Presentación Del Invitado Y Sus Libros

SPEAKER_02 0:24

Candile, theatre spectacle, confestability.

SPEAKER_01 0:39

We're back, and we're back for this special interview that we have every Friday night. I must remember this is a fair act to tell that of course we are finishing, we are ending up our programs from Monday to Thursday with first hand persons, first level persons in areas like uh psychology, economics, literature, etc. But you know that it's very close to my heart, this interview at Friday night, because we invite always very, very special people. Sometimes these special people are people who are known over all the world. Is this director who won the Oscar? Is this person who is uh well singing opera over all the world, etc.? They are very well known in the whole planet. In other times, other times we had people who are very well known in their countries, but they are known only in Peru, only in Spain, only in Argentina, only in Mexico. And we want that these persons be known in other parts of the planet. And of course, we have also persons who are very well known in some regions, in some province, but not even in the whole country where they were born. Tonight we have a very, very special person. And I must tell you that he's one of my discoveries of this year, and it was an incredible discovery. It was, well, probably, probably uh uh an unexpected discovery because I discovered a book whose title is They Had Names Tracing the History of the North American Indigenous People. And I was amazed when I see how the archaeology is plus the study of the DNA, uh incredible instrument to have the history, to trace the history of cultures and peoples and civilizations. I I fall in love with this book. And after this, I began to look for other books of the same author. The second was Trace, Human DNA's big surprise, and this is a better book than the first one, and at last I discovered a third one replacing Darwin, the new origin of species. I was totally surprised because the author is a very jam man, but he's a very jam man who received his B.S. in molecular biology and bioinformatics from the University of Wisconsin, Barside, and also he has a PhD, his doctor in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University. So that this is not a kind of fool on the hill. No, he's he's a real scholar, and I think that his studies are really serious, really deep, and and really amazing. I want to introduce you, Dr. Nathaniel T. Jinson. Dr. Jinson, very welcome. Thank you so much, Dr. Vidal. Well, first question, and this uh answers my curiosity. How how did you decide uh to start to work in this area? Why did you start in this area? This this investigation referring to DNA, the archaeology, the relationship with history?

SPEAKER_00 4:37

It was a 15-year process, but the the highlights very briefly were in 2009, after I graduated with my PhD, I joined the Institute for Creation Research, and I was tasked with developing a biology research program. In my mind, step number one was to find the questions to answer with research. And so the answer that came to me in terms of what questions to ask would were were Darwin's main questions. What's the origin of species? And step two, then of course, is to find the tools. 2009, we already had thousands of species with DNA sequences in public databases. So I thought DNA is a great tool to understand the it really it's the only direct answer to a species ancestry. And it also addresses the timing of species origin, it addresses how species originate. So that's what got me started in DNA and the question of the origin of species. And about six or seven years in, just based on the sheer amount of DNA data, uh I tended to focus a little bit more on the human question. For example, in the United States, there's, at least there was,$45 billion annually going to human research through the National Institutes of Health, health, of course, being human health. And so there are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of DNA sequences from humans in the public databases. And so I began to shift around 2015 to focus more heavily on the human origin question, which of course that was Darwin's second major book. 1859 was The Origin of Species, 1871 was uh The Descent of Man. And that was originally a global human history question. That's what led to the book Traced. So replacing Darwin was a general origin of species question, 2017. Traced was 2022 on the on the human history question, the genetics of human history. And then I focused on North American history just to sort of advance the research and traced one step further. It was just for a variety of technical reasons and other reasons, easier to start closer to home. And the next phase that I'm looking at is Latin American history, likely Central American history, next book for 2027, 2028, and then hopefully the history of the Amazon, which I've already got that project going, and I hope to have something written on that in the future as well.

SPEAKER_01 6:51

Um uh Dr. Jensen, uh how does DNA shed light on humanity's past? How is this possible? Because people listening to this interview, I think, is going to discover that uh we can use weapons, instruments like the DNA analyze to to go deeper in humanity's past. But how does DNA shed light on humanity's past?

