Re: The death of the RTB model

From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Sat Feb 18 2006 - 23:10:26 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?
 
If you would but read Templeton's article. Replacement is ruled out at a p< 10^-17.  Here is the full quote:
 

The null hypothesis that none of the inferences involving Eurasian populations (Figs. 7, 8) are older than 1.05 MYA is rejected with = 0.035 when MX1 is excluded (Templeton, 2005). Hence, the expanding African populations with the Acheulean culture did not totally replace the Eurasian populations they encountered, but rather interbred with at least some of them. Similarly, themost recent out-of-Africa expansion is no older than 0.177 MYA with 99% confidence. Excluding MX1, the null hypothesis that no other event or process involving Eurasian populations is older than 0.177 is rejected with a probability of less than 10^-17. Hence, the recent out-of- Africa replacement hypothesis is overwhelmingly rejected. p. 49

If I haven't understood what you mean by near null, please define it.

 
 I posted here earlier that Templeton calculated that if all the genetic expansions, seen in his 25 analyzed loci, resulting in 15 expansion events, occurred at the same time, it would have a probability of 1 chance in 3.89 x 10^-15. 
 
That probability rules out total replacement.  I guess I will repeat my other post because there was clearly some trouble with distribution.  One of my accounts (yahoo) got the report the other (entouch) didn't.   I don't know how to answer it other than with what I already posted.

>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.
 
He doesn't mention them so I guess he handles them in the same way that the YECs do--common design. Hugh has God create each and every species. That is something that one has to read closely to figure out.
 
 
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.
Yeah, I chose my poison--concord with the genetic evidence and maintain Adam as the human ancestor. Dick chose his.  But, if everyone here is so eager to have allegories and accommodations, why not have an accommodation to tell the Adam story in a modern setting (modern being 3000 BC). Of course no one would think of doing such a ridiculous thing as saying that God could merely accommodate the setting of the story because that would be too close to concordism which we all know is false. God can accommodate all sorts of false science, but NEVER the setting of the story.
 
BTW, what do you do with religious altars prior to 10,000 years ago? We can deny it but it was there as far back as 425,000 years with some hints even further back.
 
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/religion.htm

Received on Sat Feb 18 23:11:11 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 18 2006 - 23:11:11 EST