Average Pairwise mtDNA Difference Validates YEC & Falsifies Evolution

The original study idea came from YEC Dr. Jeanson. He took the data from the mtDNA databases and calculated the number of changes in nucleotides (single base pairs) that should have arisen in both the African genome and the average person's genome since Noah’s flood. 

The highest number of pairwise mtDNA differences on record comes from a comparison of 7,098 mtDNA genomes (Kim and Schuster 2013) who reported a maximum mtDNA difference of ~123. The average was prair wise difference was ~77 Ingman et al. 2000

Dr. Jeanson used a rate of mtDNA mutations from European and Asian populations while assuming that African populations also had the same rate of mutation. Using even an average generation time of 22 years, the evolutionary model would expect 1,439 to find nucleotides of diversity in humans today. This number is not even close to what we observe, at just  123. Even using a lower rate of mutation and a generation time of 30 years, evolutionists would expect a minimum of 954 nucleotides of diversity. Yet again the maximum that we actually observe is just 123. 

Now, here comes the issue with Dr. Jeansons original study and how I easily resolved it in my own. You see, Jeanson had to reduce the generation time to 15 years to make the numbers fit his model and make work. Meaning, using maximum divergence rate and a required unending chain of 291 generations in a subset of African lineage in which the mother in each generation must have been born when her mother was 15 years old had to occur. This is very low, and the critics of YEC have a huge problem with this. 

Therefore they will be pleased to know that I am not bound to AIG, as Dr. Jeanson is. Meaning, I am not bound to only using the King James Version of the Bible to use as my only standard for Biblical dates and ages. I use the Greek Septuigent, which predates the Masoretic text by hundreds of years and it corroborates the dates of Creation and the flood with other ancient Biblical sources. Not to mention that when they discovered the Dead Sea scrolls they also agreed with the Septuigent, not the Masoretic. Also it was the Septuigent that the Apostles read from and even Jesus himself. So I believe, if the dates were wrong, I would think they would have noticed. Therefore I feel that the dates in the Septuigent are the correct ones based on their parsimony with all other Biblical and non-Biblical historical texts. Even though I believe the KJV is more valid overall, regarding the dates, they are not. 

Dr. Jeanson used the empirical mutation rate using the whole genome mtDNA mutation rates that were calculated from the raw data in the published literature from Ding et al (2015). That study was used to calculate a mtDNA mutation rate. Amazingly when the resultant rate was finalized, it was virtually identical to the calculated mutation rate for the D-loop.


Since the D-loop region is much smaller, calculations are much easier. Therefore rather than work with the entire mitochondria 16,569 base pairs, we will use the small 1,124 base pair D-loop (control Region).

Taken directly from the Ding et al study, Dr Jeansons mutation rate calculation conclusion was 9.55×10^−6 or 0.0063 per site per year.

An anti-creation critic named Evograd complained in a blog he made trying to say that “Jeanson claims that Stoneking’s 2016 article supports his mutation rate is directly based on the data from Soares et al (2009), which is mutation rate data that explicitly disagrees with Jeanson’s mutation rate. Soares et al. estimated the mtDNA mutation rate to be about 35-70x slower than the figure Jeanson is using.”

First off, Soares et al was not even cited in the study even once. But now I want you to notice the wording that the critic uses? “Estimates”, he says. The Soares study was a phylogeny based study trying to prove evolution. So of course they estimated a pedigree rate because they didn't even perform one.

Stoneking’s 2016 was a pedigree study! They directly looked at 246 families representing 228 trios, Completely different!!! and Stoneking did NOT get his data directly from Soares. 

Remember when Jeanson said Stoneking’s study agreed with his? 

Remember Jeanson’s rate?

 That's right, it was 9.55 x 10_6, now what was this study?

 Basically Identical. That of the D-loop was 1.5 × 10_6 mutations per site per generation. Exactly what Jeanson said.

If you look at the same table from the Ding study, not the Soares phylogenetic study like Evograd is accusing Jeanson of. So to say that this argument invalidates Jeansons rate results doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In fact, sticking to just homoplasmic mutations is the most scientifically conservative approach to this question, and these are the rates we use in making predictions that take mtDNA Eve back to 6,000 years. 

