RE: That embarrassing relative: More on Mungo Man

From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Sat Jan 13 2001 - 23:45:07 EST

  • Next message: Arthur V. Chadwick: "Can bumblebees fly?"

    I have to leave for the airport in 10 minutes. In point of fact, if we
    interbred with ancient hominids not of our species, it doesn't matter how
    much of their genetic input to the human race there was. It proves that
    theologically we need to deal with them. Even if Mungo man's ancesters was
    the only human who ever interbred with them and all others were killed, they
    are still the same species as we. So, regardless of what percentage of the
    truth out of africa has, it can no longer be 100% and we must theologically
    deal with ancient hominids who were us. The appearance of anatomically
    modern humans is not where Adam was.

    glenn

    see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
    for lots of creation/evolution information
    anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    personal stories of struggle

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Blaine D. McArthur [mailto:blaine.mac@juno.com]
      Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 8:23 PM
      To: glenn.morton@btinternet.com
      Cc: asa@calvin.edu
      Subject: Re: That embarrassing relative: More on Mungo Man

      Glenn,

      I am not ready to give up on the single origins model.

      You neglected to point out the following from the URL
    (http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,1590695%255E11011,00.html )
    you mention in your post:

               "...John Mitchell, a human geneticist at La Trobe University.
    Like Groves, he disagrees with Thorne's assertion that LM3 puts Regional
    Continuity ahead in the theoretical race to explain our origins. Instead,
    the findings suggest to Mitchell that fully modern people began trickling
    out of Africa earlier than previously believed. That trickle peaked about
    100,000 to 150,000 BP.
              According to Mitchell, Mungo Man's ancestors probably left early,
    travelled east, and eventually reached Australia ... where they met their
    end.
              "I would not find it strange that humans who left Africa (after
    LM3's ancestors) did replace -- by interbreeding or killing -- anatomically
    modern humans, or any other prior forms," Mitchell says.
              We do it today. I don't see it strange that we did it 100,000
    years ago." If so, this must be the oldest crime ever solved by DNA"
      The speed with which H. erectus spread across the globe from his home in
    Africa was phenomenonal. There is no reason anatomically modern humans
    could not have spread out of Africa at an equally astonishing rate.

      As for quotations from Relethford, consider the following, from the
    National Geographic New Service report on the Mungo Man report:

              Despite this new evidence, the debate about the origins of modern
    humans is likely to continue, said Relethford. “I don’t think any one
    single study is going to do it.”

              “A lot of people argue for an intermediate ground,” he added,
    “[that] the change to modern humans did take place first in Africa and then
    spread out,” but did not completely replace archaic human populations.

      I can assure you that Relethford does not adhere to the position that
    Thorne and Wolpoff advocate. He is one of those who argues for the
    intermediate position- a "recent wave out of Africa combined with some
    interbreeding along the way, leading to replacement.

      My opposition to the multi-regional position has nothing to do with
    "embarrassment" over the concept that we might be directly ancestral to some
    of these primitive types. It is based on what I believe are studies that
    undermined the foundation on which the MRE model is founded - regional
    continuity. A number of studies have been done indicating that the so
    called regional traits initially put forward by Weidenreich, and further
    developed Wolpoff and Thorne do not really exist. (see, among others, The
    Evolution of Modern Human Diversity, by Marta Mirazon Lahr.)

      I'll take a wait and see attitude about the Mungo mtDNA study.

      Even the alleged Lagar Velho hybrid is soon to be challenged. Take note
    of the fact that it is a CHILD. I will send you a personal message
    regarding this.

      I have about as much respect for Wolpoff/Mann as you have for
    Tattersall/Schwartz. Wolpoff was obstinately dogmatic about the single
    species theory once before. Wolpoff assured us all, quite vigorously I
    remember, that australopithecines of all sizes and shapes, as well as any
    and all early Homo were all merely part of one big happy species - Us.
    This concept , as you well know, was blown out of the water by the findings
    at East Turkana, etc.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 13 2001 - 23:41:40 EST