Re: The death of the RTB model

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Feb 14 2006 - 08:13:18 EST

*It does because the replacement theory said that the archaics made almost
no contribution to modern humanity and a special creation of Adam would say
the
very same thing.*

Special creation only says that if you define special creation to say it
that way. The little riff on it that I gave provides an alternative, as
does the little riff on it found on your own website, Glenn.

On 2/14/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
> David wrote:
>
>
> >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?
>
> Well, we weren't all talking about the death of the multiregional model. I
> have never thought that one can tell all there is to know about human
> genetic history from mtDNA. I would point you to
> http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/200201/0310.html
>
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hegene.htm
>
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/neanev.htm
>
> One could clearly see from the morphological data that there was genetic
> input to modern humanity. One can see it in the red head gene cited on the
> page above. One can also easily understand that our mtDNA does not tell
the
> whole story, but people wanted to forget that in favor of the out of
> Africa/replacement view.
>
> And I would say that whether or not one likes what I say about anthro (or
> indeed likes or dislikes me), I have a fair knowledge of it.
>
> >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.
>
> It does because the replacement theory said that the archaics made almost
no
> contribution to modern humanity and a special creation of Adam would say
the
> very same thing. Thus, both views should have the same predictions to make
> about the genetic connection with the archaics. And both views fail with
> Templeton's article.
>
Received on Tue Feb 14 08:14:00 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 14 2006 - 08:14:00 EST