SPEAKER_00 7:25

I'll start with something that's likely familiar to many people just because the popularity of this. Uh genetic testing has now become fairly mainstream. You've got companies in the United States like Ancestry DNA, family tree DNA, 23andMe. There's there's many, many users now in the United States, and I think this has gone global as well, that want to know their history, their ethnicity, who were my ancestors. Well, one of the secrets of these companies is the typical DNA test only tells you probably who your grandparents were. So you pay in the United States, for example,$100 and you only learn what you already know from your family tree. But the point being, DNA is passed on from parents to offspring, and so it contains a record of someone's ancestry, and then therefore, if you if you apply that principle globally to their history. And the the biological principle that applies is each of us are a product of both parents. So I have information from both sides of my family tree in me, in my body, in my cells, in my DNA. Same thing holds true for my parents. They have a record of their parents, and so there's this chain of events then we can trace backwards in time, my parents, their parents, their parents, and so forth. And with specific types of DNA tools, like the Y chromosome, for example, that's the male inherited DNA. It's only about 1% of a male's DNA, but it allows us to go deep into the past. We can be we can begin to reconstruct not just family trees for individual people, but if you start doing that for ethnic groups and national groups around the globe, you can begin to connect the family trees for the entire planet, and that's where the history of migrations begins to emerge, the history of population rise and falls. That's where the history of peoples really is recorded. So when I took history in school, I learned a history of politics, of cultures, and because I went to a Christian school, also a history of religion, but I never was taught the history of people. So for example, the Roman Empire around the time of Christ obviously has big biblical implications because the scripture mentions the Roman Empire, the rulers in Jesus' day. It plays a big role in the history of Western civilization because of the prominence and geographic extent and temporal duration of the Roman Empire. But one thing I never learned or was never taught in school was, well, who did the Roman peoples themselves come from? Let's say we accept Rome being founded in the 700s BC, well, what's the backstory? Where were they before then? Who were their ancestors? And if we then extend forward in time to the to the rise and then its eventual fall of the Roman Empire in the 400s with the invasion of Germanic tribes, 400s A.D., and the Huns marching in. Well, what happened to the Roman peoples? Or to make it personal, if if we look at modern Italians, or if we go, let's say, to New York City in the United States, where there's a significant Italian population, or in Boston, where I lived for six years, significant Italian population there, can they legitimately claim to be descendants of these ancient Roman peoples? So that's that's some of the bigger picture questions that DNA can answer. And all of this has a direct relationship to the organizations I work for, the questions that we're working on, namely the creation evolution debate, because one's worldview and the time frame you use for human history, the question of whether or not we're related to monkeys or chimpanzees, all of those play a gigantic role in how you interpret the data, the conclusions that you draw. And so that's that's sort of the larger uh question that's wrapped up in this question of who do who do I come from, who do you come from? Once you extrapolate it to the globe, these much bigger issues begin to emerge, and DNA is a key tool to unravel them.

Herramientas Genéticas: Cromosoma Y Y Mito

SPEAKER_01 11:14

Let us stop just a minute in in America. How and when did the first humans arrive to this continent?

