Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey

On May 5, 2008, at 12:12 AM, Terry M. Gray wrote:

> Dick,
>
> Isn't the description you give here multi-regionalism? Not the
> prevailing view at present. (Despite what Glenn says.) From the data
> Rich summarized, if I understand it, the current human populations
> in each of the locations you mention are much more recent.
>
> Rich, can you clarify?
>
> TG
>

Sure. Before I start note this *none of this involves macroevolution*.
So all approaches (YEC, ID, and TE) have the same theological problems
caused by this. If you are going to deny the science you cannot merely
deny macroevolution you must deny genetics itself. Good luck. Dick's
thesis simply does not match the data. As I stated previously both
multiregionalism and out of africa could explain the data until late
last year.

Multiregionalism explains the data by what is known as isolation by
distance. This is because until the 20th Century you had limited gene
flow beyond your local area. Environmental factors such as the Toba
super volcano cause bottlenecks which in turn reduce genetic
diversity. So, you could explain the data by saying environment
factors that affected Eurasia and the Americas but not Africa would
explain why there is more genetic diversity again until late last
year. As Dick noted, multiregionalism also posits admixture with
Neanderthal. Current evidence is against that hypothesis but it is not
definitive as of yet. The biggest problem is the Neanderthal loci who
have to been selectively swept (on a gene complex and not single
locus) in 50,000 years. While there is evidence of natural selection
in humans it is mostly purifying natural selection and not directional
natural selection. Furthermore, DNA contamination may overestimate
gene flow. We are at stage two for the question of admixture, but at
this point it appears that modern humans and Neanderthal were separate
species and that all or mostly all Eurasian humans were replaced by
Africans. This hypothesis is also supported by the fossil data.

Out-of-africa claims that there will be decreasing diversity the
farther you are away from Africa and *that* is what we see. See here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/rich.blinne/OutOfAfrica/photo#5196875329770310946

In order for multi-regionalism to be true you need to show
environmental factors that would be increasingly harsh the further the
distance from Africa! Again, isolation by distance does not care about
direction.

See here for where the genetic samples were taken:
http://picasaweb.google.com/rich.blinne/OutOfAfrica/photo#5196876034144947506

For the bayesian analysis of the different scenarios see here (AF =
out of Africa, MRE = multiregional). Again OOA is preferred.
http://picasaweb.google.com/rich.blinne/OutOfAfrica/photo#5196876948972981570

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 5 09:36:00 2008