The recombination rates are very similar across continents, but a 2006 study by Graffelman et al shows that they are not higher in sub Sahara Africa compared to Europe. You haven’t done your reading on the subject or you’re cherry picking your data with that African American study. The data is out there and it disproves your ideas
1. The paper (Variation in estimated recombination rates across human populations) came out in 2007. DOI: 10.1007/s00439-007-0391-6 2. They only looked at 107 SNPs in a 1 Mb stretch of chromosome 22q. 3. I generally cite Hinch et al. 2011 (The landscape of recombination in African Americans, doi: 10.1038/nature10336) as the latest information about differences in recombination rates among populations. They detected no less than 2,500 hotspots in people of W African descent that are not active in the European population, and those hotspots were associated with a 17-bp motif that closely matched the predicted PRDM9 binding site. 4. Further studies seem to have backed up the conclusion that rates differ among human pops, but I have yet to do a deep dive into the latest research.
From an archaeological perspective, i find the Tas Teleper sites really interesting. These are the oldest man made structures that have ever been found and they're all located in eastern Turkey, not far off from the mountains of Ararat. The most popular and well known site is Göbleki Tepe, but there are several other sites in the area. It seems to me that this could've been an immediate post flood community that eventually migrated down into Mesopotamia
So if human lineages can't go below 5,000, how is evolution possible? 🤔 Northern Europeans are Ashkenaz R1a, Southern Europeans are Riphath R1b and east of the Caspian sea is their brother Togarmah. Greek sea people are Javan T, Greek mainland Thracians are Tiras L, their brother Tubal is K and the Medes is Madai Q. These are the Eurasians along with Meshek N and Magog O. It's fairly simple. C is Nimrod King of Shinar/Mesopotamia the son of Cush. Madai asked to marry a daughter of Shem and so there's Semitic mtDNA in Asia known as the "N" mtDNA branch that includes N, I, W (in Europe), A (in the Americas), X (in the Levant and North America) and Y mtDNA. (Almost too much information : )
Thank you for another informative video. I also believe that racism played a role in evolutionary theories about humanity evolving from apes in Africa, so I appreciate you mentioning that as well.
There were life before babel. The bible says that when the angels came down, they found the daughters of men to be fair. It means the men were originally not fair but they were now giving birth to fair daughters and those are times way before tower of babel
Ill say it again NO!!! Mankind DID NOT begin in Africa. When God created the Earth all land was connected and God created mankind Adam and Eve which was the location of Iraq. No person can pin point the exact location. When Noah step off the Ark all land was connected and sometime after the animals populated the Earth was when the lands disconnected spreading out and this is why almost all lands have animals and insects.
@@AfroWolf420 when God created mankind He created Adam and Eve the first two human beings in earth was created in the Garden of Eden which is located in Iraq
You’re basing everything you think you know about the origins of mankind solely on the Bible and willing to completely ignore historical information from other sources that you don’t want to believe. Not only is your argument implausible, but completely bias!
@@jordanrobinson9064 your absolutely right because the Bible is the True History Book of mankind and is the word of Almighty God. God created mankind and all began in Iraq also was the location of Babylon and the location of the Garden of Eden. No mankind did not start in Africa and no man did not come from chimpanzees.
