Re: The death of the RTB model

From: Terry M. Gray <>
Date: Sun Feb 19 2006 - 16:22:05 EST


I'm not arguing for total replacement (the null hypothesis, as I
understand it). I'm asking what the data says about the near null
hypothesis, i.e. almost replacement but some occasional
interbreeding. How does a rare or occasional interbreeding event
impact the probability calculation? Sociologically, the event could
look very similar to total replacement, but genetically it might look
very different.

As for your religious altars 400,000 years ago--putting Adam there
doesn't work if Genesis 2ff. is describing neolithic civilization,
about which there is common consent. Putting a common ancestor at
400,000 years ago maybe solves the genetics issue but it doesn't
solve the problems surrounding the Genesis account.

I'm not convinced that such evidence means that such creatures were
fully human or divine image bearing. Much of what we think of as
human behavior is "anticipated" in non-human beings. This could well
be one of them. Not being dogmatic here, however.


On Feb 18, 2006, at 9:10 PM, <>
<> wrote:

> >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 P
> = 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.

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 Sun Feb 19 16:23:41 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 19 2006 - 16:23:41 EST