RE: [asa] Archaic inbreeding

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Mon Mar 12 2007 - 23:40:51 EDT

3-112-07 for Randy and Debbie Mann

I just got the Newsweek you speak of today but due to wrecking my little red
sports car, I haven't had much time tonight to look at it. Here is why it
almost has to be inbreeding. If all human nuclear genes arose 200,000 years
ago, then since we know the mutation rate, we should see no more mutations
in any genetic system than would be expected statistically to accumulate in
200,000 years. This would apply to all genes. If you take the known and
observed mutation rate and divide it into the number of mutations seen on
that gene in all humans, then the dates should come close to 200,000 years

But what they have (and what I have posted on since the late 1990s) is genes
which human populations have which have so many mutations that there is no
way all of them could have arisen withiin the 200,000 year time frame for
modern humans.

Here is what happened to the microcephalin gene. We have two very very
different types of these genes. If you try to make the normal mutation rate
give rise to these two very different families of the same gene, it would
require 1.8 million years worth of time for the two types to evolve. It
would be like having two sequences


There are 5 differences between these two strings. If on gets one mutation
every 200,000 years, it would take about 1 million years to give rise to
these two versions of the same gene. Now, that is infact too slow for
reality but it illustrates simply what is going on.

Now, Lets assume that the GGTGACTCAC is the predominate gene in the human
family and that it was the one which was the original anatomically modern
human gene, so most humans have this version with the accumulated mutations
since 200,000 years ago. But all lineages from the original GGTGACTCAC
sequence up to today are 200,000 years long so what you will find is that
each human differs from this ideal sequence by one mutation. Some people
have GGTGATTCAC and others have CGTGATTCAC and other have GGAGACTCAC etc.
But, every lineage has on average one difference. In such a case, where one
mutation is every 200,000 years, you know that the coalescence time of this
gene is 200,000 years and all people carrying members of this family derive
from a single parent about 200,000 years ago.

But, now, some few people, in the former region of the Neanderthals, have
the first sequence. AGTGTCCCAG and those who have this sequence all have the
identical sequence! There are very few members of this family of sequences,
they are almost all the same. Given the rate of mutation, you know that this
gene's age is less than 200,000. (In reality there will always be some
mutations, even in a 40,000 year lineage from the interbreeding event but
one can calculate statistically how many there should be for x number of
40,000 year long lineages and it will a darn sight fewer than for a lot of
200,000 year long lineages. )

We know that the AGTGTCCAG sequence didn't come from the original
anatomically modern humans 200,000 years ago, because the sequence would
require much more time to accumulate the differences it has from the
standard human gene. That means that the gene had to evolve in another
lineage and then somehow enter the lineage leading to us. The fact that
the AGTGTCCCAG sequence has so many fewer mutations in modenrn humans, means
that it didn't originate 200,000 years ago, or some of those lineages would
show a similar statistical family pattern as does the GGTGACTCAC sequence.
So the question is, how did we get it?

The easiest answer is interbreeding. I only know of ONE anthropologists who
denies interbreeding between us and the archaics (regardless of what
Newsweek says). I do know some who say the added genes were lost, but that
is mere assumption on their part.

Could the AGTGTCCCAG sequence be an old, relict sequence? Yes, but the
chances of that are quite small because it had to have declined to merely
one case on earth about 40,000 years ago before re-expanding. Could that
happen? Yes, but once again the odds are slight. The simplest answer is
that this, like the melanocortin-1 gene, blue eyes and the genes that
protect Europeans from frostbite all came to us via the Neanderthals.

The melanocortin 1 gene (red headed gene) comes from Europe, is only found
in the former territory of the Neanderthals and arose 100kyr ago when there
were no out of Africa people in Europe. The gene is not found in Africa so
it couldn't come with the invaders, thus strongly suggesting it came from

Blue eyes allow a person to see in darker, redder lights. Something not
needed in Africa but much needed in the northern parts of Europe where
twilight is most of the night. Many think Neanderthals gave us this gene as
well, as it too is only found in the former territory of the N's.