Interesting video. Problems with the mechanisms proposed: 1. Patriarchal Drive could not account for the mitochondrial diversity in Africa because men don't contribute any genetic information to mitochondria. 2. Inbreeding decreases genotype frequencies (i.e. less diverse populations). Inbreeding results in the deletion of mutant alleles from populations, not the other way around. (source: Effects of a change in the level of inbreeding on the genetic load by Barret and Charlesworth). 3. Mutation Rates: non coding regions of the genome undergo pretty consistent mutations linearly with time (aka molecular clock), and human molecular mutation rate is slowing, not speeding up. 4. Selective sweeps are very rare in human evolution, and there likely was not any driving force in modern human evolution. We don't have neanderthal Y chromosomes because they result in infertility. Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA is found in certain European haplogroups X, I, and W, and that these are likely descendants of a Neanderthal sub-group 5. Africa DID have a high initial population size. Occam's razor: because it contained the initial population. 6. Higher recombinations can't account for the molecular clock and rate of SNP mutations. 7. Migration into Africa. If what you propose is true, why is the E haplogroup so rare outside of Africa? The many groups into Africa idea would be evident in the genomic record, but it is not. The diversity cannot be attributed to groups that don't have the diversity to contribute. See Creation Myths comment about your interpretation of the paper, you're grossly misrepresenting the findings. The Middle East as the birthplace of humankind is not supported by evidence, or any of the mechanisms proposed as a possible explanation in this video.
1. Matriarchal drive is also a thing, but I did not talk about it. Also, it is not clear that one can decouple mtDNA mutations from the nuclear genome. 2. "Inbreeding results in the deletion of mutant alleles from populations, not the other way around." This is not true. Inbreeding leads to genetic drift, which leads to *general* loss of genetic diversity. The probability of any variation being retained is proportional to its frequency in the population. So, yes, rare alleles are more easily lost. But random chance has a stronger role in small populations, meaning even deleterious mutations can increases in frequency, even to the point of fixation. This is the whole reason we worry about endangered species. 3. Your statements about mutation rates and a molecular clock are couched in your own assumptions. 4. Yes, the evidence of selective sweeps is small. I was only raising it as a possibility. But note that you cannot tell a selective sweep in the Out of Africa population from a scenario in which only a few people leave Africa. All we have are the surviving lineages. 5. Even if Africa was the birthplace, it did not HAVE to have a larger population size. The population size is inferred from the standing diversity and the long branches, both of which I am questioning here. 6. Higher recombination rates will lead to the preservation of more genetic diversity over time, giving the appearance of an older population. And if two populations have dissimilar recombination rates, their 'clocks' will not necessarily tick at the same rate, especially if one population is small. 7. Rarity is irrelevant when we are talking about phylogenetic branch points. It would be trivial for a small tribe to split in one location, for half of that tribe to move to a new location, and for that half to then explode in numbers.
@@biblicalgenetics8838 I'd love to have a longer conversation about this. There are a number of lines of evidence pointing to an African origin - raw diversity, heterozygosity, linkage equilibrium, and phylogenetic nesting. Creationist attempts to explain each of those often make the other problems worse, not better, for a non-African epicenter.
@@biblicalgenetics8838 Also, what's the mechanism for *matriarchal* drive? Unlike in males, the female germline has a finite number of cell devisions to get to primary oocyte, independent of the age of the mother, so mutations can't accumulate the same way they do in the male germline. I googled around but couldn't find anything on the concept.
Im curious what is Your opinion. I studied biology and I'm christian. For me it was always clear, we started in Middle East - first with Adam and Eve (Eden- I assume it was in todays south Iraq), than Noah and his family (Mount Ararat -todays Turkyia). And also the first civilisations started there. So I dont have doubts - we didn't came from Afrika.
I'm convinced that the Human Species appeared in many places across the globe...but I'd MUCH prefer to NOT have this biblical stuff included in the discussion. And, I'll mention that the EXTREMELY popular stance (among scientists) today of exclusive African origin...is something that I find IMMENSELY arbitrary and problematic (and just downright oddball)!!! Even a "common-sense" consideration of the great human diversity in human traits, suggests problems with the Afro-centric position--Dr. T.C.Halle, Los Angeles
I think we need to stop trying to figure all this stuff out and let's accept the fact that we don't know and will never know. I am a Christian and so with that being said, I choose to stick with biblical history and anything that Contradicts the bible, then I don't put my focus on it.
