestor lived by almost 70 percent.
This is hugely larger than all the other or subsequent estimates of the age of modern humans. A competing analysis of Mr. Perrys Ychromosome, without disputing Mr. Perrys descent from an ethnic group that diverged from the rest of humanity early, draws less
dramatic conclusions about when that happened.
We can say with some certainty that modern humans emerged in Africa a little over 200,000 years ago [208,300 =/- 5%, to be
precise], says Eran Elhaik, lead author of the new study in the European Journal of Human Genetics. We have shown that the
University of Arizona study [led by Hammer] lacks any scientific merit. In fact, their hypothesis creates a sort of space-time paradox
whereby the most ancient individual belonging to the Homo sapiens species has not yet been born.
Besides producing an estimate older than the age commonly assigned to anatomically modern humans, the dates from Hammers lab
significantly predated the most ancient mitochondrial DNA,1 which had recently been happily reconciled. (You can read about this
reconciliation of Y-chromosome Adam with Mitochondrial Eve in Circular Reasoning Surrounds Human Origins, but Even a Broken
Clock Is Right Twice a Day.) Elhaik compares the mismatch created by Hammers conclusions to the popular time-travel dilemma
suggested in the film Back to the Future. Recalling how the character Marty fears if his parents do not meet he will never be born,
Elhaik says, Its the same idea.

The Criticisms
Such an extraordinarily early estimate contradicts all previous estimates in the literature, Elhaik and colleagues write, and are
142,000 years older than the oldest known anatomically modern humans.1
Elhaiks critique of Hammers analysis hinges on the assumptions he made, the data he ignored, the portion of the Y-chromosome he
examined, and the parameters he used in his statistical analysis. Elhaik writes that all these methodological irregularities and
analytical biases1 pushed the results deeper back into time. He casts more than a hint of shadowy suspicion on the quality of the
science coming out of Hammers lab and the integrity of those involved. Elhaik writes, We have shown that consistently throughout
their examination, Mendez et al. [coauthors of Hammers study] have chosen the assumptions, approximations, numerical
miscalculations and data manipulation that inflated the final TMRCA [time to the most recent common ancestor] estimate.1
Hammer answers, The paper by Elhaik and colleagues . . . does not present a convincing argument against our paper and
unfortunately at times appears to display a lack of technical understanding of the subject area. We are in the process of submitting a
rebuttal.

Poor Assumptions by One and All

Molecular clockslike all clocksmust be powered by a mechanism that consistently ticks off time at a known rate. For molecular
clocks, this is the mutation rate. Mutation rates are difficult to know, even in the present when extrapolated from the DNA of
representative members of a population. It is impossible therefore to know what mutation rates were once upon a deep time. (We of
course, contend that both humans and the earth are only 6,000 years old, making any mutation rate giving an age of 200,000 years
ago to be significantly outside the realm of reality.)

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHAT MUTATION RATES WERE ONCE UPON A DEEP

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/molecular-clock/geneticists-duel-over-dates-for-y-chromosomal-adam/

2/5

11/11/2014

Geneticists Duel Over Dates for Y-Chromosomal Adam | Answers in Genesis

TIME.
The mutation rate paces the molecular clock. Mutation rates vary for each chromosome, Elhaik points out, and are especially variable
for Y-chromosomes. Yet Hammers lab used mutation rates for autosomal (non-Y) chromosomes in its Y-chromosome-based clock.
The Y-chromosome substitution rate that Elhaik prefers was obtained from two Europeans separated by 13 generations. Elhaik
accepts this rate as the preferred standard, not just because it was obtained from Y-chromosomes, but because it is consistent with
estimates derived from human-chimpanzee Y chromosome analyses.1 In other words, the number Elhaik favors is acceptable to him
because it fits the evolutionary times calculated on the basis of belief that chimp and human evolutionary lines diverged from a
common ancestor millions of years ago.
Elhaik further criticized Hammers choice of generation lengtha number that dramatically affects results. The time for each
generation determines how fast the genetic clock ticks. The age at which men and male animals reproduce also affects the number of
substitutions in the Y-chromosome because older males have accumulated more genetic changes in their germ cells. Elhaik
disapproved of Hammers use of 30 years as the average age at which a man would reproduce and recommended an age younger than
20.1
Without historical records, scientists cannot know the generation time of ancient people, yet without the generation time, molecular
clocks cannot be calibrated. While we dont know the generation time for all people in all times and places, as Ken Ham recently
pointed out, There is a book . . . germane to the issue. In the Bible we have generation times for many ancient people. Generation
times have varied a lot, we learn, and people used to live much longer than they do today. From those carefully preserved, internally
consistent genealogies, we can trace certain family lines from Adam to the time of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalema date
known to secular history. From this we calculate how long ago God created the real Adam, the father of all people who ever lived. God
created the earth and Adam about 6,000 years ago. And unlike the metaphorical Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve, the
real Adam and Eve had no trouble meeting, for God created them the same day.
Elhaik also criticized the Y-chromosome segment Hammers group assessed as too small. He writes, a reliable evolutionary estimate
cannot be obtained from 2% of the male-specific portion of the Y chromosome.1 Furthermore, he notes the authors chose to omit
60000 bases of it because they consist of a large amount of mutations.1 Certainly these mutations would have altered the rate at
which this clock ticked.
Finally, Elhaik critiques the statistical judgment call made by Hammer. By opting to do the calculations the way he did, the results
were dramatically different from those obtained using the statistical parameters Elhaik chose. When we realize that the decision to
do the statistical calculations one way or the other is not a matter of being right or wrong but a matter of judgment, the enormity of
the error routinely introduced into molecular clock estimates even in the math is apparent.
While Elhaik calls attention to some assumptions used to make time estimatessuch as the judgment calls and technological
limitations involved in choosing what parts of chromosomes to analyzehe fails to acknowledge the assumptions inherent in all such
molecular clock dating schemes.

