Re: Y-chromosome and age of "men"

Glenn Morton (GRMorton@gnn.com)
Mon, 16 Sep 1996 21:51:32

Joel wrote about the 729 locus similarity in the 38 men in the science
article. The article was ~Robert L. Dorit,
Hiroshi Akashi, Walter Gilbert, "Absence of Polymorphism at the ZFY locus on
the Human Y Chromosome,"~Science, May 26, 1995, p. 1184ff

>Just ran accross this brief summary article at:
>
>www.gene.com/ac/WN/index.html
>
>The article is a summary of a Science article from 1995. A little dated
>and I don't know if anyone discussed it last year but it seems somewhat
>relative to recent discussion and Glenn I am particulary interested with
>what you do with this type of information (not that I can see that it
>doesnt' fit into your model).
>

I always thought this was odd since earlier and later work has shown several
major haplotypes on the Y chromosome and sequence mutations. Considering that
anatomically modern humans may be the major ancestor of us, and they are first
found in the fossil record 130,000 years ago, to find that the Y chromosome
displays only 180-270,000 years of divergence would not be surprising. That
would be consistent with the appearance of anatomically modern humans. It
would be good evidence for the out-of-Africa theory of human origins rather
than the multiregional continuity model. I have no problem with this
possibility.

However, some Christian apologists, like Hugh Ross, has used the ZFY study to
say that evolution did not occur. Ross writes:

"To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no
nucleotide differences at all in the nonrecombinant part of the
Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no
evolution has occurred in male ancestry. The researchers,
apparently committed to Darwinism, back-pedaled by doing
statistical analysis on the evolutionary possibilities if the 38
men sampled somehow inaccurately represented the population at
large. Based on this analysis, they concluded that men's
forefather--a single individual, not a group--lived no more than
270,000 years ago.
"The challenge this study presents to Darwinsim is profound.
The study of women offered a shred of support for microevolution.
The Y chromosome research lends no support for microevolution.
As for macroevolution, the results of both studies rule out homo
erectus (0.5 to 1.5 million years ago) as a possible progenitor
of modern humans."~Hugh Ross, "Chromosome Study Stuns
Evolutionists," Facts & Faith, 9:3, 3rd Qtr. 1995, p. 3

First, the authors are not doing any statistical back-pedaling. The
statistical analysis they did is apparently normal to this type of study.

Secondly, Ross states that this study rules out Homo erectus from our
ancestry. This too is poppy-cock. The study states (and Ross should have
read this in the study):

"A coalescent model, with its assumptions of random mating, equilibrium
population size, and exponentially distriubted bifurcation times, provides an
expected date for the last common male ancestor of 270,000 years (with 95%
confidence limits of 0 to 800,000 years). Increasing the population size or
nonrandom mating would lower this estimate. A lowest limit for the age of the
last common ancestor of all Y lineages sicne the last common male ancestor
(known as a 'star' phylogeny); such a pattern provides an estimate of 27,000
years, with 95% limits of 0 to 80,000 years. A mixed model, involving local
(regional) coalescence, would produce intermediate times."~Robert L. Dorit,
Hiroshi Akashi, Walter Gilbert, "Absence of Polymorphism at the ZFY locus on
the Human Y Chromosome,"~Science, May 26, 1995, p. 1184

800,000 years ago, the only hominid on the planet was Homo erectus. If the
study is consistent with one model in which the last common ancestor lived
800,000 years ago, then I would presume that he would have to be Homo erectus.

I have never understood why Christian apologists read articles and then make
the statements they do, like "the results of both studies rule out homo
erectus (0.5 to 1.5 million years ago) as a possible progenitor
of modern humans." This simply is not true and is stated clearly by the
authors of the study.

By the way, I got to talk with Dr. Ross privately for about 20 minutes last
week about his approach to fossil man last week. I gave him a picture of the
Neanderthal flute. He does not believe Neanderthal was human. I will be
interested to see if there is any change in his approach.

glenn

Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm