"Many men will have no sons (or grandsons, etc.), so many branches get ‘pruned’ quickly. Still, over the past several thousand years,
When first learning about the Table of Nations, many people conclude that Japheth settled Europe, Ham settled Africa, and Shem stuck around in the Middle East.
Problem is, this is entirely wrong! In fact, this myopic view is not only contrary to what the Bible actually says, but it was used to foster the outdated and racist idea that there are three primary people groups: the Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid. This is not what genetics is telling us, and it is not what the Bible says. Instead, the Table of Nations shows a complex pattern of migration, with the descendants of the three sons of Noah overlapping across most of their range.
A more realistic map based on the Table of Nations. Descendants of
Ham (green) lived in North Africa, but also in Anatolia, Canaan, Mesopotamia, and Arabia, and on the island of Crete. Descendants of Shem (blue) lived in Anatolia, Canaan, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persia. Descendants of Japheth (red) lived in Anatolia and Persia, and on the islands of Rhodes and Cyprus.
A more realistic map based on the Table of Nations. Descendants of
These are just the descendants that are easy to place. There is almost complete overlap among the descendants of the three sons of Noah, but the outlines are highly approximate. Further historical movements would only have continued to blend the lines.
Think about it: descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth settled in Anatolia (modern day Turkey). This was the source population for the initial farming community of Europe. Who, then, settled Europe? Consider also that Nimrod, a descendant of Ham, founded multiple cities in Mesopotamia. Who, then, settled these regions? It was not just the descendants of Shem!
As we study the data, we realize that human history is a lot more complicated than most people think.
Think about it: descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth settled in Anatolia (modern day Turkey). This was the source population for the initial farming community of Europe. Who, then, settled Europe? Consider also that Nimrod, a descendant of Ham, founded multiple cities in Mesopotamia. Who, then, settled these regions? It was not just the descendants of Shem!
As we study the data, we realize that human history is a lot more complicated than most people think.
Shem, Ham & Japheth could have had identical Y chromosomes
If there was little mutation prior to the Flood, the three sons of Noah could have had identical Y chromosomes. If so, all the diversity we see arose in the post-Flood world. There would not be “three” founding branches, there would only be “one”.
Even if there was mutation prior to the Flood, the three brothers could still have had identical Y chromosomes. In the testes, males carry multiple spermatogonial cell lines. These lines reproduce clonally and can change in relative abundance over time. It is possible that one of Noah’s lines had zero mutations but another had several. It is also possible that all of Noah’s cell lines contained mutations. Among Noah’s sons, if all three brothers inherited the Y chromosome from the same cell line, we are back to having only one Y chromosome after the Flood.
Interestingly, if they all inherited a Y chromosome from the same cell line, we would have no way of knowing the sequence of Noah’s Y chromosome. We would only know the Y chromosome lineage that was inherited by the sons. That lineage could have carried many mutations, so there is no real way to really know the sequence of “Y chromosome Noah”.
Shem, Ham & Japheth could have carried two versions of the Y chromosome among them
Alternatively, two brothers could have inherited a Y chromosome from the same spermatogonial cell line while the third brother inherited the Y from a different line. This would give us two branches, not three, and there is nothing to prevent this from happening.
Shem, Ham & Japheth could have had different Y chromosomes
A third possibility is that Shem, Ham, and Japheth each carried a different Y chromosome. This is certainly possible, but these could have been very similar or vastly different. We do not have a way of estimating how long those early ‘branches’ in the tree should be, and two of the lines could be closer to each other than they are to the third.
Long-branch attraction could have created spurious links among separate lineages
Speaking of computer programs, there is a strange and well-known phenomenon that happens when you use them to draw phylogenetic trees of distantly related organisms. It is called ‘long branch attraction’. Given a high enough mutation load, parallel mutations are bound to arise independently in different lineages. In such a case, individuals with different histories will be joined together on the same branch.
If mutations are not random or if there are not many survivable places for mutation to occur, parallel mutations are more likely. I can attest that there are multiple places in the data file where parallel mutations appear. The computer program I used had to make some educated guesses to draw that tree. Thus, even when we see different branches, we cannot be 100% certain that they arose independently.
Patriarchal drive could have created a bird’s nest of relationships
It is known that older men tend to produce children with higher mutation loads. The Biblical Patriarchs also lived to very old ages (Genesis 5 and 11). Thus, there is a very real possibility that children born to them later in life would have many times more mutations than children born to those same men when they were much younger. I call this phenomenon Patriarchal Drive."
It is known that older men tend to produce children with higher mutation loads. The Biblical Patriarchs also lived to very old ages (Genesis 5 and 11). Thus, there is a very real possibility that children born to them later in life would have many times more mutations than children born to those same men when they were much younger. I call this phenomenon Patriarchal Drive."
CMI