Dr. Carter, I don't think the paper you reference (Bergström et al. 2021, "Origins of modern human ancestry") is as ambivalent, or ambivalent at all, about an African origin for modern humans. For example, they write, "Present-day genetic diversity in African groups and individuals is greater than in any other part of the world1-4, a pattern that was first observed in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)1. Together with a turnover in fossil morphology5 this was taken as strong evidence for a ‘recent African origin’, where a population carrying a subset of African diver- sity underwent a size bottleneck and then became the founders of worldwide expansions. This model is now strongly supported by early fossils in Africa6-8, by genomic evidence of interbreeding with archaic human groups outside of Africa9,10 and by the major portion of genomic ancestry outside of Africa appearing to be nested within African ances- tries, in the Holocene epoch (the past 12,000 years or so) closest to eastern African ancestry1,2,11-15. However, different scenarios have been proposed for the number and timing of into-Eurasia expansion(s)." And, "We argue that, with current evidence, it is not possible to pinpoint more precisely where in Africa the common ancestors of present-day people lived. In the absence of a full time series that demonstrates how ancestry was distributed in the past, a strong line of evidence for an origin in a given geographical region could be if the majority of human ancestry was ‘nested’ inside the greater diversity of that region, accounting for admixture. However, although such a criterion currently identi- fies Africa as the birthplace of modern humans, it does not pinpoint a specific region inside Africa." (And it's worth noting, I think, that the authors omit mention of other factors that *do* point to a specific region, specifically linkage disequilibrium and east-central Africa.)
I believe there has never been a greater insult to science and the various groups of people on Earth than the Theory of Evolution and the out-of-Afrique deception. Personally, I am of the opinion that schools insulting children with such abuse should be closed.
How can the Garden of Eden be located when there was a giant Flood in the middle of history, a Flood in which Noah and his family floated for months, and in which no statement is given about the location of Eden vs the Ark building site. This completely decouples Eden from the origin of modern, post-Flood humanity. See creation.com/eden-1
@@robert9674 Indeed, thus the site of Eden cannot be located in the Middle East. It is the local Flood advocates who try to squeeze everything in the account into a Mesopotamian context. Humanity did not begin in Iraq.
@@biblicalgenetics8838 well you might be getting your information from the wrong people. I listen to those who are called of God true preachers and Bible scholars. Mankind did not start in Africa that all comes from evolutionist, mankind began somewhere in the Middle East and most True called of God preachers all agree it’s was around the location of Babylon which would be Iraq. The fact is it doesn’t matter what matters is Salvation and that comes through Faith in Jesus Christ and what He accomplished at Cross. We are in the last days that Gods judgment is will come on the earth. All who rejects Jesus Christ and what He accomplished at the Cross will go to Hell.
@@robert9674 Do you know who I work for? I am certainly not being influenced by evolutionary theory. My point is that you cannot put Eden in the Middle east if there was also a global Flood. Please read the article (parts 1 and 2) I posted earlier. Here's part 2: creation.com/eden-2
The only thing more fascinating than the history of Mankind is the fact that you know all this information and still believe the Bible is true. You're so close to waking up.
@@ThinkkTwiice Because you reject that God made your mind in a way that it can be rational, how is it that you can trust a single thought when you “think”? What makes your thoughts any different than the teenage girl driving home from the dentist office who is high on gas and saying silly things? After all, it’s only chemistry, right?
Yes! I've been waiting for a new episode for about 2-3 months. I love your work, Dr. C
More to come!
Nothing strange to me because Africa never gets the credit that it deserves
Great video! Very informative.
Great video! Keep it up!
The recombination rates are very similar across continents, but a 2006 study by Graffelman et al shows that they are not higher in sub Sahara Africa compared to Europe.
You haven’t done your reading on the subject or you’re cherry picking your data with that African American study. The data is out there and it disproves your ideas
1. The paper (Variation in estimated recombination rates across human populations) came out in 2007. DOI: 10.1007/s00439-007-0391-6
2. They only looked at 107 SNPs in a 1 Mb stretch of chromosome 22q.
3. I generally cite Hinch et al. 2011 (The landscape of recombination in African Americans, doi: 10.1038/nature10336) as the latest information about differences in recombination rates among populations. They detected no less than 2,500 hotspots in people of W African descent that are not active in the European population, and those hotspots were associated with a 17-bp motif that closely matched the predicted PRDM9 binding site.
