Carter, Neanderthals, Denisovans

He published this for

Journal of Creation
Volume 33, Issue 1 Published April 2019
https://creation.com/journal-of-creation-331

On the following pdf it is now available:

Patriarchal drive in the early post-Flood population
pp. 110 - 118, Paper by Robert W. Carter
https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p130/c13059/j33_1_110-118.pdf

Neandertals and Denisovans are also not yet part of this model. There are several reasons for this. First, there is but one partial Neandertal Y chromosome available to date.30 Also, its quality is questionable. Consider figure S11 in the much-discussed paper on ancient Canaanite DNA by Haber et al.31 Since mutations accumulate in all lineages over time, modern people should have more mutations than ancient people. The most ancient samples should be on the shortest branches. Yet the opposite is true here. This casts a suspicious light on all ancient DNA studies. For example, the long branches we see for the Neandertals and Denisovans might be artifactual. Second, we need to learn a lot more about inbreeding effects in small populations (Neandertals and Denisovans are the most inbred populations we have ever seen).32 Third, we need to formulate a theory of how they drifted from the root of mankind so quickly.

Unfortunately, the most interesting footnote, 31, is to a paper publication I am not accessing.

Now, the three reasons:

• 1) It is still clearly different from the Y-chromosomes we see today. Pääbo is wrong in being Old Age, but if he can trace the split between Neanderthal Y-chromosomes and our own to c. 600 000 BP, we could at least consider what he found is compatible with it being pre-Flood.
  
  
• 2) Inbreeding per se won't cause mutations, nor can it combine Y-chromosome mutations from both grandfathers, a man only inherits it from his paternal one, since a woman doesn't inherit it at all.
  
  
• 3) I have a theory, Robert Carter knows it, he prefers to ignore it.

We can imagine the pre-Flood to post-Flood boundary in carbon dates to be 60 000 BC rather than 40 000 BP as I prefer, this would leave the possibility of Neanderthals being post-Flood and any dated c. 70 000 BC being that by dating errors. They would still be a very early post-Flood population if so ... Robert W. Carter's problem would be unsolved.

Or, we can solve that problem easily (ignoring the point that Neanderthals could have a very short branch, when all factors so far considered suggest they have a long one), if we suppose instead Neanderthals, Denisovans and their mixes with each other and with our own Cro-Magnon race (same for Black, White, Yellow and all between basically, with some Neanderthal genes better shown in White and Yellow ones, some Denisovan ones in Polynesian or Austronesian and Tibetan ones), show it a very long one.

They were pre-Flood.

• A) Carter's model claims, the older the father, the more mutated his offspring - suppose this true for pre-Flood conditions, not necessarily true, we get fathers as old as 930 (Adam's age when he died) or 969 (years of Methuselah) before the Flood, oldest post-Flood ones would be Shem at 600.
  
  
• B) We have more time, potentially more generations, between Creation and Flood in Genesis 5 than between Flood and Abraham in Genesis 11. LXX chronology that I use, as per Roman Martyrology going back to Julius Africanus, 2242 (in Julius 2262) vs 942, or Masoretic chronology he uses, 1656 vs 292 (or sth like that).

If he cared to look at Sibley's paper*, some of the 18th C. French guys - none of whom were devout Catholics - they raised same objections to fossils surviving Flood that he raised against me and human bones surviving it (without mentioning me directly) : that Flood waters would have been too violent to make so neat preservation possible.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pentecost Monday
1.VI.2020

PS, if small mutations have patriarchal drive, mongolism has a matriarchal one, and so have other chromosomal aberrations, I presume./HGL

* Actually, Sibley in the same issue gave a two part paper. My point is obviously not that Carter is right, but that his position on this position has been used to argue for Deep Time.

Deep time in 18th-century France—part 1: a developing belief, part 2: influence upon geology and evolution in 18th and 19th century Britain