Jim Stark:
[...]
>If our hypothesis is a common ancestry for humans, how well does
>historical prediction confirm that hypothesis? Could an alternate
>hypothesis of a specific number of origins, such as 3, give a better
>statistical fit of the evidence? Is the statistical fit for a
>single origin stronger than some other number? Then again, what
>number would give the best fit?
Hmm...
If humans actually represented more than one species (i.e. arose from
more than one source species) I suppose that several predictions could
be made:
1) There would be distinct fertility barriers.
2) Genomic anaylsis would reveal numerous distinct, coherent, non-
overlapping groups.
3) Comparative anatomy would reveal similar patterns to genetic
analyses.
4) Fossil studies might uncover separate groups that can be linked
to extant groups.
These predictions fail, BTW. Thus all humans appear to share a common
biological heritage. But any of the tests described above would
have the potential of determining the number of separate origins
if some human groups did have separate origins.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 08 2001 - 15:49:56 EST