SPEAKER_00 11:24

Yes, this is a question uh near and dear to my heart, just for my own for a number of reasons. There's personal reasons. So I grew up in the state of Wisconsin, in a town called Racine, between the big cities of Milwaukee and Chicago, and grew up being taught history. I feel like we we learned a lot about Native American cultures. I was homeschooled through eighth grade, and we used a curriculum that very much encouraged going to the library, checking out lots of books. We liked to role-play in the Indians, and it just was a great fascination for me growing up. But one thing that was never taught, because I learned later in life, is essentially it's it's it has been unknown, was what happened in the Americas before Europeans. I learned about Columbus's arrival in the Caribbean. For North America, I learned about the pilgrim's landing in Massachusetts in 1620. I learned about the start of the United States, 1776. I learned about all sorts of interactions between European Americans and Native Americans during those periods, 1492 onward. I did not learn about anything that happened prior to 1492, and I can now say the reason I never learned anything is because the mainstream scientific community doesn't have answers. All they have is archaeology, and archaeology is very reticent to connect the peoples at contact, which I learned about in school, to archaeological sites beforehand. So, for example, I learned about in the state of New York and the sort of the New England area, there were Iroquoian peoples and Seneca and other tribes. Well, where did they come from? What's their backstory? Never learned anything about this for decades. And so it's it's it's been a long-standing personal mystery for me, uh, something that bothered me but didn't know where to turn for answers. I can now say, to make a much longer research story short, thanks to the biblical timescale, thanks to new advances in genetics within this framework, we've been able to identify a very dynamic history that I never was taught and that that no one has really been taught before Columbus. And in fact, this this goes beyond the books that I've published. I just made a discovery. My most recent book was they had names in May of this year. Well, in July of this year, made a new discovery with genetics, and I can now summarize the dynamic history in the Americas before Columbus, the first peoples to arrive and gave rise to the cradle of civilization, the Olmex in Mexico, on the Gulf Coast of Mexico. We still have no genetic linkage to them. But thereafter, there was a migration from Asia into the Americas in 1000 BC, a thousand years before Christ. There was another migration from Asia 100 BC, 100 years before Christ. The one of the most consequential migrations from Asia was in the 400s AD. So at the same time that the Huns were migrating from Central Asia and helping to overthrow the Roman Empire in Europe, there was another group of Central. It could have been in the 900s, it could have been in the 200s. It was too wide to know what it corresponded to. I knew I had a genetic lineage that I could tie to the global family tree. I didn't have a firm timestamp in the early years. As time progressed, I was able to uh narrow down the time frame. And what had bothered me the whole time during this period, because I knew there was a migration, it had dramatic consequences in the Americas, basically wiping out in terms of the male inherited DNA, those people, the men who were here before. And so I thought there has to be some sort of historical event, but what can I tie it to? And once we finally were able to nail down the dates and realize, oh, wait a minute, this overlaps with this movement of the Huns into Europe. And of course, in in the East, the Far East, you have the, in at least in my mind, I think of the Han Chinese dynasty as roughly equivalent for the Eastern civilizations as the Roman Empire is to Western civilizations. And you have the Shanbai, a Central Asian group, that's coming in around the same time into northern China, and thought, okay, this makes sense now. There's this the German word, of course, you probably know is the Folka von Dong, the great wandering of peoples in this era about 400 AD. It's no surprise, I think, then. It was, it was, I guess, intellectually satisfying to say, aha, of course. It would be no surprise if you've got Central Asians into Europe going west, Central Asians going east into China. Why wouldn't there be another group of Central Asians going even further east into the Americas? And so that that was a dramatic event, yes, very much so, in the Americas. And then, of course, one more migration, the 900s A.D., so that there's been a very dynamic history in the Americas before Columbus, something I was never taught, but which now these new genetic discoveries have uncovered.

SPEAKER_01 16:51

Well, I was so satisfied with this book. I have enjoyed a lot this book. I must confess that I read it in a couple nights. I took the book when I finished my work in the afternoon and began to read and to read and to read and discover how how late in the night it was when I finished the reading, because I I needed sleep a little. But I was fascinated by this book. And immediately I bought your tracet that covers the entire human race or almost every race in this planet. Can we know when humans, the human being, first appear on the earth?