Circular Clocks
Molecular clock dates bestow the illusion of accuracy upon evolutionary stories, but most people do not realize that molecular clocks
are monuments to circular reasoning, statistical fallacies, and evolutionary assumptions. They operate on the basis of unverifiable
assumptions powered by other assumptions and confirmed by still other assumptions.
Molecular clock predictions are built upon a statistical house of cards, attempting to predict how long evolution would take if it could
happen and if stable mutation rates were known. Human molecular clocks, in particular, rely on the assumption that chimps and
humans share a common ape-like ancestor. The expected time for differences to diverge from this hypothetical ape-like ancestor to
produce modern human and chimp DNA is used to calibrate data. An additional layer of assumptions is introduced to this mlange
when dates derived from radiometric dating methods are applied to pinpoint watershed moments in evolutionary history supposedly
documented in the fossil record
Elhaik points out where Hammers assumptions and judgments skewed his conclusions. However, if Hammers conclusions had not
rocked the evolutionary boat, likely no one in the evolutionary community would have questioned his assumptions. While Elhaik is
critical of Hammers assumptions, many other assumptions foundational to genetically clocking deep time are just as questionable.
Both Hammer and Elhaiks work is based on the assumption that molecules-to-man evolution really happened. The statistical analysis
then used to assign dates to the days of our evolutionary past, whatever its additional assumptions and limitations, takes place within
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/molecular-clock/geneticists-duel-over-dates-for-y-chromosomal-adam/

3/5

11/11/2014

Geneticists Duel Over Dates for Y-Chromosomal Adam | Answers in Genesis

the house of cards on which the evolutionary clock is calibrated.

Which Adam And Eve?

Of course, Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve have nothing to do with our first parents identified in the Bible. These terms
relate to individuals within a small population group from which all others diverged. Some evolutionists are unhappy about the
popular borrowing of the biblical couples names, fearing such metaphorical use somehow lends credence to the biblical account. As
Bible-believers, we do not look for either the age of humanity or proof that Adam and Eve were historical people in evolutionary
genetics. Such molecular clock dates are rooted in the evolutionary bias of fallible people.
The genetic sequence found in Mitochondrial Eve can, however, offer some clues about the biblical Eve. A recent study of
mitochondrial DNA worldwide revealed an unexpected lack of diversity which is most consistent with the biblical account and quite
inconsistent with evolutionary versions of human history. The creation scientists who authored the study wrote, Given the high
mutation rate within mitochondria and the large geographic separation among the individuals within our dataset, we did not expect
to find the original human mitochondrial sequence to be so well preserved within modern populations. With the exception of a very
few ambiguous nucleotides, the consensus sequence clearly represents Eves mitochondrial DNA sequence. Read more about the
insights that genetics can offer about the woman that Adamabout 6,000 years agocalled the mother of all living in The Eve
Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence.
Biblical history, preserved through our all-knowing Creator God, is not at odds with the real observations of science. From that
history we obtain real information by which we can know the age of humanity. We learn that all of us are descended from just two
people created in the image of God about 6,000 years ago. We also learn that the death and suffering in the world today began with
their rebellion against their Creator. Understanding this truth, we see God is not only just but also loving, for Jesus Christ the Son of
God came into this world as a manthe Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45)to suffer death on the cross, making redemption and
salvation available for the descendants of the first Adam. The Bible reveals humanitys true heritage as well as how we may through
Gods grace inherit eternal life (1 Peter 1:35).

For more information:

Six Secrets of You
Circular Reasoning Surrounds Human Origins, but Even a Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day
Trace Your Family History through DNA Testing
Four Women, a Boat, and Lots of Kids
African Melting Pot
Archaic Humans

For more information: Get Answers

Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know about it! (note: if the story originates from the
Associated Press, FOX News, MSNBC, the New York Times, or another major national media outlet, we will most likely have already
heard about it.) And thanks to all of our readers who have submitted great news tips to us. If you didnt catch all the latest News to
Know, why not take a look to see what youve missed?
(Please note that links will take you directly to the source. Answers in Genesis is not responsible for content on the websites to which
we refer. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.)

Footnotes
1. E. Elhaik et al., The extremely ancient chromosome that isnt:a forensic bioinformatic investigation of Albert Perrys Xdegenerate portion of the Y chromosome, European Journal of Human Genetics (22 January 2014), doi:10.1038/ejhg.2013.3o3.

Recommended Resources
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/molecular-clock/geneticists-duel-over-dates-for-y-chromosomal-adam/

4/5

11/11/2014

Geneticists Duel Over Dates for Y-Chromosomal Adam | Answers in Genesis

The Puzzle of Ancient Man

1499

The Chronology of the Old

Testament

2499

Adams Chart of History

3999

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/molecular-clock/geneticists-duel-over-dates-for-y-chromosomal-adam/

Tower of Babel: eBook

799

SALE

5/5