This study result using Jeansons mutation rate validates that his mutation rate obtained from Ding et al (which assumed that many of the somatic mutations were actually germline) vindicates with high probability that he was accurate in this assessment. There is also congruency between multiple studies now that tell us clearly the mutation rate is fast and the D-loop matches the entire mitochondrial mutation rate. 

Even the critic Evograd begrudgingly admitted that this rate matches both the empirical mutation rate of both mtDNA and the D-Loop...

And yes...

My mutation rate chart using the Septuagint dates  

As you can see in my study, a 20 year generation time clearly fits the data well without having to reduce to a continual 15 year generation time like Dr. Jeanson did using the Masoretic text.

Also notice Using a variety of generation times, a 9–22 nucleotide difference could easily have been produced in the ~2,256 years from Creation to the Flood. A 20 year generation time which easily encompasses the 2–8 nucleotide pre-Flood branch length.

The matter of fact, even using the average mutation rate with a generation time of 18 brings the results close to what is required. 

Yet with mine, you can see 79 was easily reached, even when looking at the lower limit of mutation rate averages with a generation time of 20 years, it almost captures it. So clearly the evidence is more compatible with the Septuigent. I confirm this with my other study looking at De Novo mutation rates and comparing it to the Septuigent generation times. 

By contrast, the evolutionary model puts the origin of African ethnic groups first, and dates this event at ~200,000 years ago (Gomez, Hirbo, and Tishkoff 2014). This is a significant problem for evolutionists because of their 200,000-year timescale. mtDNA sequences from even more individuals from a variety of ethnic groups to identify the maximum pairwise DNA difference. The highest divergence (117 nucleotides) resulted from a comparison, not between two Africans, but between an African San individual and an Asian Taiwanese Aborigine.

Math was done by using a divergence calculation (differences=mutation rate*time*2) rather than a coalescence calculation (differences=mutation rate*time) to predict the maximum possible DNA differences arising in the time elapsed since the Flood. Multiplying 5,319 years by the upper end of the 95% confidence interval of the mtDNA mutation rate (e.g., 0.197 mutations per generation), and then converting the mutation rate to mutations per year, demonstrated that 105 nucleotide differences could have easily arisen since the Flood, assuming a generation time of 20 years, not 15 like Dr. Jeanson. 

Below is Jeansons chart, you can see...

Remember the Max 123 mtDNA difference was found in a San’s individual. My model shows there was an abundant margin to account for these differences (even using a much higher generation time) unlike Jeansons chart above. The Septuigent dates are more in conjunction with the average generational times we see today.

Comparing the evolutionary prediction to YEC predictions as well as to the maximum number of reported mtDNA differences (Kim and Schuster 2013) demonstrated that YEC conclusions still held true regardless of which ethnic groups were compared (Table. 2). The YEC predictions were successful under both short and long generation times. In short, the evolutionary model predicted a minimum number of differences nearly six times higher than the maximum number of mtDNA differences present today. By contrast, the YEC model exactly captured the full spectrum of mtDNA differences observable today (Table. 2). These results demonstrated the scientific robustness of the YEC model and intensified the explanatory challenge for the evolutionary timescale. By Multiplying a long generation time (30 years) by the slowest end of the 95% confidence interval for the mtDNA mutation rate (i.e., this represented a coalescence calculation, the calculation most generous to the evolutionary model) yielded the minimum number of mtDNA mutations that would have accumulated on the evolutionary timescale.

For the evolutionary model to be anywhere close to true, their minimum nucleotide differences using the fast mutation rate should give results around ours at 213 differences. Instead the minimum they can obtain is that of just 954. Let alone the average differences which places then at 1,439 in humans, given a generation time of 22 years.  

Furthermore, the statistical averages for the mutation rate (e.g., 0.158 mutations per generation) and generation times (a generation time of 25 years) using the Septuigent dates easily captured the average genome-wide diversity in mtDNA (~77 nucleotides; average from Ingman et al. 2000). 

