Christian Churches of God

No. B9A




Evolution and the Out of Africa Theory


(Edition 1.0 20110116-20110116)


Evolution claims that modern humans developed in Africa and spread throughout the world from there 78,000 years ago. The Bible says it happened differently. Both claims cannot be correct.


Christian Churches of God





(Copyright ă  2011 Wade Cox)


This paper may be freely copied and distributed provided it is copied in total with no alterations or deletions. The publisher’s name and address and the copyright notice must be included.  No charge may be levied on recipients of distributed copies.  Brief quotations may be embodied in critical articles and reviews without breaching copyright.


This paper is available from the World Wide Web page: and



Evolution and the Out of Africa Theory

This paper will examine the game being played by the Evolutionary Geneticists regarding the “Out of Africa” conjecture and the claims at extending the origin of man into the Cro-Magnons and back to 78,000 years before the present (YBP) in Africa. To do this these gentlemen have combined the Hamitic lineages with the other two Semitic and Japhethitic lineages and asserted that both Shem and Japheth are descended from the Hamitic lineages. This has the effect of combining the sons of Noah and using Ham to extend the lineage and by using a completely bogus Haplogroup tree they can then get back to Africa and extend the dates to 78,000 YBP which is completely false. Attention was drawn to this game and we can see the examples in sites such as


Let us reconstruct the argument here so we might properly then demonstrate, by examining the correct DYS sequence, how the argument is bogus and the time frame much shorter than claimed, even using their false mutation sequence timetable.                                                                          The argument is proposed as follows. The Original YDNA ancestor is stated as:
Y   who was allegedly in Africa 78,000 YBP
The first mutation A is not listed in the European lists. That is because Hg. A has no links whatsoever to the others and with Hg. B is exclusive to Africa and African Americans.


See Appendix A


Impossibility of this sequence

Looking at the YDNA family tree below we can see the break-down of the tree into lineages that absolutely prohibit any such conjectural tree being formed.

Firstly we must start with the ancestral root of Noah and the basic structure of the main branches of the Hamitic Haplogroups. Hg. A was the first to mutate from the main ancestral line. Hg. A mutated in M91 and P 97? It retained none of the base links found in the others.

The ancestral main line is from Noah to Japheth, Ham and Shem in the lines SRY0831, 1 M41 2, M139, M168, P9.


The other Hamitic lineages mutated into the line M60, M181, and P85? in Hg B. The main Hg. lines A and B are more or less confined to Africa and to African Americans.


The other Hamitic lineages stemming from the Central Noahide lineages at M168 and P9 formed into Hg. C at RPS4Y M216 for Cushite lineages and into Hg. DE at M145, M213 which is the YAP divide and covers Hgs. D for Tibetans and E for all Canaanite and North African lineages.


It is thus obvious that the major African lineages both A and B have nothing whatsoever to do with the other non-African lineages other than the fact that Hg. E went into and spread through North Africa and the Middle East and from there into Europe.


All lineages in the lines of Shem and Japheth spread throughout the world in the lineage from Hg. F in the mutations P14 M89 and M213 (from the FTDNA Family Tree Chart of 2005). On examination it appears that M213 was common to DE and also to F etc. but not to Hg. C. It is thus reasoned that M213 mutated to M216 in the C group and RPS4Y was also inserted and in the Hg. DE, M145 was inserted prior to M213 and in the Hg. F and subsequent lineages P14 and M89 were inserted prior to the M213. Thus it might be asserted that M213 was the final section of the original Noahide lineage through Shem, Ham and Japheth.  It certainly is the correct lineage of the YDNA tree measured by science no matter how long or short a period they claim it took to mutate. 


It is thus completely impossible for Hgs. C, D, E and F and all subsequent groups G,H, IJ and K to have come from either A or B and nor is it possible for D, E, F and subsequent groups to have come from C as claimed in these “Out of Africa” arguments.


The biblical record and the groups mutating show that the major mutations occurred in five spontaneous mutations away from the main Noahide lines. They then lapsed into subsequent mutations forming other tribal/national groups. To suggest otherwise appears to be a deliberate fraud.


It is obvious from their own charts that the lines and time frames are bogus and all events on their chart before 42,000 YBP are also bogus.


The suggested breakdown of the other mutations are likewise complete conjecture and also bogus. The events thus cannot be based on even the date of 42,000 YBP.


The breakdown of the lineages in the various mutations are in fact all possible from the years from 2200 BCE to the present if the falsely elongated chart is ignored, and the biblical model is placed in perspective, and the modern observed effects of background radiation, and mtDNA effects on the human genome are properly discussed and accounted for. Evolution is a religious myth and has to be properly accounted for and dismissed. However, to maintain the religious myth science has to be falsified and key elements overlooked or misrepresented.


This sort of misrepresentation occurs all the time. A recent case was the finds relating to the humanoids in Russia and in Israel and referring back to the 2003 discovery of the so-called Hobbit of Flores.


The find of the finger bone in Russia in the cave in Siberia was dated to 30,000 YBP but as usual the basis of the dating was not discussed publicly. It had some unusually well preserved DNA, so it was reported.


The scientists referring to the recent finds in Russia referred back to the “Hobbit of Flores” being more than 12,000 years old and some even suggested 30,000 + YBP of an ancient, and pre-modern human species. This was despite the fact that scientists have already investigated the find on Flores and proven from its YDNA that it is a modern human that degenerated due to diet on Flores and regressed in size and capacity. It was in fact an example of how not to live and how to lose your capacity as a human society.


It was nevertheless used by the scientists who either knew and deliberately misused the data, or who were too bone idle even to turn on the TV, and who certainly never researched the recent investigations on the matter. The high priests of Evolution make medieval Roman Catholic monks look progressive.


The findings, reported in December 2010 in the journal Nature, confirmed that the specimen came from a young girl who was neither "modern human" nor Neanderthal. Instead she reportedly belonged to a separate, now extinct, branch of the human family tree that scientists have named Denisovians, after Denisova Cave in southern Siberia where the fossil was found.

Also, it was reported that a molar tooth recovered from the cave is believed to be from a Denisovian individual. It reportedly looks different from the teeth of modern humans and Neanderthals, and allegedly more closely resembles those of much older human ancestors such as Homo Erectus.


Based on their conjecture regarding the DNA structure the scientists then go on to assert that the finds alter the story of human evolution. They then proceed to assert that the finds suggest the Neanderthals had an Asian sister group that broke away on their own evolutionary path before dying out. The fact that Neanderthals had a completely different and absolutely alien DNA system to humans is ignored and this find is then applied to the hypothesis that these pre-humans had some relationship to the pre-Adamic creation of the Neanderthals etc., when we know they did not.

Most scientists believe ancestors of the Neanderthals left Africa between 300,000 and 400,000 years ago to establish themselves in Europe and Eurasia. The scientists then allege the false assertion that, meanwhile, the direct ancestors of modern humans, Homo Sapiens, remained and evolved in Africa.


They allegedly headed out of Africa 70,000 to 80,000 years ago and for a time co-existed with the soon-to-be-extinct Neanderthals.


Now scientists believe the Denisovians diverged from the Neanderthals at the time of the original exodus between 300,000 and 400,000 YBP and spread east.


The scientists then, totally contrary to all DNA evidence, asserted that: “Like the Neanderthals, they appear to have interbred with modern humans.” We have more chance of breeding with a chimpanzee than a Neanderthal. At least they have an eight strand system; Neanderthals do not.


The evidence allegedly came unexpectedly when Denisovian gene sequences turned up in the DNA of modern Melanesian Pacific Islanders. How would that occur, we might well ask?  Melanesian YDNA structure is based on the Hg. K sequence which we know is a direct descendant of F and exists in the sequence above. What mysterious part of this K sequence is derived in the East from Homo Erectus? Perhaps one of the Hg. K Adamic humans interbred with a pre-human relic; although there is no evidence whatsoever for this supposition.


The research suggests genetic material derived from Denisovians makes up around 4 per cent to 6 per cent of the genetic code of at least some Melanesians. Is that so? What are the DYS involved and what is the basis of the assertion? Were the Melanesians Oranghutans? What is the mtDNA involved? We know for a fact that all human mtDNA stems from mtDNA Hg. L. What possible basis can they have for such an assertion? The reason they do not disclose the basis of the claims is because they are invariably false when exposed to the effective antiseptic of fresh air and sunlight.