4. Further studies seem to have backed up the conclusion that rates differ among human pops, but I have yet to do a deep dive into the latest research.
From an archaeological perspective, i find the Tas Teleper sites really interesting. These are the oldest man made structures that have ever been found and they're all located in eastern Turkey, not far off from the mountains of Ararat. The most popular and well known site is Göbleki Tepe, but there are several other sites in the area. It seems to me that this could've been an immediate post flood community that eventually migrated down into Mesopotamia
I love it!
Is there any good book you can recommend regarding this topic?
So if human lineages can't go below 5,000, how is evolution possible? 🤔
Northern Europeans are Ashkenaz R1a, Southern Europeans are Riphath R1b and east of the Caspian sea is their brother Togarmah. Greek sea people are Javan T, Greek mainland Thracians are Tiras L, their brother Tubal is K and the Medes is Madai Q. These are the Eurasians along with Meshek N and Magog O. It's fairly simple. C is Nimrod King of Shinar/Mesopotamia the son of Cush.
Madai asked to marry a daughter of Shem and so there's Semitic mtDNA in Asia known as the "N" mtDNA branch that includes N, I, W (in Europe), A (in the Americas), X (in the Levant and North America) and Y mtDNA.
(Almost too much information : )
Thank you for another informative video. I also believe that racism played a role in evolutionary theories about humanity evolving from apes in Africa, so I appreciate you mentioning that as well.
There were life before babel. The bible says that when the angels came down, they found the daughters of men to be fair. It means the men were originally not fair but they were now giving birth to fair daughters and those are times way before tower of babel
Ill say it again NO!!! Mankind DID NOT begin in Africa. When God created the Earth all land was connected and God created mankind Adam and Eve which was the location of Iraq. No person can pin point the exact location. When Noah step off the Ark all land was connected and sometime after the animals populated the Earth was when the lands disconnected spreading out and this is why almost all lands have animals and insects.
Worng the oldest human remains are found in Africa you can deny it all you want.
@@AfroWolf420 when God created mankind He created Adam and Eve the first two human beings in earth was created in the Garden of Eden which is located in Iraq
You’re basing everything you think you know about the origins of mankind solely on the Bible and willing to completely ignore historical information from other sources that you don’t want to believe. Not only is your argument implausible, but completely bias!
@@jordanrobinson9064 your absolutely right because the Bible is the True History Book of mankind and is the word of Almighty God. God created mankind and all began in Iraq also was the location of Babylon and the location of the Garden of Eden. No mankind did not start in Africa and no man did not come from chimpanzees.
Great information 👍 thanks and God bless
This was Great!
Excellent
Interesting video. Problems with the mechanisms proposed:
1. Patriarchal Drive could not account for the mitochondrial diversity in Africa because men don't contribute any genetic information to mitochondria.
2. Inbreeding decreases genotype frequencies (i.e. less diverse populations). Inbreeding results in the deletion of mutant alleles from populations, not the other way around. (source: Effects of a change in the level of inbreeding on the genetic load by Barret and Charlesworth).
3. Mutation Rates: non coding regions of the genome undergo pretty consistent mutations linearly with time (aka molecular clock), and human molecular mutation rate is slowing, not speeding up.
4. Selective sweeps are very rare in human evolution, and there likely was not any driving force in modern human evolution. We don't have neanderthal Y chromosomes because they result in infertility. Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA is found in certain European haplogroups X, I, and W, and that these are likely descendants of a Neanderthal sub-group
5. Africa DID have a high initial population size. Occam's razor: because it contained the initial population.
6. Higher recombinations can't account for the molecular clock and rate of SNP mutations.
7. Migration into Africa. If what you propose is true, why is the E haplogroup so rare outside of Africa? The many groups into Africa idea would be evident in the genomic record, but it is not. The diversity cannot be attributed to groups that don't have the diversity to contribute.