Dr. Jeanson didn't just have a problem with maximum diversity in the African San’s people, but he also had a problem with even accounting for the average DNA difference of ~77 nucleotides. Since Dr. Jeanson holds to the Masoretic texts, placing the flood at 4,356 years ago, he is committed to this generation time. For him to reach the difference of 79 nucleotides, an unbroken chain of generation times of 15 years over 290 generations had to be used just to obtain the average African diversity 

This is theoretically possible since we still see this practice today in many parts of Africa. The matter of fact if you think I am trying to falsify Jeanson you would be wrong, I actually help confirm his predictions in a video here = https://youtu.be/Gp8eGnkT5RE 

I however feel that my model using Septuigent dates is superior, as it doesn't have to invoke such a low birthrate age. However, it is not hard to defend Jeansons work when we literally see this taking place today.

Next, Let’s take a look at mtDNA diversity from Creation in (Year 7,574 years ago in Septuigent) v.s. mtDNA diversity of the evolutionary model of 50,000 years.

First, another YEC prediction. 

Now, Evolution diversity over 50,000 years (Note; Should expect somewhere around 123 diversity) 

As you can see, using the lowest end of the mutation rate is still not in favor of evolution. A minimum of 477 nucleotide differences could be obtained which is 354 over the maximum diversity we see in the world today. Not looking too good for evolution is it?


Most important of all is when we look at the evolutionary model requirements with these mtDNA pedigree studies. Nothing even remotely close to the reality we see. This is why they deny the observable empirical mutation rate and hold to the evolutionary assumption phylogeny method.

At a minimum, this data should force the evolutionists to acknowledge that their conclusions about the relative timing of the various people groups stand only under the assumptions of equivalent generation times across ethnic groups. The evolutionary model still predicts human mtDNA differences far in excess of the actual number (Table. 2). Since the archaeological and paleontological basis for the evolutionary model relies on the assumption of constant rates of change in geological and geophysical processes (e.g., carbon-14 dating), and since these genetic predictions also assumed constant rates of change, the evolutionary model faces a serious scientific conundrum.

In my past study I also confirm that the Septuigent aligns more with the scientific evidence with my “Rate of De Novo Mutations on Antediluvian Patriarchs” study (see below).  

Also, with the statistical averages for the mutation rate (e.g., 0.158 mutations per generation) and generation times (e.g., a generation time of 25 years) predicted and confirmed the average genome-wide diversity in mtDNA of (e.g., ~77 Ingman et al. 2000). Calculations were done by Multiple 5,318 years by average confidence interval mutation rate (0.158 mu per generation), and then converting the mutation rate to mutations per year.

As you can see, my model was able to obtain both the average and maximum diversity easily, without resorting to the upper 95% confidence interval mutation rate nor lowering the age of a generation time whatsoever. 

Critics also do not like Dr Jeansons mutation rate, yet it corroborates closely with other secular peer reviewed mutation rates including the mutation rate of the control religion aka D-loop . The critics just point to the fact that Jeanson said this...

Meaning, until pedigree trials are done for the Ding study, we will not know be certain if these mutations were somatic (Not passed on) or germline (inherited). However, Howell and Parsons both made it clear that newly arising mutations that appeared to be somatic, were actually passed on through the germline. Contrary to what was expected and what critics say Jeanson should not have counted!

It seems clear that Jeanson was correct in his assumption. Also, if it was not correct then what are the odds that the evidence lines up so well with our model and predictions made to test its validity? Yet these results are so far off from what evolution requires that there is no good rescue device to save them. 

Even if one were to use the slowest empirical pedigree mutation rate, they would get no where near what is required for the evolutionary model to be true. Mutation rates are evolution's death blow. This is why they fight against them so hard and invented the phylogenetic method to begin with.


Differential generation time data and a constant rate of mtDNA mutation are sufficient to explain human mtDNA diversity on the YEC timescale across all ethnic groups. These results potentially unify the YEC model of human genetic origins, and they intensify the explanatory challenge for the evolutionary model.

