One Ancestral Hominin Lineage Across Modern and Archaic Homo

Authors
  • M. Nailor

    Author

Abstract

The biblical creation model places modern humans and archaic Homo populations together on the near side of a recent, severe global bottleneck, and it makes a hard genetic prediction: their mitochondrial lineages should form one bounded, continuous human genealogy, not separate deep branches. I test that prediction on the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I barcode (COI-5P), the standard 650 base pair animal marker, across modern Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the Sima de los Huesos hominin catalogued in BOLD as Homo heidelbergensis. A marker-specific audit recovered 23,856 modern, 11 Neanderthal, three Denisovan, and two Sima COI-5P records, and all four labels are represented in a single Barcode Index Number, BOLD:AAA0001. Using one observed representative per lineage with chimpanzee and gorilla as outgroups, I evaluated all 15 rooted Homo topologies under HKY85+Γ4 and reconstructed ancestral states probabilistically at every variable site. The result is unambiguous. The four Homo lineages differ from one another by only 8 to 20 substitutions while differing from the apes by 65 to 71, so the barcode gap that marks a species boundary falls between Homo and the apes and nowhere among the Homo lineages. The rooted analysis groups modern human with Neanderthal (81.1% support) and Denisovan with Sima (70.5%) inside one Homo clade, and it reconstructs an ancestral sequence belonging to no living human and no archaic tip, a distinct founder at the root, resolved to posterior probability at or above 0.95 at four sites. This is the bounded maternal genealogy the creation model predicts. The timing of that genealogy is a separate question, and I answer it not from the barcode but from the Sima femur itself. In a cave that is wet and mild and has never frozen, the specimen still carries DNA fragments 30 to 45 base pairs long. Read against the measured, temperature-calibrated chemistry of DNA decay, that survival places the bone in the low thousands of years, and even the most preservation-favorable rate the data allow cannot carry it past roughly sixteen thousand. To reach the conventional 430,000 years, decay must run about sixty-five times slower than it has ever been measured, a rate the physics reaches only under sustained freezing this cave has never known. The barcode says these people are one family. The chemistry says the family is young. Multiple independent lines, both genetic and chemical, converge on the recent, bounded human history the biblical record described first.

Author Biography
  1. M. Nailor

    Sindonologist and gerontologist specializing in the biology of aging and disease, Matt Nailor holds a Doctor of Divinity (D.D). His research focuses on the evolutionary theory of aging, which accounts for senescence through mutation accumulation, antagonistic pleiotropy, and disposable soma theory. This work engages origins science, with particular attention to molecular aging, mutation rates and accumulation, biological evolution, genetic variation, and historical linguistics.  Independent research in geology come from working with world famous stone mason Roger Hopkins in Desert Hot Springs California. 

References

Allentoft, M. E., Collins, M., Harker, D., Haile, J., Oskam, C. L., Hale, M. L., et al. (2012). The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279(1748), 4724–4733. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1745.

Lindahl, T. (1993). Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA. Nature, 362, 709–715. DOI: 10.1038/362709a0.

Budinsky, D., & Nailor, M. (2026). The Hidden Clock of Humanity: A pedigree-based coalescence and fixation analysis of the human mitochondrial control region. Truth in Research, 1(1). DOI: 10.67690/6xymfd05.

Hasegawa, M., Kishino, H., & Yano, T. (1985). Dating of the human–ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 22, 160–174. DOI: 10.1007/BF02101694.

Hebert, P. D. N., Cywinska, A., Ball, S. L., & deWaard, J. R. (2003). Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270, 313–321. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2218.

Krause, J., Fu, Q., Good, J. M., et al. (2010). The complete mitochondrial DNA genome of an unknown hominin from southern Siberia. Nature, 464, 894–897. DOI: 10.1038/nature08976. Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R. W., Krainitzki, H., Stoneking, M., & Pääbo, S. (1997). Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell, 90(1), 19–30. DOI: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80310-4.

Meyer, M., Fu, Q., Aximu-Petri, A., et al. (2014). A mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos. Nature, 505, 403–406. DOI: 10.1038/nature12788.

Meyer, M., Arsuaga, J.-L., de Filippo, C., et al. (2016). Nuclear DNA sequences from the Middle Pleistocene Sima de los Huesos hominins. Nature, 531, 504–507. DOI: 10.1038/nature17405.

Prüfer, K., Racimo, F., Patterson, N., et al. (2014). The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains. Nature, 505, 43–49. DOI: 10.1038/nature12886.

Ratnasingham, S., & Hebert, P. D. N. (2013). A DNA-based registry for all animal species: The Barcode Index Number (BIN) system. PLOS ONE, 8(7), e66213. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066213.

Thomas, B. (2019). Neanderthal Extinction Dilemma. Institute for Creation Research. Article: Neanderthal Extinction Dilemma.

Vaesen, K., Scherjon, F., Hemerik, L., & Verpoorte, A. (2019). Inbreeding, Allee effects and stochasticity might be sufficient to account for Neanderthal extinction. PLOS ONE, 14(11), e0225117. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225117.

Yang, Z. (1994). Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: Approximate methods. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 39, 306–314. DOI: 10.1007/BF00160154.

Sharbrough, J., Havird, J. C., Noe, G. R., Warren, J. M., & Sloan, D. B. (2017). The mitonuclear dimension of Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry in modern human genomes. Genome Biology and Evolution, 9(6), 1567–1581. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evx114

Stoeckle, M. Y., & Thaler, D. S. (2018). Why should mitochondria define species? Human Evolution, 33(1–2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.14673/HE2018121037

Cover Image
Published
2026-08-23
Section
Articles
Categories
License

Copyright (c) 2026 Author(s) retain copyright and articles are published under CC BY 4.0.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>