RE: The death of the RTB model

From: <>
Date: Mon Feb 13 2006 - 17:11:08 EST

Russ wrote:

In a message dated 2/12/2006 5:00:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, 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:
When you tell us in your first post in this thread that his conclusion can't be true because other people REPLACED the archaics, you are simply ignoring what Templeton's work implies and acting as if it doesn't exist. Here is a quote that you wrote in that thread that caused me to shout statistically:
"However, during the Neolithic, other humans replaced non-humans as the greatest danger. "
>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?
How about since Templeton's paper was published? From your statement below, it is clear that you don't understand the concept of the out of Africa/replacement theory.  It is total genetic replacement. The view advocates that the archaics had zero input of genetic material to the modern humans. Thus, you still don't seem to understand the importance of the paper because if you did, you wouldn't be asking about the mutual exclusivity of it.  The paper showed, as Templeton said in his response to Dick and in one of the quotes I posted from the paper, that there has been gene flow throughout the past 1.4 million years. If there was total genetic replacement, evidence for the gene flow would not exist in our genes.  Thus, in this case  interbreeding does preclude genetic replacement at the  P<10^-17 LEVEL
>We can interbreed with American Indians, but we've replaced them over most of their former range. 
That is NOT what anthropologists are referring to as replacement.  When they say replacement they are saying that there is no significant genetic input of the archaics into the modern people. Wolpoff calls this view the Pleistocene holocaust because it postulates that the archaics left no genetic material in our bodies and thus all had to be killed off rather than inbreed to low significance.  Maybe that is where the misunderstanding is.  One of my grand-daughters is part American Indian through her mother, my daughter-in-law who is of hispanic descent.  There is genetic evidence for the admixture of the two peoples existing today.  When Anthropologists speak of replacement, they are speaking of GENETIC replacement, they are not speaking of Africans moving the Neanderthals out of the caves but otherwise interbreeding with them. Total genetic replacement is what the out of Africa view is all about. 

Received on Mon Feb 13 17:15:30 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 13 2006 - 17:15:30 EST