Roma, Migraciones Y Árbol Humano Global

América Antes De Colón Según La Genética

SPEAKER_00 17:41

I would say yes and no if we're talking about genetics. So let me clarify from a biblical perspective first, and then what we see in genetics that confirms the record. So I would say, based on a plain reading of Genesis, both chapters five, eleven, even chapter one. So chapter one, of course, describing the creation week, chapter five, describing the genealogy from Adam down to Noah, chapter 11, describing the genealogy from Noah's son Shem down to Abraham, and then of course Matthew chapter one in the New Testament traces Jesus' genealogy from Abraham. To put all that together, I would I would say scripture teaches a roughly 6,000-year history of the universe, including of mankind, going back to Adam and Eve. Can genetics confirm this? And one of the main tools I have been using is the male-inherited Y chromosome. One of the challenges for me in tracing human history back to Adam is scripture also teaches a global flood that one of Adam's descendants, Noah, so Genesis 5 traces Adam's genealogy down to Noah. You have in the chapters that follow, chapter 6, chapter 7, chapter 8, a description of the global flood in which all of humanity is destroyed, also the land-dependent, air-breathing creatures. But in terms of humans, the only survivors would be Noah, his family, which would be Noah, his wife, his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives, so eight people in total. In Genesis 9 is explicit saying from those three couples, so Shem and his wife, Ham and his wife, Japheth and his wife, from those three, the whole earth is repopulated. And so genealogically, all of us go back to Adam and Eve, but more immediately in terms of family trees, we go back to Noah and his family. And in terms of male ancestry, Genesis chapter 10 is a fairly extensive genealogy of the male offspring of Noah. Well, why mention all that? Genetics is a very powerful, yet it also a very limited field. We compare DNA sequences among people around the globe, but there's nothing intrinsic to DNA that says, oh, this difference matters, or this difference, DNA difference is the product of some sort of mistake or mutation. What I'm getting at is all DNA analysis is comparative. So you compare my DNA to yours, and statistics show that we're 99.9% identical. So it's fairly easy to find the differences. But to construct a family tree, it's really you can describe it in pure math terms. You compare the DNA, my Y chromosome, my male inherited DNA to yours, to someone else's, to someone else's. You can do this for hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of men around the globe. You count the differences, you plug those numbers into a computer program, you tell the computer program, now give me a visual display of the math. It's it's it you can make it as dry and as mundane as that. But what emerges is something that looks very much like a family tree. But the the point being, the key takeaway is all DNA analysis is comparative. Well, how do you find Adam's DNA if you don't have someone to compare to? What I'm getting at is all the comparisons we could make, all the peoples before Noah died in the flood. They did not leave any descendants. The only peoples whose DNA got passed on were Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. And so from a comparative DNA perspective, the deepest we can go back in time is to Noah. And there's multiple independent lines of genetic evidence that fit the biblical account. For example, the rate at which the Y chromosome changes and produces differences fits 4,500 years back to Noah. The history of civilization, we can find very clear echoes for in the DNA of people around the globe, both in terms of population rises and falls, also in terms of migrations. These are multiple lines of evidence, but perhaps the premier evidence that really shocked me going back to about uh 20, I need to tell a backstory here from 2020 to 2021. So I had prepared a draft of the book traced in 2020 in December. I had sent it out for review. That draft did not identify in the global human DNA family tree, it did not identify Noah. I had narrowed down possibilities, and really that version of the book would have been somewhat tedious to read because it was basically telling two stories in one book. Well, if Noah is in this part of the tree, here's how human history looks. But if Noah is in another part of the tree, here's how the history would look different. And I didn't settle on any spot. While the book was out for review, and then after it came back and there were some hiccups with the publisher, I was thinking to myself, it really would be nice to have some sort of more direct biblical significance for this work, besides, well, the time scale helps make sense of human history. That would be a big deal, but still not an explicit connection to the biblical anthropology. Well, to make a long story short, I eventually did find the uh exact mirror image of the Genesis 10 genealogy. So just to reiterate, I had been working with male inherited DNA, reconstructing family trees for male history. Genesis 10 is a male genealogy. The Bible tells us what happened to those men in Genesis 10 in a variety of ways. So there's some explicit statements, some implicit statements, and we could find not only the exact generation by generation replica of the family tree, but the way the descendants distributed themselves around the globe, we could find that in the tree as well. And so we have perhaps the supreme example of the confirmation of biblical history. We have a family tree in scripture, and we can find the exact replica in the DNA comparisons of men around the globe, profound confirmation of the veracity of scripture, great encouragement to Christians.

SPEAKER_01 23:45

And uh let me let me ask this. And we can now, where the race have appeared in this planet, the different races, we can trace this back to Noah and his sons.