See Creation Myths comment about your interpretation of the paper, you're grossly misrepresenting the findings.
The Middle East as the birthplace of humankind is not supported by evidence, or any of the mechanisms proposed as a possible explanation in this video.
1. Matriarchal drive is also a thing, but I did not talk about it. Also, it is not clear that one can decouple mtDNA mutations from the nuclear genome.
2. "Inbreeding results in the deletion of mutant alleles from populations, not the other way around." This is not true. Inbreeding leads to genetic drift, which leads to *general* loss of genetic diversity. The probability of any variation being retained is proportional to its frequency in the population. So, yes, rare alleles are more easily lost. But random chance has a stronger role in small populations, meaning even deleterious mutations can increases in frequency, even to the point of fixation. This is the whole reason we worry about endangered species.
3. Your statements about mutation rates and a molecular clock are couched in your own assumptions.
4. Yes, the evidence of selective sweeps is small. I was only raising it as a possibility. But note that you cannot tell a selective sweep in the Out of Africa population from a scenario in which only a few people leave Africa. All we have are the surviving lineages.
5. Even if Africa was the birthplace, it did not HAVE to have a larger population size. The population size is inferred from the standing diversity and the long branches, both of which I am questioning here.
6. Higher recombination rates will lead to the preservation of more genetic diversity over time, giving the appearance of an older population. And if two populations have dissimilar recombination rates, their 'clocks' will not necessarily tick at the same rate, especially if one population is small.
7. Rarity is irrelevant when we are talking about phylogenetic branch points. It would be trivial for a small tribe to split in one location, for half of that tribe to move to a new location, and for that half to then explode in numbers.
@@biblicalgenetics8838 I'd love to have a longer conversation about this. There are a number of lines of evidence pointing to an African origin - raw diversity, heterozygosity, linkage equilibrium, and phylogenetic nesting. Creationist attempts to explain each of those often make the other problems worse, not better, for a non-African epicenter.
@@biblicalgenetics8838 Also, what's the mechanism for *matriarchal* drive? Unlike in males, the female germline has a finite number of cell devisions to get to primary oocyte, independent of the age of the mother, so mutations can't accumulate the same way they do in the male germline. I googled around but couldn't find anything on the concept.
Im curious what is Your opinion. I studied biology and I'm christian. For me it was always clear, we started in Middle East - first with Adam and Eve (Eden- I assume it was in todays south Iraq), than Noah and his family (Mount Ararat -todays Turkyia). And also the first civilisations started there. So I dont have doubts - we didn't came from Afrika.
I'm convinced that the Human Species appeared in many places across the globe...but I'd MUCH prefer to NOT have this biblical stuff included in the discussion. And, I'll mention that the EXTREMELY popular stance (among scientists) today of exclusive African origin...is something that I find IMMENSELY arbitrary and problematic (and just downright oddball)!!! Even a "common-sense" consideration of the great human diversity in human traits, suggests problems with the Afro-centric position--Dr. T.C.Halle, Los Angeles
I think we need to stop trying to figure all this stuff out and let's accept the fact that we don't know and will never know.
I am a Christian and so with that being said, I choose to stick with biblical history and anything that Contradicts the bible, then I don't put my focus on it.
How about coast of East Africa, should also not be considered sub Saharan Africa
Why not? It is geographically in Africa, South of the Sahara.
Amen brother ❤️
Dr. Carter, I don't think the paper you reference (Bergström et al. 2021, "Origins of modern human ancestry") is as ambivalent, or ambivalent at all, about an African origin for modern humans.
