Re: The death of the RTB model

From: Terry M. Gray <>
Date: Mon Feb 13 2006 - 18:55:08 EST


You seem to have an overly simplistic view of how this scientific
controversy goes. The out-of-Africa folks and the multi-regional
folks have neither one convinced the other over the past decade. I'd
suggest that the jury is still out. Of course, this paper is a new
part of the discussion, but on such a complex issue, seldom does a
single result prove decisive.

Your mindset seems virtually identical to Hugh Ross and others who
have their scientific proof of the day that proves that the Bible is
true. What does happen when scientists change their mind on an issue
like this? Let's let the scientific debate rage. If our faith in
confidence in scripture is dependent on which way the argument goes
this year, we're to be pitied. I know that this raises all the
questions you've been concerned with over the years about Biblical
reliability, but I suggest that to put your confidence (or lack
thereof) in origins (rather than, say, the life,death, and
resurrection of Jesus) is mistaken.

There just are too many questions scientifically and Biblically to be
overly dogmatic here.


On Feb 11, 2006, at 5:56 AM, <>
<> wrote:

> I would like to thank Janice for alerting me to Templeton's
> article. I have added this information to my page http://
> I bought it tonight, read it
> and have added this to the page referenced.
> Out- of- Africa--a dead theory
> Rana and Ross depend upon the Out-of-Africa/Recent Replacement
> theory to be correct. If that theory is falsified, then their views
> also are falsified. Alan Templeton recently published "Haplotype
> Trees and Modern Human Origins" in the Yearbook of Physical
> Anthropology 2005, (48:33-59). This article examines 25 different
> locations in human nuclear DNA instead of mtDNA. The paper then
> combines the results of all these locales and proves that the Out-
> of-Africa theory is false. It takes multiple sites across the human
> genome and statistically analyses them for population expansions.
> Unlike mtDNA, nuclear DNA is capable of detecting population events
> (expansions) several million years ago. Templeton detected three
> major population expansions.
> The first population expansion dates 1.9 million years ago
> (Templeton, 2005, p. 48). This event did not happen 100 kyr ago as
> the Out-of-Africa model would require as would the RTB Rana/Ross
> model. The 95% confidence limits on this expansion are .99 million
> years to 3.1 million years ago. In other words, there is a 95%
> chance that it happened prior to 1 million years ago. Three genetic
> systems showed this pattern (CYP1A2, Lactase and Fut2). If all
> humans arose only 100,000 years ago, we should not have evidence of
> earlier expansions in our genes. This expansion corresponds
> archaeologically with the expansion of H. erectus into Eurasia. If
> we are unrelated to them, our genes should not show this expansion.
> The second population expansion dates at 0.65 million years ago
> (95% confidence of it happening between 390,000 and 970,000 years
> ago). Seven genetic regions showed this expansion. This expansion
> also should not be seen in human genomes if we arose from a tiny
> population 100,000 years ago, yet it is there. This expansion
> correlates to the spread of the Acheulean hand-ax culture, which
> originated in Africa but spread to the rest of the world
> (Templeton, 2005, p. 48).
> The final expansion seen in our genes is the one the mtDNA
> illuminates. The nuclear genome dates this event at 130,000 years
> ago (95% confidence interval of 96,000 to 169,000 years ago). Five
> nuclear genomic regions showed this expansion. This is the
> expansion of anatomically modern man through the world (Templeton,
> 2005, p. 48).
> Templeton then tested whether or not all the detected population
> expansions were simultaneous. The data indicated that there was
> only one chance in 1015 that the expansions happened at the same
> time (Templeton, 2005, p. 48). In other words, probabilities rule
> out that the nuclear genome of humans arose in one expansion
> whether that expansion happened 130,000 years ago or earlier. This
> is practical proof of interbreeding between all humans over the
> past 2 million years. If humans have NO genetic input from any of
> the archaic hominids, we should not see this kind of statistical
> pattern in the DNA.
> Templeton concludes with this damning statement of the Out-of-
> Africa theory.
> "One hypothesis about recent human evolution was the out-of-Africa
> replacement hypothesis, in which anatomically modern humans arose
> first in Africa, then expanded out-of-Africa as a new type (or even
> species) of humans, and drove the older 'type' of humans found on
> the Eurasian continent to total genetic extinction. The early work
> on mtDNA haplotype trees was often presented as proof of this
> hypothesis, but there was no effort to test the replacement
> hypothesis vs. alternatives with the mtDNA (Templeton, 1994). With
> multilocus data sets, the hypothesis of total replacement can be
> tested, and it is strongly rejected (P< 10-17). Thus, the
> hypothesis of total replacement can no longer be regarded as
> tenable." (Templeton, 2005, p. 56)
> If this theory is no longer tenable, then neither is the RTB model,
> as Rana and Ross proclaim.

Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
Received on Mon Feb 13 18:55:50 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 13 2006 - 18:55:50 EST