SPEAKER_00 24:03

Yes, every people group around the globe now, and this is what got a missionary friend of mine very excited, and just to give another backstory here. He was working, he he was a light-skinned man of European descent like me, and he was working with dark-skinned Melanesians in Papua New Guinea, I think is what it was. And he said one of the challenges for him was, and for any person like him working in that context, was that the people there would say, What does the Bible have to do with us? You're a white man, we are dark-skinned, this is a white man's book, how does it apply to us? Which you can make the case from Genesis 10 and 11 that every nation's history goes back there. He was excited, this missionary was excited because he said, with DNA, we now have a new tool to say, look, your history, speaking to the Melanesians in New Guinea, your history starts right here because any group, if we take a DNA test, we can trace their paternal ancestry back to specific men in Genesis 10 and say, your specific history starts here with this man, and here's how they migrated, and here's how the you know the so-called races formed, the different ethnic groups, the ethnolinguistic groups formed after the flood, after the Tower of Babel, Genesis chapter 11. Yes, with DNA, we can confirm all those and then unravel each individual nation's tribe's family's history and link them back specifically to the narrative in Genesis 10 and 11.

SPEAKER_01 25:26

And can we see also that every human in this planet is coming from a common ancestor?

SPEAKER_00 25:34

Yes, absolutely. Every every um group of people, every individual comes from a common ancestor, from Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives. And so, therefore, all the different races, the different ethnic groups, ethnolinguistic groups go back to that family. And one of the really interesting surprises from DNA specifically, so not only does the narrative I just described imply that the so-called races have a common ancestor, but genetics shows us that the so-called races have changed multiple times in human history, just to use Europeans as an example. I I guess I be before I did this DNA research, naively assumed that me being of partially French descent, so Jeanson, my last name, is of French origin, but on my mother's side, she's German, so I was both French and German origin. I would have assumed my family history goes back to, let's say, the Germanic tribes who helped overthrow the Roman Empire in the centuries after Christ. Naturally, is what I'd assume just from family history and then tracing it to ethnic groups in the recent past. But what DNA shows is the majority of Europeans descend not from the original Europeans, but from people from Central Asia who migrated into Europe in the Middle Ages. I've had my Y chromosome tested, and it belongs to one of these Central Asian origin peoples. So just to put it in practical or I guess I guess I could say racial terms, if we go back 1,000 years, my ancestors likely did not look like ancient Romans, but looked like people of more Chinese East Asian descent. And those features changed with time as they migrated into Europe. That's just one example of so-called racial features changing. Human history has been very dynamic. That's what DNA shows. It shows that there's been lots of change multiple times over. It's very messy and from my perspective, that much more interesting because of its messiness.

SPEAKER_01 27:33

Well, I can tell you that, for example, most of my ancestry is a Mediterranean ancestry. This is very logical because I was born and bred in Spain, but I discovered several years ago that a good part of my blood is coming from Ireland. So that I was very, very surprised, but I could discover that well at least one of my ancestors was coming from Ireland, was red haired as a good Irish, and this was related with some migrations coming from Ireland to Spain. And well, most of Hispanics doesn't know about this, but this is very, very clear and it has a historical foundation, and it's true. We we can think that we come directly from Romans or Greeks, and it's very possible that we are descendants of people coming from Central Asia, for example, or North Africa, etc. etc. What happens about the the Jewish people? Uh really we are talking about people coming in a straight way, in a direct way from Abraham, or in the most part, they are coming from different migrations who have converted to Judaism through history. For example, the the Professor Wexner in Israel, he's teaching in one of the of the universities in Israel, is telling the most of the Ashkenazis, but even most of the Sephardic Jews are not coming from Abraham, are coming from different migrations of people coming from North Africa, Central Asia, who convert uh to Judaism during Middle Ages, in most part. Really, we have uh direct descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or these are very few.