This week a find in Israel of eight teeth is also alleged to be a modern ancestor of humans. They allege it is 400,000 years old. The fact is that Israel is a site of Neanderthal finds and they are all tested and bear no relation whatsoever to modern humans.


From the finds in Israel they were able to demonstrate that they cooked and ate plants and vegetables. Researchers in the US, reportedly, have found grains of cooked plant material in their teeth. The study is the first to confirm that the Neanderthal diet was not confined to meat and was more sophisticated than previously thought. The research has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


Like most of these claims the evidence to date has been circumstantial. They were definite cannibals and chemical analysis of the bones suggested they ate little or no vegetables. This perceived reliance on meat had been put forward by some as one of the reasons these humanoids became extinct as large animals such as mammoths declined.


However, a new analysis, by scientists, of Neanderthal remains from across the world has found direct evidence that contradicts the chemical studies. Researchers found fossilised grains of vegetable material in their teeth and some of it was cooked.


Although pollen grains have been found before on Neanderthal sites and some in hearths, it is only now accepted that there is clear evidence that plant food was actually eaten by these people.


“We have found pollen grains in Neanderthal sites before but you never know whether they were eating the plant or sleeping on them or what.”


"But here we have a case where a little bit of the plant is in the mouth so we know that the Neanderthals were consuming the food" (Professor Alison Brooks George Washington University to BBC).


The reasons as to why the tests were wrong isolates why most of the finds are wide of the mark. They are based on assumptions that come from the preconceived notions of the analysts themselves.


According to Professor Brooks, the tests were measuring protein levels, which the researchers assumed came from meat.

"We've tended to assume that if you have a very high value for protein in the diet that must come from meat. But... it's possible that some of the protein in their diet was coming from plants," she said.


This study is held to be the latest to suggest that, “far from being brutish savages, Neanderthals were more like us than we previously thought.”


This drive to find a missing link and to link pre-Adamic humans with Adamic humans, in spite of the fact that there is absolute evidence from DNA to show beyond doubt that we had nothing to do with them or they with us, is continually ignored and suppressed to maintain the myths of the religion of Evolution.


A modern scientist with all the baggage of evolutionary theory is as hamstrung as his predecessors in the Trinitarian religious system before him. Make no mistake Evolution is a religion based on myth and conjecture.


We have dealt with the line of the nations above and showed how it was impossible that modern humans came out of Africa 78,000 Years Before Present (YBP). The Appendix B below shows the YDNA Family Tree down to Haplogroup F.


We will now rearrange the YDNA Tree so as to show more easily or clearly the YDNA lines of Noah and his sons Shem, Ham and Japheth and how the mutations occurred from that lineage, and how they further mutated among the sons of Shem and Japheth. 


Noah was pure in his generations (Gen. 6:9). The RSV renders it: “blameless in his generation” but it is considered that it was his genetic structure to which the text referred.


The YDNA line from Adam was essentially a pre M412, M139 structure which formed the core of the YDNA structure of modern humans. Noah passed on to each of his sons the root capacity of M168 and P9. Ham passed to each of his sons the core capacity or genetic preconditions that enabled mutations that resulted in Hgs. A, B, C and DE. The nature of the mutations is such that there are some conclusions that follow necessarily from those mutations, and also from the distribution for the mtDNA mutations that followed. We can draw some amazing conclusions from the logic of those mutations and distribution.


The first logical deduction we are required to make is that of how many people were there on the Ark. The Bible says that there were eight people. This answer to this question raises with it some serious questions as to what is being referred to in the texts. When referring to the eight people, are we speaking of four men and four women, which has been the usual supposition of Bible students over the years? The fact that they were assumed to be monogamous is also taken for granted. There are a number of biblical and scientific objections to this view.


