Talk:DNA and Babel
The main thrust of this article is that the study is based on an arbitrary assumption of African origin. This is totally false. For example:
"They show it starting in Namibia, in Africa, based entirely on an Evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record" and "in fact the evolutionists that did it probably do not realize that starting in Namibia is an arbitrary assumption"
Yet the project authors themselves describe genetic data which suggest an African origin:
The Haplogroup R lineage ultimately traces all the way back to marker M168. "Every non-African has M168, which appeared in eastern Africa around 60,000 years ago," Wells said.
As well as fossil evidence there are also biogeographical and ecological reasons for suggesting humanity's origins were in Africa, as described by Darwin et al long before the fossil discoveries. The selection of Africa as an origin is not arbitrary, and to claim that it is arbitrary is dishonest.
The other major problem with your article is that the descent trees presented are not consistent with those in the original article. Whoever produced them has done so by disregarding the data inherent in the National Geographic trees and arbitrarily reassigning branches without knowing what they are doing. For example, the National Geographic Y-chromosome tree shows that everyone with mutations at M9 or M201 have the same state for M89, but in the tree here they have different states; thus the trees given here are simply incorrect.
Roy 13:13, 4 May 2005 (GMT)
I wish the article was not so confusing. Should we be researching the Human Y-chromosome and be specific in naming the identity of the DNA haplogroups (for Noah: Japheth, Shem, Ham) --Anaccuratesource 13:08, 4 January 2011 (PST)
I don't understand genetics. What are people's thoughts on this site? -(http://familjenbostrom.se/genealogi/dna/dna_table_of_nations.htm)