Fechas, Hunos Y Oleadas Desde Asia

SPEAKER_00 29:44

Yes, and and and the the Jewish question genetically and historically I have found to be very complicated just to uh think about it historically, and some of this is just stuff I had to think through biblically and then absorb from history. Thinking about the descent of Abraham in Scripture and how many occasions even the Bible talks about intermixing among the peoples. You have uh Abraham's descendants, of course, uh Isaac, then Jacob and the twelfth tribes. Well, two of the tribes of Israel, Manasseh and Ephraim, are from Jay or excuse me, from Joseph, but Joseph marries an Egyptian woman. And so two whole tribes already have Egyptian blood in them. If you go to Exodus chapter 12, when the Israelites are leaving Egypt, the scripture says there's a mixed multitude that comes out with them. So it's not purely Jewish people. Then of course they go into the promised land, they fail to conquer the tribes that are there. I think it's Judges chapter 3 talks about uh both sides of the equation. I think it's the sons of Israel uh marrying the daughters of Canaan and uh the daughters, or maybe the sons of Canaan be given to the daughters of Israel. Anyway, there's there's very clear intermixing there. Of course, it it gets worse than that eventually, where the northern tribes of Israel, ten tribes, were conquered by Assyria, deliberately intermixed with other other nations. You have the southern tribe of Judah, some of them going off to Babylon, some of them going down to Egypt. And all this, of course, takes place hundreds of years before Jesus and the Greeks and the Romans and all that. So to pick up extra biblical history from there, I learned that the Jewish community in the centuries after Christ decided to define themselves, not based on the father's line, and this is especially important because I had been using male inherited DNA as a marker for human history to try to unravel human history. And of course, there's lots and lots of males in Scripture in the Jewish line that play a big role. And when the Jewish community decided in the centuries after Christ to switch the importance from the male side to the female side, this would naturally have dramatic consequences for Y chromosome DNA history. And I have a friend who's uh has his Jewish blood, and I think has tried to, just to give a contemporary example, tried to apply for citizenship in Israel, but is unable to because his Jewish heritage is on the father's side, not on the mother's side. So it seems to be a practice that continues to this day. To make a long story short, genetically, despite all that messy history, we still have been able to find in the Y chromosome the male-inherited DNA-based family tree, the line of Abraham. And one of the key clues goes back to scripture. You have the Genesis 10 genealogy where you have Shem traced down to Peleg. In Genesis chapter 11, Shem's genealogy is traced through Peleg down to Abraham. We have the specific men, the the absolute number of generations, generation by generation, from Noah down to Abraham, then, and uh, then Isaac, of course, and Jacob and the 12 tribes as we go along there. That fact and that specific genealogy where you can count off the generations, we have a genetic echo of that as well. And it's probably no surprise that this particular Abrahamic line is found at low levels in the globe. And again, it's it's not just limited to the Middle East. Again, no surprise given Jewish history, especially in the AD era, where they've dispersed into Europe and elsewhere. There's this Abrahamic line even in Sub-Saharan Africa. It's found in Europe, it's found in Central Asia. Of course, it's now found in the Americas. It's naturally a low frequency among self-proclaimed Jewish people. But again, I think that's no surprise given the biblical history and given the uh last 2,000 years or 1,500 years where they've defined themselves by the maternal line, but it is there. And my hope is, so so at this point, I think in the book traced, I was a bit more emphatic in calling it Jewish. I've realized, of course, Abraham has not just Isaac, but Ishmael. And Ishmael is held in high regard by the Muslim communities today. And so Ishmael's descendants, Isaac's descendants were in close geographic proximity for many, many years. And what I can say confidently is the there's there's specific lineages in the Y chromosome or male inherited DNA family tree that we can tie back to Abraham. It's unclear to me at the moment if these particular lineages are through Ishmael or through Isaac. They are definitely Abrahamic, and I anticipate with more in-depth studying, especially of the Middle East, and there are projects ongoing, some of them have been published on the deeper sampling of the Middle East, that some additional uh clarification and branches from Abraham will emerge, and I'm and I'm very hopeful that in the future at some point we'll be but we'll be able to identify specifically lineages from each of the twelve tribes. But at this point, no, but we have a good start, and and I'm optimistic as to where this will go in the future.

