Re: The death of the RTB model

From: <>
Date: Sun Feb 12 2006 - 16:55:33 EST

Rich wrote:


I also question templeton's conclusion. He reflects the Boasian/Mead view of primitive society as tranquil. Here we are not even talking about humans, but proto humans and humans occupying the same territory.
I don't know how Templeton's conclusion and the reality of the study at the above link could both be credible.
This is a major case of seeing the trees and missing the forest.  Templeton's paper is NOT about human behavior, it is about a statistical analysis of 25 different nuclear genomic locales which show constant gene flow from the pleistocene on.

The 18 cross-validated loci indicating Pleistocene

gene flow jointly indicate that such African/Eurasian

gene flow occurred as far back as 1.46 MYA with 95%

confidence (Templeton, 2005). Thus, recurrent gene flow

between African and Eurasian populations goes back to

the Lower Pleistocene and was established at or shortly

after the initial spread of Homo erectus out of Africa.

Alan R. Templeton, “Haplotype Trees and Modern Human Origins,” Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 48(2005):33-59, p. 48
Thus, your distinction between protohuman and human may be merely illusory. This work basically says that humans have been one evolving species for the past 2 million years and thus the distinction between proto-human and human is merely illusory---and statistically it rejects the concept of protohuman vs human at the P~10^-17 level. Are you aware of exactly how rejected that makes the out of Africa theory?
What Templeton's phrase which has elicited the two comments says is that the hominids INTERBRED. He uses the term love, but shoot, it might have been RAPE (which happens in war), but the offspring which arose, lived to pass on the combined genes to us modern humans. 
The following article argues that certain unexplained fear symptoms evolved during the Neolithic. Here is how the authors describe Neolithic warfare:
Paleo-anthropological research has documented a specific pattern of prehistoric inter-group warfare in the Neolithic. In contrast to warfare in historical times, Neolithic inter-group warfare almost exclusively involved attacks against non-combatants in unsuspecting settlements by raiding parties of mateless young, post-pubertal males in search of material and especially reproductive resources. Neolithic combat occurred exclusively between young males, with females and children serving as objects of competition. This has been clearly documented by research on prehistoric human remains. It has been estimated that the victors killed 15%–50% of post-pubertal males and most infants and toddlers, and took females and most weaned pre-pubertal individuals captive (Lambert, 1997, Larsen, 1999, LeBlanc and Register, 2003 and Maschner and Reedy-Maschner, 1998).

The authors argue that the higher prevalence of these unexplained fear symptoms in women than in men, and in younger persons is due to the special nature of Neolithic warfare. Before the Neolithic, humans were most in danger from non-human predators; a fear response played no role against such predators. However, during the Neolithic, other humans replaced non-humans as the greatest danger. Pseudo-neurological problems evolved as a way to signal to the attacking males that one was incapacitated and hence did not pose a danger. This strategy worked especially for young females who are desirable for their mating potential; pre-Neolithic non-human predators made no such distinctions, as humans of both genders and regardless of age were viewed as a food source.
All I can say is that you have fixated on the word love and missed the entire point of Templeton's article.  There was interbreeding. There was NO replacement.  I don't give a flip about the love part and it is utterly irrelevant to the death of the out of Africa/Replacement theory of anthropology and to the death of the RTB model which depends upon the former theory.  You would be better to focus on the statistical FACT that the null hypothesis (that there was no interbreeding) is STATISTICALLY rejected at the P<10^-17 level.  Thus,, when you say 'other humans replaced non-humans, you are ignoring Templeton's paper which shows that that statement NEVER happened.
Thus, I would ask, please explain why Templeton's work is wrong but please DON'T act like the paper doesn't exist.

Received on Sun Feb 12 16:59:56 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 12 2006 - 16:59:56 EST