The book “Traced” by Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a proponent of Young Earth Creationism (YEC), has sparked considerable discussion within both creationist and scientific communities. While aiming to provide a genetic basis for the YEC timeline, the book faces critical reviews highlighting significant inconsistencies, especially when considering the genetic data of Neanderthals and Denisovans in relation to the biblical Noah’s family tree. This critique delves into the core issues raised by these reviews, focusing on the genetic challenges posed by Neanderthals and Denisovans to the YEC interpretation of human history and the lineage stemming from Noah.
Critics like Dan Cardinale from Creation Myths YouTube channel and Herman Mays in his blog posts have pointed out fundamental flaws in Jeanson’s methodology and conclusions. One of the most prominent issues revolves around the placement of Neanderthals and Denisovans within the YEC framework, particularly concerning their Y-chromosome lineages. Answers in Genesis (AiG), a leading YEC organization, posits that Neanderthals and Denisovans are descendants of Adam and Eve, and subsequently of Noah’s family after the biblical flood. This perspective is illustrated in AiG’s articles explaining Neanderthals as fully human descendants of Adam and Eve.
A Neanderthal cranium, showcasing features often discussed in debates about human origins and their relationship to Noah’s family tree.
However, genetic studies of the Y chromosome reveal a stark contradiction. Research published on ResearchGate and the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) demonstrates that Neanderthal and Denisovan Y chromosomes diverged from modern human Y chromosomes significantly earlier than any existing human haplogroups. This deep divergence time challenges the YEC model, which compresses all human genetic diversity into a timeframe of approximately 6,000 years, with a bottleneck event at Noah’s three sons around 4,500 years ago.
A phylogenetic tree illustrating human Y-chromosome haplogroups, which helps to understand the genetic relationships and divergence times relevant to discussions around Noah’s family tree and human origins.
If Neanderthals and Denisovans are indeed post-flood descendants of Noah, as YEC suggests, their Y-chromosome lineages should be branches within the human Y-chromosome tree, originating after the flood bottleneck. Assigning Shem, Ham, and Japheth as progenitors of distinct human “species” or deeply diverged Y-chromosome lines simply doesn’t align with the biblical genealogies that trace known nationalities back to Noah’s sons. There are no additional sons in the biblical account to accommodate these ancient lineages.
The genetic evidence, therefore, strongly contradicts a YEC interpretation that attempts to fit Neanderthals and Denisovans into Noah’s family tree within a recent timeframe. Instead, the genetic data aligns more comfortably with the conventional evolutionary timescale, indicating a much older origin and divergence for these hominin groups. By attempting to provide a genetic framework for YEC, Jeanson’s “Traced” inadvertently highlights the profound genetic challenges that YEC faces, particularly concerning the integration of Neanderthal and Denisovan genetic history with the narrative of Noah’s Ark and its aftermath. This unresolved conflict may represent a significant challenge to the YEC model itself, exposing the inherent difficulties in reconciling genetic science with a literal interpretation of biblical genealogy and the story of Noah’s family tree.