SPEAKER_01 34:53

Uh, Dr. Jensen, I don't want to abuse uh your patience, but it's impossible to me uh let him let you go without talk a few minutes about replacing Darwin, the new origin of species. Well, there is not any kind of doubt that on the origin of a species is one of most influential books of history. It's well the the foundation more or less solid of evolutionary biology till now. But you are defending in this book that one of the problems of the Darwin's thesis thesis was that he didn't have enough uh scientific base, at least less scientific base than we have right now. The question is uh which things uh know did did uh didn't know Darwin that we know now and we and we are obligated to change the scientific parody.

Cronología Bíblica Y Evidencia Genética

SPEAKER_00 36:10

One of the things that has struck me as odd as I've dug more and more into this question, is the current attitude in mainstream science in the Western world that somehow a scientific consensus determines truth. And that evolution is settled science, millions of years is settled science, the evolutionary origin of species is settled science and should not be questioned. And when I dug into the history, I thought this is completely at odds with how this question has played out. Number one, when Darwin wrote his book, he admitted in 1859 that he was challenging the scientific consensus and sought to change it. And it happened, you can look at his own writings by the 1869 edition. Uh, he was already saying, well, it it used to be that the consensus was opposed to me, now I've changed it. That was that was one interesting element. Secondly, he's talking about the origin of species, the only direct scientific record we have of their origin, again, because it's DNA that gets passed on from parents to offspring, not just for humans, but for species all around the globe. DNA wasn't even let me let me back up. DNA was identified as the substance of heredity about 100 years after Darwin. But but I can say something even stronger than that. The field of genetics didn't even exist in Darwin's day. When I learned genetics, I learned about Regor Mendel, his experiments with pea plants. That happens and is published after Darwin publishes his book. So Darwin doesn't even have the language to talk about the origin of species and inheritance because genetics isn't even a field of science. So there's been huge changes in the most important fields on his question. Again, the invention of the field of genetics after his book comes out, and it takes a hundred years before something we now take for granted, uh the the fact of DNA being the substance of heredity, that's not discovered until about 100 years after Darwin. And then for our own species, human origins, we don't have our own DNA sequence until 2001. So the most important field of science, this is the great irony, the most important field of science for Darwin's question, genetics, doesn't even exist. And the critical data to test Darwin's ideas doesn't exist for 150 years after his book is published. So it is completely scientifically justified to ask the question and to raise the question, is it time to reevaluate his ideas? That's just from history alone. What I try to show in replacing Darwin is when you do the reanalysis of his ideas in light of modern genetics, not only do you find many flaws, but, and this is the reason for the title, you find a much different and far superior explanation. And so one of the reasons we titled the book Replacing Darwin rather than rebutting Darwin is in the United States, creation science is currently prohibited from being taught in the public schools. The reason that's given is that creation science, it is said, is not science. And they specifically say we don't make predictions or we don't go out and solve and and make positive discoveries about the world. All we do is find flaws with evolution that's very negative. Well, replacing Darwin is to show not only are there flaws with evolution, but we've met the standard that the courts have demanded. We're making positive discoveries about the world, about the origin of species. We're doing it with genetics. And so it's it's a watershed moment for Darwin's ideas, but more so for the wider debate because now we have a very strong, robust, full-fledged scientific model for young earth creation that replaces Darwin's one and meets a higher standard of science than evolution ever has. For humanity, there's really three major types of genetic compartments. The one compartment, which I'm gonna the the technical term is autosomal DNA. This is the DNA that we get from both parents, gets the most press, it has the most headlines, it is the primary primary object of popular genetic testing through ancestry DNA, 23andMe and other companies. So it's 99% of the total DNA in our cells from both parents. That's one category. Autosomal DNA, the DNA from both parents. The other two categories are DNA just from one parent or the other. So I've mentioned the Y chromosome that comes just through the males. Fathers pass it on to sons. The flip side of that, or the corresponding, I guess, element in DNA for the female side would be mitochondrial DNA. Both men and women have it, but only women pass it on. Mothers pass it on to both sons and daughters, but then it's only their daughters who are going to pass it on to the next generation, not their sons. So there's a component as well. Mitochondrial DNA was the first type of DNA I began investigating about 15 years ago, just because it's a much smaller compartment. It's just a tiny fraction of the total. What that means though is it's much cheaper and easier to sequence. And so there's been tons of research done with mitochondrial DNA, tens of thousands of humans with mitochondrial DNA sequences. I started where there was data. And it turns out the rate at which mitochondrial DNA changes is exactly in line with the 6,000-year time scale that the Bible teaches going back to Adam and Eve. Same thing then is true with a Y chromosome. And again, for reasons I mentioned earlier, it's it's not necessarily a time frame back to Adam, but back to Noah, because uh it's a comparative time scale. It also has multiple lines of evidence showing that we can trace humanity's ancestry back to a common ancestor in just 4,500 years back to the flood, which of course is within the larger framework of 6,000 years back to all the way back to Adam and Eve. With respect to the autosomal DNA, this is sort of the last piece in my mind that had to be plopped into place in terms of chronology. It was, it was, it was the second in terms of discovery. But the answer to the autosomal DNA is that uh we can also trace humanity's origins back to Adam and Eve in just 6,000 years. The technical derivation gets a bit complicated, but all three compartments agree with one another. They harmonize, and and what I show in replacing Darwin for at least two of them is in the evolutionary model, there's an inherent contradiction that it it cannot solve without some sort of special pleading or logical exception or something unscientific. So genetics is one of the most uh one of the strongest scientific arguments for the recent origin of humanity. The second category of answer I would say is the scripture, I would say is also very clear. The plain reading is that we all go back to Adam and Eve about 6,000 years ago. I think you run into great theological problems. If, for example, how do you put death before sin, bloodshed before sin, if you try to extend humanity's origins back into the distant past, as evolution tries to teach? So there's there's multiple lines of scientific evidence, scriptural evidence that point towards humanity's recent origin. This is again a watershed moment in the debate. It's not just that there's flaws in the millions of years time scale, it's that we've developed a fully fledged, strongly uh strong, robust model of human origin scientifically that continues to work and is and is continues to be the basis for research going forward and has provided the basis for making these big discoveries about what happened in the Americas before Columbus, as well as finding the history of humanity around the globe. So it keeps working, which is about the highest standard of science that exists.