The Bible also states that, with the first wine harvest, which must have been within three years of the flood, Noah became intoxicated. He was subsequently abused. Coupled with the fact that Canaan was alive and old enough to be considered responsible for his actions against his grandfather Noah, he was given a severe curse and penalty. To be faced with such a severe penalty, it is a matter of justice and law that Canaan must have been of a significantly adult age to come under such judgment. He was the youngest of Ham’s sons. Therefore they must have all been on the Ark together. Coupled with other considerations of the Haplogroup mutations it is likely that there were eight men, being Noah and his three sons and the others were the four sons of Ham. This then raises questions as to the mothers. Were they all from the same woman or were they sons of different women?  We will see from the mutations of the genes and the Bible story that they may well have had different mothers, even if they were of a slightly similar mtDNA structure but were nevertheless divergent.


We now know for certain that the original female mtDNA was Haplogroup L. We also know for certain that the original Hg. L is now confined to Africa; hence the origin of the “Out of Africa” hypothesis. There seems little doubt that the line of Eve was dark skinned or at the very least she had the melanin and physiological capacity to develop into the current modern African female. She was Haplogroup L as was the original mtDNA group. DNA science holds that the mutation rates are very slow and in fact far slower than they actually are. Further, science has assumed that mtDNA does not affect the human genome and has no part in genetic mutations. Both of these premises are now proven to be completely false. The basis of the changes is discussed in the paper Genetic Origin of the Nations (No. 265).


Indeed it was that paper that identified the logical necessity for the Hgs. I and J to have been the original Hebrew Haplogroup IJ which later split into two groups. Initially rejected as an hypothesis the scientists recently found the links at the S2 and S22 links of the structure; although, they then declared Hg. I to be proto-Semitic and backdated it 30,000 years.


The amount of background radiation affects the rate of mutation of human DNA. Human mtDNA has been proven to mutate at a rate of up to one mutation per generation in areas of high background radiation, as we saw in the Kerala experiments referred to in the paper above. Also, mtDNA has been shown to induce mutation across the entire human genome. Thus background radiation mutates mtDNA at a high rate, as it does to YDNA. The mutations to the mtDNA increase the mutation rates of YDNA independently of background radiation, thus further compounding the rate of mutation.


So we see that, when combined, the two effects on mutation must logically increase the rate at an accelerating sequence of mutation due to cross exposure to further mutation in the mtDNA. Thus the rate of mutation can be many times that assumed by science to justify their evolutionary models. The entire structure of the argument rests on known false premises and must be logically dismissed until adjusted adequately.


We can also prove from known DNA results that the original DNA were linked with and spread in conjunction with known mtDNA base groups. For example, the early Australian Aboriginal finds were in eight waves of three YDNA Haplogroups and three mtDNA Haplogoups. These were YDNA Hg. C4 (mutating to C4a and C4b), Hg. K and Rx R1basic. The female mtDNA Haplogroups match the male groups more or less precisely. For this study we can see that the Hamitic C4 groups match to the female Hg. N Basic which is the first mutation from L3. 


So we can deduce that L, being the original, saw the division present on the ark as being mutations of L and perhaps L1 or L2 (although L2 could have been a subsequent mutation of L) and L3 (which mutated to N and then M). The early divisions of L3 into N Basic had to occur before C4 moved into Australia. These links must have been the earliest movements of the Cushite Hg. C out of the Middle East into Asia and on to Australia.  We can thus deduce that the mutation of Hg. N basic must have occurred from L3 at the earliest times, either just before of just after the flood. There is a possibility that Hg. N basic was from at least one of the wives of Noah’s sons and was seemingly on the ark. As it was the basis of the mutations it is probable that it was in at least two, and probably four, of the wives. The other deduction might be that as N Basic is not a major factor in Africa, the sons of Ham, who were YDNA Haplogroups A and B, did not marry into that mutation but rather retained wives from the base L1 and L2 mutations.


For L2 to have been formed, L must have been on the ark or L2 was formed before it and all three mutations of L1, L2 and L3 were there. As there were no further mutations from L, the original L must have seen mutations beforehand and the original L had probably ceased to exist. Thus there must have been mtDNA Hgs. L1 (perhaps L2), L3, and probably N Basic on the ark. As mtDNA Hg. M mutated from the other Haplogroups, as did Hg. R mutate from Hg. N, it is not necessary for them to have been on the ark.