In the Korean war, blondes were found to be better able to handle frostbite
than redheads, who were better able to handle the cold than brunettes, who
were better at it than African Americans, who suffered terribly from the
cold. If you think about this, it makes some sense given that the
Neanderthals lived in Europe during the time when the coldest weather was
there. They lived in these cold extremes for 200,000 years and would have
adapted to it biologically. Then if we interbred with them, we would have
acquired some of their genes for frostbite protection.

The problem with rags like newsweek is that they say things but don't have
to actually deal with the details of the evidence as I outlined it above

bTW the microcephalin gene, which I spoke of the other day, and explained
its genetics above, is involved in making the cranium larger. Any guesses
as to which hominid had the largest craniums both on average and in absolute
value? Yep, that's right, the Neanderthals (their skulls are bigger by
about 300 cc than ours), and this gene seems to have jumped into modern
populations about the time that anatomically modern people were first moving
into europe. I strongly suspect that the our African invader ancestors
didn't get it from eating the local breakfast cereal.

One more thing. With the Microcephalin gene, if, as you suggest, it is due
to common ancestry, then the common ancestor is 1.8 million years ago, and
that would fit MY view, not the view of most here who desperately want not
to believe that humanity is that old. (after all, as was pointed out
tonight, all I offer is imaginary scenarios). But at least my imaginary
scenario can actually explain the evidence either way it goes. If it is
common ancestry, then humanity is at least 1.8 million years old. If it is
interbreeding, then, humanity is at least the age of the common splite
between neanderthals and humans--why? Because interbreeding proves that we
are the same species. (I have other genes to show that the earliest one can
have a genetic bottle neck (2 people) is 5.5 million years ago, see my web
page cited above), but of course, that would lead one to believe imaginary
scenarios so we must, therefore deny the evidence and act like it doesn't
exist--which is what we Christians do oh so well. The YECs taught us well.

For debbie mann:

>Was the information about an original Adam throught he singal Y chromosome,
and previously about the original Eve
> discreditied? I assume some of you are aware of it, since it was in
Reader's Digest and other general populace works.

The problem is that people confused the history of one gene as being the
history of the population. The popular press has not helped in this regard.
Every gene has its own unique age. Even if the Y chromosome is of a certain
age, it doesn't mean that all humans are that age.If other genes show an
older age, then humanity is older. The plain fact is that humans can't be
younger than the oldest genetic system we possess. The oldest genetic system
I have found is , yeah, that age George finds so embarrassing, 5.5 million
years. But these genes didn't arise in merely 200,000 years. There are too
many mutations.

green opsin >5,500,000 Ayala et al, 1994
HERVs ~5,000,000 Johnson and Coffin 1999

Johnson, Welkin E. and Jon M. Coffin, 1999 "Constructing Primate Phylogenies
from Ancient Retrovirus Sequences," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA,

Ayala, Francisco J., Ananias Escalante, Colm O'hUigin, and Jan Klein,
"Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins," Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sciences, USA, Vo. 91:6787-6794.

They're Here: The Pathway Papers
Foundation, Fall, and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of Randy Isaac
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:36 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [asa] Archaic inbreeding
> The current issue of Newsweek that hit the newsstands has a
> cover article on
> "The Evolution Revolution." The feature article, available online at
> , talks about DNA
> tracking of human origins. The message of the article seems
> to be that all
> the hominids discovered outside of Africa are actually
> dead-end evolution
> paths. They cite work indicating an originating population of
> modern humans
> as being 2,000 males (and presumably a comparable number of
> females) around
> 89,000 years ago in Africa. All others died out.
> Glenn, you've often cited hominid like evidence from millions
> of years ago
> around the world. That seems pretty clear. Isn't it possible
> though that all
> these lines died out? I'm not sure I understand all the
> evidences you cite
> but couldn't the genetic data you cited be a result of a
> common ancestor and
> not necessarily of interbreeding?
> Randy
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 12 23:41:47 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 12 2007 - 23:41:47 EDT