De Noé A Las “Razas”: Dinámica Humana

SPEAKER_01 44:24

Anyway, we are younger than we are taught in schools and universities and museums. Absolutely. Yeah, I I agree because I have arrived at the same conclusion several decades ago when I was working with my uh most important area of expertise that is ancient history. And and really it was very clear to me that if I went, if I go to the to the early phases of human history, we are very much younger than we are taught. Really, really so. Well, uh Dr. Jinson, I I must thank you this time you have passed with us. I I'm totally sure that the people who is listening to us right now would be listening to hours and hours. That's not possible, but it I I should like, really, really I I do. But uh in the in the old times in the past, when this program was uh made in a radio set, I I used to give one of my books to the persons who have the patience and and the kindness of uh summitting or being summit to these questions. And I signed the book, and of course I told to them, you have not any kind of obligation of reading it. This is only a small token of thankfulness uh to you. But right now this is impossible online, so that I must uh give you not one of my books, but one uh one musical uh piece, a song, etc. I have chosen for you a part of the music of a movie of 1966, the Bible in the beginning, the music by Toshiro Mayusumi, and I'm want I want to leave you a part of the music that is dedicated to Noah's Ark, because I agree with you that the part of the human history we are living right now has begun with this ancestor name Noah, and with the sons of Noah. This is this is very clear to me from uh a historian's uh viewpoint, no not from a scientific, well, history is a kind of soft uh science, but it's not mathematics or or physics or biology. And really uh I agree with your conclusion, but I was very surprised when I could see a person with a scientific background as yours uh arriving at uh the same conclusions by a very different way, but reaching to the same end. Thank you, thank you very much, Doctor Jenson. It has been a real privilege and a real uh pleasure to have you in our program.