Re: The death of the RTB model

From: <RFaussette@aol.com>
Date: Mon Feb 13 2006 - 12:36:22 EST

In a message dated 2/12/2006 5:00:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
glennmorton@entouch.net writes:
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.
The word love should never have appeared in the paper. I specifically wrote
that I had a problem (only) with the conclusion, not with the results of the
stats, so it is unnecessary to shout STATISTICALLY at me:

I wrote:

"I also question templeton's conclusion."

And I also have a problem with your response.

Since when did interbreeding preclude replacement/displacement? Since when
are they mutually exclusive?

We can interbreed with American Indians, but we've replaced them over most of
their former range.

In the bible when a hebrew tribe murders all its women and children to avoid
torture when they are under attack and expect to be slaughtered, but then
somehow survive, another neighboring tribe is murdered, all except the virgin
girls, to provide them with replacements so they can survive as a tribe. What
happened to the tribe that provided the virgins? It is replaced. And of course,
the hebrew tribe can interbreed with them.

rich faussette
Received on Mon Feb 13 12:37:45 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 13 2006 - 12:37:45 EST