Re: The death of the RTB model

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Feb 13 2006 - 17:35:28 EST

This is an interesting discussion and I'm sorry that I'm not yet
caught up enough on the science to develop a solid position on it. Is
Templeton's conclusion as solid as all this or is it yet another
missile in the apparently hot shooting war between the "out of Africa"
and "multiregional" camps? It wasn't long ago that Spencer Wells was
"putting the last nail in the coffin" of mutiregionalism (e.g. here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1323485.stm) and we were all
chatting about his lovely special on PBS. How's a guy like me who
doesn't keep up with the anthropology journals (and doesn't even know
what the "A" journals are) to discern between these kinds of claims?
Anyway, I suppose a "special creation" of Adam doesn't require the
"out of Africa" hypothesis. Perhaps the "dust of the ground" in Gen.
2:7 includes genetic material from the hominids God created through
evolutionary processes before Adam.

On 2/13/06, RFaussette@aol.com <RFaussette@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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 17:35:59 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 13 2006 - 17:35:59 EST