Did the Jomon People Arrive to Japan in Pre-Flood Times? ·
Did Tianyuan Man Live Pre- or Post-Flood?
Tianyuan man seems ancestral to Ancient Beringians. East Asians seem to have more partial ancestry in him, because of later migrations to the area.
This according to a video by Mysterious Origins from 18th of April this year.*
Now, the problem is, normally this would imply he was post-Flood, but on my view the carbon date of the Flood is 39 000 BP. This coincides with the latest possible date he is given, and yes, it is a carbon date:
In 2007, researchers found 34 bone fragments belonging to a single individual at the Tianyuan Cave** near Beijing, China.[1][2] Radiocarbon dating shows the bones to be between 42,000 and 39,000 years old, which may be slightly younger than the only other finds of bones of a similar age at the Niah Caves in Sarawak on the South-east Asian island of Borneo.
So, the question is, could this be pre-Flood, as the dates suggest?
One could imagine a genetic contributor line to the Ark being mixed in the four marriages and then reconstituted more in some branches than in others. For instance, a blue eyed person will have two alleles for blue eyes. suppose he married a brown eyed person with two alleles for brown eyes. All of his children will in fact have brown eyes, but all will have an allele each for brown and blue eyes. And when two people of such configuration marry and have children, one in four of their children will have blue eyes, because he will have two alleles for blue eyes. So a part, but only a smaller part of the descendants will reconstitute the unmixed original setup of two alleles for blue eyes.
The problem with this scenario is, given the number of alleles it would take to have someone identify as clearly related to Tianyuan man, the reconstitution is very much less likely. Unless, perhaps, it was Noah's genotype, like Tianyuan man was Lamech or Methuselah or someone like that.
That too would involve a problem, unless one could trace all of the haplogroups for Y chromosomes back to
Haplogroup K2b (Y-DNA) and one in three haplogroups for mitochondrial DNA to
Haplogroup B (mtDNA).
To me, as no more than an amateur and in human genetics not even amateur expert, this seems improbable. While the presumed origins of these haplogroups are given as 50 000 BP (a pre-Flood date in carbon dating), the ancestral and parallel haplogroups are also post-Flood ones, i e still existing after the Flood.
To me, it's pretty clear from genetics that Tianyuan man is post-Flood. If a real geneticist has a way around this, so much the better, but I'll go with Tianyuan man being post-Flood.
This makes the carbon date a problem to be solved.
1) False age values were given. Not my priority, even with Red China.
2) My whole theory breaks down. Also not my priority.
3) In the early post-Flood centuries, the first roughly half of the 350 years before Noah died and Babel began, there was a dip in carbon 14 that descended to pre-Flood values.
4) Reservoir effect.
5) Uneven mixing of the carbon 14 in the atmosphere.
Hypothesis 3. Can a total block of added carbon 14 with the decay produce such a dip?
- 2958 BC,
- 1.6277 pmC, dated as 37 000 BC***
- 2848 BC (extra item)
- 1.1174 pmC, dated as 40 000 BC
- 2738 BC
- 11.069 pmC, dated as 20,933 BC***
- 110 years
- * 98.678 %
1.6277 * 98.678 / 100 = 1.6062 pmC — no. One would need at the same time an emission of old carbon.
But the problem is, old carbon would be from the Flood and also have after decaying a value as high as 1.6062 pmC.
Hypothesis 4. Can the reservoir effect explain such a misdate?
We know that the reservoir effect can make human remains date up to 300 years earlier in normal stable pmC conditions. But the fact is, in conditions or steadily rising carbon 14, this would be misdating by far more than 300 years, though the modern experts who presume a stable pmC scenario do not reckon on this.
So, does the 300 extra years mean 100 % of the carbon intake is from an on average 300 year old sample? Or 50 % fresh and 50 % from an on average 600 year old sample? I think there is some room for someone dying a century or two after the Flood (Tianyuan man) to date to 200 before the Flood, one interpretation of which would be, namely if the last 220 years before the Flood were same rate of production as now, ending in 1.6277 pmC during the Flood, would be 40 600 BP.°
Now, is there anything about the Tianyuan Cave that would make the reservoir effect actually probable? Yes. See the German version of the wiki on the cave.°°
Die Höhle bildete sich in präkambrischem Kalkstein ... Die Fossilienfundstätte wurde in Fachkreisen international bekannt, nachdem es gelungen war, die Hauptkomponenten der Nahrung des in der Höhle entdeckten, rund 40.000 Jahre alten Fossils eines Homo sapiens, genannt Tianyuan 1, zu identifizieren: Süßwasserfisch.
So, whoever lived in the cave was drinking water from a stream in calcium context (one good factor for reservoir effect) and also feeding mainly on fish from the same water supply (other good factor for reservoir effect). I think this may nail it.
Hypothesis 5. Could uneven mixing of the atmosphere explain it?
Yes, but considering the potential of the reservoir effect and its probability due to the cave, exploring this option seems superfluous for now.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. John's Nativity
24.VI.2025
Nativitas sancti Joannis Baptistae, Praecursoris Domini, ac sanctorum Zachariae et Elisabeth filii, qui Spiritu Sancto repletus est adhuc in utero matris suae.
*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw60nkaogyE
**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianyuan_man
*** First and third items are, unlike the extra item, from:
Creation vs. Evolution: Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt
Christmas Eve 2024, by Hans Georg Lundahl
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-flood-to-joseph-in-egypt.html
°
Creation vs. Evolution: What Would 220 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise?
8.II.2025, by Hans Georg Lundahl
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2025/02/what-would-220-before-flood-date-to.html
°°
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianyuan-Höhle