 Now ask yourself “Why is it that when testing the entire mitochondrial DNA, or any of the 37 individual genes in the mtDNA, or the individual sections of the mtDNA like the D-loop region or CO1 fragment, or when testing Somatic mutations, or microsatellite mutations... No matter if the study is a diad or triad, or even when counting substitution rates. No matter where you look or what you test, all of them give similar results and confirm each other”.

Here were 8 reasons why Jeanson did not include other mutation rate studies in greater detail in his book...

1:) There is already agreement between two mtDNA mutation rate sets that exist.

The first set only looks at the D-loop (coding region) which is germine. This gave a mutation rate of 1X10-5 (per generation). The second set looks at the entire mitochondrial genome and Jeanson took at that data and it came out the same as the D-loop results. 

2:) Jeanson also took into consideration Mark Stoneking’s lab’s 2016 mutation rate which looked at the human mitochondrial germline transmission bottleneck, which can be used as an indirect measure of mutation rates, and even still he found a similar overall mutation rate as the others. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817766/ 

 3:) He used this mutation rate to predict the transatlantic slave trade, because our model says that man is not of African Origins. So if they mutate faster then that will disprove L1 root while at the same time vindicate Biblical Creation.

4:) Since Jeanson has gone through multiple other species mutation rates and the answer is always the same, across multiple independent datasets rates are all the same. So he is safe to assume we are looking at the germline.

5:) Diad v.s. Triad results have already been performed for autosomal mutation rates as well and there's very little difference in results between the two. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31549960 

6:) If you have a problem with Jeansons section in the book, you actually have a problem with the world's leading science journals which still publish results from dyad studies confirming Jeansons mutation rate.

7:) Why do mitochondrial DNA clocks point towards a young-earth and reject a millions-of-years timescale for every other species in which the mitochondrial DNA mutation rate has been measured? Please note: In the fruit fly, roundworm, water flea, and yeast mitochondrial mutation rate studies, the rates were measured in mutation accumulation lines--in other words, over several generations of genealogically-related individuals. Almost by definition, these studies measure germline mutations--not somatic ones. Why do all of these studies agree so strongly?

8:) Jeanson made a specific future novel prediction in his book. This was that “the most diverse African groups will be found to mutate their mtDNA at a rate ~2-fold faster than reported here (e.g., at 0.2 to 0.3 mutations per genome per generation rather than 0.16 mutations per genome per generation).”That was taken directly from his work. Now if this is true, let’s run the number’s for him to show what this would look like. 

This chart captures the max diversity in the African population using an average generation time of 25 years. As you can see, the numbers fit much better with a modern day generation time of between 22-33 years of age. 

9:) Jeanson said “If the rate he cited from Ding's data is invalid, why does it agree with the 7+ studies that have been published previously? Why is there such strong scientific consistency across multiple independent scientific studies?”

I believe these 7 studies below are what Jeanson is referring too...

Lorena Madrigal et al 2012 who observed a minimum estimate of the observed mutation rate of 2/220 = 0.0091 mutations per site per generation. Accordingly, the divergence rate became = 1.78 × 10−6 per year. Our divergence rate is then = 5.02 × 10−6 substitutions per site per year. Our maximum estimate, 2.51 × 10−6 is very close to the value of Parsons et al., 1997. 25.3 × 10−6 substitutions per site per generation, and 0.89 × 10−6 substitutions per year. Accordingly, the divergence rate became = 1.78 × 10−6 per year. Mutation rate in the Costa Rican population of Atenas has 95% probability to fall between 0.27 and 3.17 × 10−6 substitutions per site per year. Even our minimum estimate is a still high 0.92 per site per million years. 

Mumm et al obtained 1.51 Divergence Rate this is 0.0066 mutations per year. Using a 22.5 year generation time, this equals 0.0075 mutations per year (95% CI upper 11.71, lower 0.0033)

Narasimhan et al 2017 obtained a single-nucleotide mutation rate of 1.45 × 10−8 per bp per generation. a non-crossover gene conversion rate of 8.75 ± 0.05 × 10−6 per bp per generation.