It is obvious that there is a bottleneck situation with L and no further mutations were seen from that or from the L1 and L2 structure, and all subsequent mutations came from mtDNA Hgs. N and M, and subsequently from N as the Hg. R supergroup and the subsequent groups. This gave rise to the assertion that the mutation of N and M etc. took place out of Africa. The biblical explanation is that the situation occurred in the Middle East and that the sons of Ham were given Africa as their inheritance and moved into there after the flood and on the dispersion. The fact that YDNA Hgs. C, D and some E were found well outside of Africa and spread all over the world does not logically support the “Out of Africa” theory. 


In fact it supports the reverse of the theory. The African plate actually includes west of the Jordan fault right up into Lebanon to the coast. So we might conclude that some of them were “in Africa.” However, the land of Cush or Khus was north of the Euphrates. The fact is that biblically the lands of Eden went down to Egypt and the Nile and to the Mediterranean coast. This is the likely logical candidate for the dispersion and that is exactly where the Bible places it.   


It is likely that the wives of YDNA Hgs. A and B were L1 and L2 as those groups went into Africa together and stayed there. The wives of the rest were mtDNA L3 and N basic. L3 is not found anywhere else other than in Africa except in known later migrations. Thus N appears to be the major mtDNA source outside of Africa. M may well have been there also but it appears that N was spread over the others and mutated. It is likely that mtDNA Hg. N was the more prolific of the mtDNA among the sons of Noah. The other two sons of Ham may well have married Hg. N as did Shem and Japheth. That would explain the distribution and subsequent mutations more easily.


The presence of N basic with C4 indicates that the daughters of mtDNA Hg. N married into the Cushites very early or were there originally. Also note that there was no retention of the M168 P9 in the YDNA Hgs. A and B. This was either because they moved into Africa before the intervention at Babel and did not have it initially or, alternatively, they lost it in the viral/radiation activities there. Hg. A mutated from the early sequence or so it seems.  


What we can see is that nothing of which we know in the DNA Science does not support the Bible structure and in fact helps to explain the Bible questions more efficiently. The things that conflict with the Bible, when examined, show that the long-term conjectures are false and the attempts at elongating the time frames are based on fraudulent pseudo-science. See the chart at Appendix C for the bloodline branches of the YDNA system allocated to the sons of Noah.







Appendix A

Evolutionary “Out of Africa” Model







Then the line allegedly mutated to                      BT

74,000 YBP

Then the sequence allegedly went to      CT

70,000 YBP

This mutation allegedly coincided with the First Migration out of Africa


Then the line allegedly divided into two branches:



ca 65,000 YBP

The other branch CF (Both being from the Hg. C sequence) occurred

ca 58,000 YBP

DE had allegedly split out of Africa into Hg. D and E forming Hg. E at

ca. 54,000 YBP

CF continued on to mutate into Hg. F   

ca. 48,000 YBP

Hg. F then split into:



ca. 45,000 YBP

And Hg. G  

ca. 32,000 YBP

(Hg. G mutated to form G2a 12,000 YBP, see below)


Hg. IJK allegedly split to form:


Hg. K and 

ca. 36000 YBP

Hg. IJ

ca. 32,000 YBP

Hg. IJ allegedly mutated forming J, and

ca. 29,000 YBP

Hg. I at

ca. 24,000 YBP

Hg. I was allegedly formed in the area of Germany, which is impossible.
We will examine that fiction later.


Hg. K allegedly mutated into NOP   

ca 36000 YBP

Hg. K also allegedly mutated to form Hg. R out of Africa

ca. 30,000 YBP

Hg. NOP allegedly mutated to form Hgs. NO and P

ca. 29,000 YBP

Hg. NO allegedly mutated to form N 

ca. 22,000 YBP

P then allegedly mutated to form Hg. Q

ca. 24,000 YBP

And Q1a

ca. 20,000 YBP

Hg. I allegedly formed Pre I1 post 22,000 BP and then Hg. I2

ca. 17,000 YBP

G2a was allegedly formed 12,000 YBP and G2a3 allegedly formed

8,000 YBP









Appendix B

Usual YDNA Family Tree






Appendix C

YDNA Tree applied to the Bible Structure