Re: The death of the RTB model

From: Terry M. Gray <>
Date: Sat Feb 18 2006 - 13:36:54 EST


What impact does occasional or rare interbreeding have on these
models? This may be the human evolution version of "horizontal gene
transfer". Can one interbreeding event result in loci getting fixed
and confusing the conclusion? Sure, you can rule out the view that
there was total replacement with no incorporation of genetic
information from previous populations. So, given the evidence, we may
be able to rule out the null hypothesis, but what happens to near
null hypotheses?

Similarly, I'm reminded, with all of Rich Fausette's continued
enthusiasm for the genetic purity of the Jews, that Tamar, Rahab,
Ruth, Bathsheba, all in the lineage of Christ, were non-Jews.

There's an interesting discussion in Dawkin's The Ancestor's Tale
about the impact of a single, yet highly successful (in terms of
progeny produced) interbreeding event, such that even highly isolated
populations look genetically connected to the main population. I
haven't totally wrapped my mind around it yet, but it suggests that
sometimes these results can be readily obfuscated.

in the RTB model, how does Hugh Ross deal with other continuities
between primates, mammals, etc. that suggest common ancestry? The OOA
vs. MRH debate simply dictates the date (and perhaps location) of the
bottleneck that leads to the human speciation event. There is still
such an event whether it's 100,000 years ago or 1 million years ago.
And, frankly, I have to side with Dick Fischer and the issues raised
by Davis Young's article a few years ago-- it's hard to put a
Biblical Adam into either one of the timeframes, all evidences of pre-
neolithic human characteristics notwithstanding. That doesn't mean I
necessarily endorse Dick's solution, but putting Adam much earlier
than 10,000 BC has its own difficulties. Choose your medicine, I guess.


On Feb 16, 2006, at 7:24 AM, <>
<> wrote:

> For those who think I place too much emphasis on Templeton's views,
> I would say this. I deal in probabilities all the time. My job
> (which I am very good at) makes me assess the likelihood of oil
> being at a particular place. Most people in my business are lucky
> to find one or two oil fields in a life time. I have found 33 and
> hope to find more. The trick to doing it is quite simple. If you
> have one fact which tells you that oil is very very unlikely, but
> all the other facts seem positive--believe that one bad fact. You
> can have reservoir rock (good sand or carbonate), you can have a
> great trap (fault or an anticline). You can have good timing so
> that the oil trap formed at the proper time(when the oil passes
> by), but if you have no source rock, that one bad fact will mean
> there is no oil there. That one fact says your theory that there is
> oil in that spot is utterly false. You can drill there, but it is
> highly unlikely you will find oil. It says that you would improve
> your chances if you look elsewhere.
> Similarly if you have great source rock, a great trap, and great
> reservoir, but the trap formed after the oil was generated by the
> source rock and after the oil would have passed by the area, then
> believe that one bad fact. You will not find oil there. Same as
> above—look elsewhere. Your theory of oil being there is false.
> Continuing to beleive your theory won't put oil in the rocks.
> Now, lets apply this to humans. If humans are all derived from a
> small population within the past 100,000 years, what should we
> find? Well, all evidence of earlier events should be quite similar
> in all modern human populations. Small populations of primitive
> peoples have a large percentage of their genes from a couple of
> powerful ancestors only a few generations previous. This kind of
> situation is what one would expect the 4-10,000 people who gave
> rise to modern humans to be like. Such a situation, should have
> wiped out most of the previous genetic variation. Thus, if this
> model is correct, we should not see very many genetic systems
> showing evidence of genetic events prior to 100,000 years ago. All
> genetic variation should have arisen a the same time.
> This is especially true of the RTB model where Ross believes there
> is no genetic connection with the archaics. When appllied to Ross's
> model I will utterly stand on the fact that he should see NO
> genetic systems earlier than 100,000 years ago because he says
> there is NO genetic connection with the archaics because evolution
> is untrue. Thus his model would require that all genetic events
> happen at the same time--100,000 years ago or less.
> I quote Templeton:
> "First, the 25 loci collectively yielded 15 inferences of range
> expansion involving African and Eurasian populations (Fig. 7). The
> log likelihood ratio test rejects the null hypothesis that all 15
> events are temporally concordant, with a probability value of 3.89
> X 10^-15." Alan R. Templeton, “Haplotype Trees and Modern Human
> Origins,” Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 48(2005):33-59, p. 48
> Now, here is the very bad fact for RTB's model, and for the ooA.
> Similar to my oil field bad facts, this fact kills ooA and I will
> stand by it until someone shows that Templeton's analysis is false
> on these 25 loci. Why? Because I don't believe many things that
> have 1 chance in 10^15 of being true. I wouldn't drill a well on
> those odds, I wouldn't bet on a horse with those odds, I wouldn't
> believe a theory with those odds. If y'all chose to, that is your
> business, but until someone actually shows that the work Templeton
> did is false on these 25 is erroneous, nothing will save the ooA.
> It is the bad fact because its existence is like having no source
> rock.
> Sure, Terry is right that someone will come up with an argument for
> the ooA based upon genetics. But lets say someone choses another 25
> areas and says that these 25 areas show that mankind could arose
> 100,000 years ago. That, to me is a very likely scenario. Fine. But
> that wouldn't falsify the minimal expectation that ALL systems (or
> nearly all systems) must show this compatibility with ooA in order
> for ooA and RTB to actually be true. Even if all other human
> genetic systems were compatible with ooA and RTB, it wouldn't
> change the 10^-15 odds of the ooA being false. Only showing THIS
> work to be false can one avoid that odds. 10^-15 becomes the
> MAXIMAL odds for ooA and RTB to be true. Any other systems which
> show similar patterns, only increases the odds against ooA and RTB.
> Thus, this is why Templeton's work is so devastating and why even
> today no one on that other list with ooA advocates has challenged
> what I said.
> ooA and RTB require that ALL systems show compatibility with a
> recent origin. And this is why for years I have been against ooA.
> It is simply an illogical theory which was already falsified before
> Templeton's work. So contrary to what Terry says about me choosing
> the latest work and declaring victory, the victory of
> multiregionalism has been there but like with YEC people didn't
> want to see that the predictions of ooA were false.
> Another example of a system which is highly unlikely if ooA were
> true is the number of alleles in the MHC complex. If you had
> 4-10,000 people who gave rise to modern humans and they were from
> one small tribe where a few people gave rise to most of the tribe
> (and as I said, this is the way it is mostly), the odds of having
> all 400 alleles contained HLA-A, -B and DRB1 alleles in that
> population become much smaller, and if they were not ALL contained
> in that population, we couldn't have them today. That system does
> not mutate more rapidly, at least the last thing I saw on it said
> that. And most assuredly we couldn't have them all if the RTB two
> person model was correct. Thus, the RTB model was falsified long
> before Templeton was even born. We could have known that back in
> the 40s.
> Why it is so hard for people to understand that we have many more
> than 4 alleles at many genetic locations, and why it is so hard for
> people to understand the implications of that to the RTB model
> surprises me.
> Similarly, it is equally hard for me to see why it is so hard for
> people to see that given the FACT that small tribes are descended
> largely from a few people, that they too would have low genetic
> diversity and thus, when homo sapiens arose from one of these small
> tribes, their genetic diversity would be such as to ERASE the past
> history which would mean that we shouldn't see the 15 different
> expansion times Templeton saw. But if one wants to believe in
> something that only has 1 chance in 3.89 x 10^-15, be my guest.

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 Sat Feb 18 13:37:54 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 18 2006 - 13:37:54 EST