Evelyne Heyer’s pedigree mutation rate gave 4 substitutions in 508 meiosis. The per-site mutation-rate estimates calculated separately for HVI and HVII segments have the same value.  For the HVI sequences, we obtained 220 generations or 6,600 years, and for the HVII sequences 275 generations or 8,250 years given a generation age of 30 years old. Considering these pedigree’s were European and have an average to slow mutation rate, this is just more conclusive evidence of YEC and fast mutation rate’s clocks that falsify evolutionism. "This result additionally validates our estimate of ∼250 generations as an average time depth since expansion in our sample of the European HVI and HVII sequences analyzed separately above (see table 3). Our approach therefore appears to be valuable in dating past human expansions."

Bendall et al obtained 4 mutations after 360 generations or 1 every 90 (same as Howell 2003)."we calculated that the rate of mutation and fixation in the first hypervariable segment of the human mtDNA control region is between 1.2 x 10(-6) and 2.7 x 10(-5) per site per generation. This range is in good agreement with published estimates calculated by other methods." This works out to be 1.95 per site per generation or 0.0078 (25 year generation) with sampling error of 0.0056. 

Parsons et al obtained 0.028 per segment per year, identical to Elena Jazin et al at 0.028. And nearly identical to Howell et al at 0.025 and Madrigal et al 0.026.

For those that do like Parsons nor his findings and wish to refute him, please read his response to us first.

Clearly this many similarities from different studies show that the mutation rate is fast and they clearly falsify evolution. But here is the thing, can testable predictions be made? Yes, clearly they can and the critic really should ask themselves “why do rates portray a YEC timeline?”. Why is it that we always find the MRCA of all humans just a few hundred generations ago if evolution is true? The answer should be obvious. 

1992, 1996 Lundstorm & Howell obtained 350 generations ago 
1997 Soodyal et al obtained 432 max generations ago
1997 Parsons et al obtain 392.4 generations ago 
1998/1999 Parsons and Holland obtained 367.2 generations ago 
 2001 Heyer et al 247.5 generations ago to japheth’s wife
2003 Neil Howell & Christy Smejkal obtained 504 generations ago
2004 D. Rohde, S. Olson & T. Chang et al obtained 4,178 - 7,373 years
2014 Lorena Madrigal obtained 6,400-6,700 years
2015 Jeanson et al obtained 6,000 years. 
Range = 4,178-10,080 years 
All using observed rates with non-assumed human/chimp ancestry.
Using Assumed Human/Chimp Ancestry, look at the estimates...
1991 L. Vigilant et al obtained 166,000+/-55,000 years
1992 Stoneking & Sherry ST et al obtained 133,000 - 137,000 years
1995 Horal & Hayaska et al obtained 143,000+/- 18,000 years
2004 Luo et al obtained 72,000 - 108,000 years
2012 Scally & Durbin et al obtained 250,000 - 300,000 years
2013 Qiaomei Fu et al obtained 157,000+/- 40,000 years
2019 Daniel Richter et al Obtained 286,000 years +/-32,000 years 
Range = 72,000-300,000 years that's a 228,000 year difference.

For those critics who say Selection is the answer to these differences...

For those who use heterogeneity as a rescue device...

 But if this is not bad enough, linguistics, mathematics, writing systems, population growth curve, genealogies, and overall civilization points to having arisen in the last 5,000 years, all confirm the YEC model. 

As I said above briefly, we also have genealogical records that if we follow back a single family line of royal blood going back to the oldest in history, what do we find? Well below is the British Kings list which shows an unbroken royalty lineage going all the way back to Adam himself. 

Remember, blood lines are very important and always have been. Today we can prove relation through genetics, but before that, it was all in the details written down. This list goes through the ancestors of Queen Elizabeth II of England and goes back through the kings of Wessex to one Sceaf, “a son of Noah born in the Ark,” and then to father Adam. The original text is on display in the British museum of History and dated as authentic. So evidence in genealogy also validates these mutation rates and YEC. 

But this is not the only genealogical discovery, others have been found as well. One of these traces through Irish royalty back to one Tamar Tephi, a daughter of King Zedekiah, who was king of Judah when Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. Another traces back through one Anna, a daughter of Joseph of Arimathea, who was a kinsman of Christ and the one who provided the Savior’s burial place. There are also others.


Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published