For example, they write, "Present-day genetic diversity in African groups and individuals is greater than in any other part of the world1-4, a pattern that was first observed in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)1. Together with a turnover in fossil morphology5 this was taken as strong evidence for a ‘recent African origin’, where a population carrying a subset of African diver- sity underwent a size bottleneck and then became the founders of worldwide expansions. This model is now strongly supported by early fossils in Africa6-8, by genomic evidence of interbreeding with archaic human groups outside of Africa9,10 and by the major portion of genomic ancestry outside of Africa appearing to be nested within African ances- tries, in the Holocene epoch (the past 12,000 years or so) closest to eastern African ancestry1,2,11-15. However, different scenarios have been proposed for the number and timing of into-Eurasia expansion(s)."
And, "We argue that, with current evidence, it is not possible to pinpoint more precisely where in Africa the common ancestors of present-day people lived. In the absence of a full time series that demonstrates how ancestry was distributed in the past, a strong line of evidence for an origin in a given geographical region could be if the majority of human ancestry was ‘nested’ inside the greater diversity of that region, accounting for admixture. However, although such a criterion currently identi- fies Africa as the birthplace of modern humans, it does not pinpoint a specific region inside Africa."
(And it's worth noting, I think, that the authors omit mention of other factors that *do* point to a specific region, specifically linkage disequilibrium and east-central Africa.)
Question Darwin 🧙♂️
I believe there has never been a greater insult to science and the various groups of people on Earth than the Theory of Evolution and the out-of-Afrique deception.
Personally, I am of the opinion that schools insulting children with such abuse should be closed.
Humanity began in Iraq also old Babylon which some believe the Garden of Eden was in that location
How can the Garden of Eden be located when there was a giant Flood in the middle of history, a Flood in which Noah and his family floated for months, and in which no statement is given about the location of Eden vs the Ark building site. This completely decouples Eden from the origin of modern, post-Flood humanity. See creation.com/eden-1
@@biblicalgenetics8838 the flood has nothing to do with the location of the Garden of Eden the flood was a global flood
@@robert9674 Indeed, thus the site of Eden cannot be located in the Middle East. It is the local Flood advocates who try to squeeze everything in the account into a Mesopotamian context. Humanity did not begin in Iraq.
@@biblicalgenetics8838 well you might be getting your information from the wrong people. I listen to those who are called of God true preachers and Bible scholars. Mankind did not start in Africa that all comes from evolutionist, mankind began somewhere in the Middle East and most True called of God preachers all agree it’s was around the location of Babylon which would be Iraq. The fact is it doesn’t matter what matters is Salvation and that comes through Faith in Jesus Christ and what He accomplished at Cross. We are in the last days that Gods judgment is will come on the earth. All who rejects Jesus Christ and what He accomplished at the Cross will go to Hell.
@@robert9674 Do you know who I work for? I am certainly not being influenced by evolutionary theory. My point is that you cannot put Eden in the Middle east if there was also a global Flood. Please read the article (parts 1 and 2) I posted earlier. Here's part 2: creation.com/eden-2
🤘
You should cut your hand off if you're going to make pagan symbols with it. Luv Jake
You mean we are learning more each day!?!
Life was ever were Africa was no place special. It was probably pretty late to the party 🎈
What is the politicly correct term is???? Do you eat a lot of soy beans and hate yourself?
This is hilarious, keep on trying buddy.
You sound like all the evolutionists out there not a Bible creationist
Then you know nothing about me. creation.com/dr-robert-carter
The only thing more fascinating than the history of Mankind is the fact that you know all this information and still believe the Bible is true. You're so close to waking up.
🙏
Says the guys name with “think” in it.
Oh the irony
@@YoungEarthCreation because I actually use my brain to think 😁
@@ThinkkTwiice Because you reject that God made your mind in a way that it can be rational, how is it that you can trust a single thought when you “think”? What makes your thoughts any different than the teenage girl driving home from the dentist office who is high on gas and saying silly things? After all, it’s only chemistry, right?
@@RedefineLiving you're so lost its not worth the conversation. Cheers
Insanity