Monday, October 3, 2016

There is a Mammoth in the Room: Dna, Genetic Distances and Dating Methodologies

There is a mammoth in the room of genetic results. While using dna along with genealogical research and historical and archeological evidence can be fruitful and helpful, it is however not as clear cut as many believe. While the actual testing of dna may be mostly accurate and scientific, the interpretation may not be. There are still many question marks in this field of research. 

Much in this field is based on speculation and probability whereas mutations are actually random and there is no scientifically proven constant rate of mutations. Different companies and researchers use different formula and give different results. This means that I could, for example, have  two fourth cousins coming from the same paternal 3x great grandparents but have a totally different number of mutations separating me from them. One I could have a genetic distance of 7, the other a genetic distance of 5 out of 111. Or I could have an 8th cousin whom I only have a genetic distance of 5 out of 111. I would assume just based on the genetic evidence that the two with a genetic distance of 5 were closer related to me than the one with 7 but this may not be the case. 

Another example would be two brothers- one who stays in their home location and the other who goes to a far land where he experiences traumatic or cataclysmic or environmental effects that cause him to have sons with a number of new mutations and for the rate of mutations to occur more rapidly. If we then tested the y-dna of the two brother's grandsons due to the more numerous mutations we will wrongly assume they are much more distantly related than they actually are. Or if the mutations rates are much less then we will assume people are closer to us than they actually are. In working back even using a germ line approach we can be greatly deceived as there is no evidence that there is a constant rate of mutation throughout human history and there may have been periods when it was higher or lower or virtually zero across humanity or among separate groups. We also don't know how much our  autosomal dna can influence y-dna or mt-dna. These are just a few of the questions and question marks. That mammoth gets bigger all the time.

Linking the age of haplogroups to evolutionary theories based on a so-called molecular clock is also highly speculative and problematic. They assume a certain age for when chimpanzees separated from humans that is totally based on arbitrariness and then they try to stretch the dna evidence to fit this timescale and the timescale of the theory of man's origin and coming out of Africa. In fact some genetic studies show that humans share more dna in common with pigs than with chimpanzees. These same evolution-based theories are then used and applied to archeological discoveries which then totally distort history and the movements of peoples. Instead of realising that the Beaker culture is the culture of the Gaels arriving in Europe from 300 BC and the Unetice culture is that of the Turkic-Bulgars arriving in central Europe from the 5th century AD until their Christianisation in the 9th century with the Iron-culture of the Romans in between, they back date them to a much too ancient time-frame.

Using the terms of Stone, Bronze and Iron age as a chronological measure is problematic as it is sometimes a level of technology but in others it is a question of age or environment. Iron rusts away more quickly than bronze or stone and it also rusts quicker in certain environments to others. Thus a civilization we call Bronze or Stone may have had iron or bronze but all traces of it has disappeared. Or we have those who live in a higher level of technology alongside those living in a more simple or primitive levels as we often see today.  

This also affects evidence based on the dna of ancient bodies. For example if one dates the Unetice culture to the 2nd millenium BC instead of 500-800 AD and finds a certain haplogroup such as I1a1 mt-dna among its dead, one then gets the false impression of the age of this subclade. Alot of these datings of cultures are based on the end of the Ice Age in Europe. The end of the Ice Age is believed by many evolutionists to have occurred 15,000 years ago rather than the 3500 years ago proposed by Velikovsky (my own dating is around 1350 BC). We don't even know if the Ice Age in Western Europe was the same one that wiped out the mammoths in Siberia or that it was some later ones we called the Little and Mini Ice Ages closer to our own times. We should always remember, that in many regards, in the areas of history and science we are in a realm of hypothesises, theories, speculations and story telling. In the end we must hold to that which most convinces us as the truth while remaining open to being wrong and that with further research we may all have to revise our understandings.

A recent study has demonstrated that the lactose tolerant gene was not found among the Leahite Yamna (R1b) cattle rearers but entered Europe through the Gaelic Beaker (R1b-L21) cattle milkers. While the study based on evolutionary datings of Yamna and Beaker cultures states that the gene was found in an individual who lived about 4,300 years ago -it was more like around 300 BC. These scientists also seem to be saying that white man only appeared 8,000 years ago. This is the time when great civilisations and technology arose after dark-skinned man supposedly had wandered around for 200,000 years doing nothing much but living as simple hunter and gatherers. This view would seem to feed racism and white supremacists ideas and reflect the ideas of the occultic theosophists.

Man would seem to have been created with the ability through natural selection to adapt to a wide range of environments (which may have been aided in the past by ancient genetic scientists). This is what some call micro-evolution for which there is a lot of evidence. Macro-evolution of one kind becoming another, as proposed by Darwinists, has very little to support it other than fanciful story-telling. It is equally ludicrous and ridiculous to think that man descends from an ape or chimpanzee type creature as it is from a pig or a pig-chimp creature as proposed by some evolutionist scientists.

For a few years the field of genetic research seemed to be challenging the stranglehold of the "Out of Africa" evolutionary views of the scientific atheist elites who control much of academia but once again we see a new control being used to interpret the evidence within the frame-work of this tired and manipulated system. Citizen-scientists were making rapid progress which the elites couldn't totally control but now they are trying to put back the shackles. We need the mammoth to burst open the room and lead us to a new academic, historical and scientific grassland of freedom.

No comments: