Posted on 06/20/2012 2:19:55 PM PDT by Renfield
Seven thousand five hundred fifty-six (7556) haplotypes of 46 subclades in 17 major haplogroups were considered in terms of their base (ancestral) haplotypes and timespans to their common ancestors, for the purposes of designing of time-balanced haplogroup tree. It was found that African haplogroup A (originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present) is very remote time-wise from all other haplogroups, which have a separate common ancestor, named β-haplogroup, and originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp. It includes a family of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp. A downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and β-haplogroup, coined the α-haplogroup emerged 160,000 ± 12,000 ybp. A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown; however, the most likely origin for each of them is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south. Haplogroup B is descended from β-haplogroup (and not from haplogroup A, from which it is very distant, and separated by as much as 123,000 years of “lateral” mutational evolution) likely migrated to Africa after 46,000 ybp. The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various haplogroups.
I thought that honor went to Australia, and he was a 7 footer too.
Sort of related here, but has anyone done the DNA testing to tell your ancestry? Is it legit, or something similar to naming a star after your kid/S
I don’t reject God’s word! I agreed that I had read the book (the Bible) and agreed with the Author...capitalized so you would know it was God who I believe authored the Bible.
To a saved person there can be no more wonderful book than that which gives us the words of our Savior.
I will pray for you because you know, eternity happens and where you spend it is up to you.
So before anyone starts flaming away, don’t expect a reply from me. For the truths of the Bible have been written in blood.
Worthless speculation. These studies are founded on the assumption that there was a uniform genome derived from a common ancestor, and that all the descendants of that common ancestor experienced a constant rate of genetic mutation over time, resulting in the variations between haplotypes that we see today. I’m not sure what to call that, but it certainly isn’t science.
>> has anyone done the DNA testing to tell your ancestry? Is it legit [?] <<
Very legit, although it should never be portrayed as a magic bullet to solve genealogical puzzles.
When it comes to the most common test, for the Y-chromosome (male only), potential participants need to be aware that some people never find matches. But for those who do — maybe 2/3 of tested men — it can be quite helpful, even powerful, if used wisely in conjunction with old-fashioned “paper” research.
Disclaimer: I have no relationship with them.
I call BS. How could they overlook the impact of SNP M70 pre-64(K)?
Well at least you’re honest enough to openly reject God’s absolute truth of His inspired word.
Good luck when you face God and his judgement
Yep, if they weren’t served up on local plates first.
Thought you two might be interested to know.
When it comes to science threads there are many posters here who ignore and belittle true believers but...
There is much science in support of the Bible most of which I’ve also encountered here at FreeRepublic. From my FR links page.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
Dinosaur Shocker - 68 million year old T Rex w/ red blood cells
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/10021606.html#ixzz0VZChRzSL
New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2565348/posts
Science in the Bible
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
Testimonies of Scientists Who Believe the Bible
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2761001/posts
YOU got it right!
E=MC2
Well, I respect your opinion but I think when man wrote the Bible, scientific knowledge was obviously lacking back then...and the 7 day creation etc was what men could accept as reasonable back in those times.
Clearly you lack the ability to grasp the Bible is God’s inspired Word written THROUGH men - i.e. God wrote the Bible perfectly.
That is one of the cornerstones of the Jewish-Christian faith.
That you reject that foundation clearly indicates you reject God.
Good luck with that plan.....just be honest and admit your godless bias upfront.
You can believe in God and think the 7 day creation is nonsense. Show me where the original Bible was sent down by God...it was written by man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.