Re: The death of the RTB model

From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Sun Feb 19 2006 - 17:41:26 EST
Terry wrote:
>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.
 
Well, I think that is where I stand.  There was a swamping of the archaic genes but not an entire wiping out.  This would be little different than the swamping of the genes of North Americans by Europeans.
 
"Wub-e-ke-niew wanted to learn about his own line of descent,
and to do so he worked out the genealogy of the
Ahnishinahbaeojibway. He entered some 60,000 names and
relationships into his computer.  What he learned is that the
vast majority of patrilineages could be traced, not to Aboriginal
Indigenous Americans, but to Euroepan sources.  he wrote a book
on this topic.  Clara, who had done much of the analysis,
estimates that some 99 percent of the people who identify
themselves as Ahnishinahbaeojibway have Europoean patrilines. 
Reasons for this are complex and purposeful.  In a second phone
call, Clara told us she believes the high level of European
patrilines in the descendants of indigenous peoples is not
unusual in areas of European colonization.  It reflects the
colonization process, and in some cases subsequent government
policy." Milford Wolpoff and Rachael Caspari, Race and Human
Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), p. 363-364
 
Consider 5,000 years from now. The objibway have lost all the native y-chromosomes.  What we are doing with the RTB kind of appoach or the one in which total replacement is the lead, is analogous to saying because the Objibway left no Y-chromosomes, they were not spiritual.  That is what we are saying with mtDNA Eve.  Because the other women left no mtDNA in modern populations, they weren't spiritual. That is a real problem for me.
 
11 of templeton's examined loci show expansion in the last 200,000 years. Clearly there was a major genetic event then. but that should not give the apologists the right to say all others who went before were dumb apes.  TEmpleton's work shows that there was indeed lots of gene flow. from the Pliocene on down.

>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.
 
It could if technology was lost. I keep coming back to the point that mankind is not inherently inventive.  The 4000 people on Tasmania lost technology after technology which they once had.  They ceased fishing, ceased making bone tools etc. People don't realize that if you have only 8 people survive, all technology will be lost. Technology requires lots of people, inventiveness requires lots of intellectual stimulation and it would take millions of years to redevelop what God might have given.  Of course, I am depending upon divine revelaation to tell us about the status of A&E when they were created.  And many seem to think that is a weak reed indeed.

>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.
 
Think of the objiway, who had their y-chromosomes swamped.  Are we thus to conclude that prior to 1492 they were not human?  Why does getting ones genes swamped mean that one is not spiritual?  I would ask, what dog do you know that builds altars?  If religion is nothing more than an anticipated evolutionary thing, is it of any real value?
 
And, I would also ask. Once you move the origin of humanity back 100,000 years from the biblical times (which also would require a non-neolithic technological setting) what is the real issue of going ahead and moving it back 5 million?  Both settings were hunter-gatherer not farming.  So, the criticism of my views that I violate the neolithic setting of the Scripture is also valid of ANY view which has Adam and Eve back 100 kyr ago. Indeed, it is valid of any view in which A&E are even 20Kyr ago and earlier. So, some of that neolithic criticism aimed at my position is a distinction without a difference.

Received on Sun Feb 19 17:42:14 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 19 2006 - 17:42:14 EST