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

Hi Rich:
 
If you study human behavior you can see there is a predictability factor
which you seem to have overlooked. Down through the ages male war
parties have dispatched their male foes and spared the females. One can
only guess why! It is counter intuitive to believe that these
particular Homo sapiens deviated from the norm. No evidence? We have
thousands of years worth of evidence to suggest that when males have an
opportunity to procreate they do it. What you are suggesting is that
these males didn't. Now you have no evidence whatsoever to support this
aberration in human behavior.
 
Also, I subscribe to the OOA theory. I don't know why you keep beating
that horse.
 
No, "genetic distance" is what I meant. There are tribes in Africa who
because of the greater amount of time since separation from common
ancestors have a greater degree of genetic distance between them then
there is between Russians and Chinese for example. Greeks have a lesser
degree of genetic homogeneity than Chinese - I agree.
 
However, you said "Dick's thesis simply does not match the data." Okay,
since you know the data better than I do what is your thesis?
 
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
 <http://www.historicalgenesis.com> www.historicalgenesis.com
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Blinne [mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 3:40 PM
To: Dick Fischer
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey
 
 
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
wrote:
Hi Rich,
 
I think it is hard to evaluate the Mona Lisa by simply analyzing the
pigment in the paint, although it might be one measure. DNA is
certainly a valuable tool, but not the only tool, especially considering
the difficulties extracting useful DNA from fossilized bone. The
physical characteristics of Caucasians versus the other races could have
come about by way of genetic mutation or partly from admixture.

The difficulties of contamination potentially overestimate the modern
human DNA. The reason why OOA is superior here is precisely because it
concords with the archeological data. MRE pushes the coalescent time to
too long ago. In order to deal with that MRE does special pleading of
extra natural selection. As I stated earlier, the evidence for natural
selection is of the purifying kind in humans which actually pushes it in
the wrong direction. The same goes for contamination because the
currently calculated coalescent time is most likely too recent because
of any contamination. OOA on the other hand gives coalescent times that
is consistent with the archeological data.
 
You could measure genetic distance against geographical distance and get
a correlation, I'm sure, but Chinese are closer genetically to Brazilian
Indians than black Africans are to Greeks who are closer geographically,
so ancient migration patterns come into play and are not always easily
discerned.

It's NOT genetic distance. It's in-population genetic variability. The
Greeks have more genetic variabily than Chinese. And the Chinese have
more genetic variability than the Brazillians. You would expect this if
a founder comes later creating a more homogenous population which is
further from equilibrium. It takes unbelievable credulity to believe
that this is due to MRE. And in fact the migration pattern IS easily
discerned out of Africa into Eurasia and then into the Americas. The
dates coming from the genetic data match the archeological data to boot.

 
I would think a comparison of skulls, and perhaps, body shapes would
yield some clues. The only positive indicator I know of is the bump at
the base of the skull which is unique to those of European descent (I
have it) and could be what's left of the famous Neanderthal bun that
served as a counterweight to their massive jaw.

From Pearson:
We do not actually know the genetic basis of any of the "Neanderthal"
traits, so all of these estimates are only heuristic tools. Estimates of
Neanderthal admixture derived from a recessive eight-locus model are
probably unrealistically high, while those derived from the single-locus
dominant model are probably too low. They only serve as approximate
upper and lower boundaries for the amount of Neanderthal admixture that
can be inferred from the fossil record. Nevertheless, from a
Multiregional perspective, at least some, and possibly a substantial
amount, of Neanderthal DNA was inherited by living Europeans. Thus far,
however, genetic analyses have failed to produce evidence of the
expected genetic distinctiveness of Europeans that one might expect to
arise from a detectable amount of Neanderthal heritage. [emphasis mine]

The traits being discussed here are: a suprainiac fossa on the
occipital bone (95.7%, 2%) , a horizontal-oval mandibular foramen
(52.6%, 1.4%), and a dorsal sulcus on the axillary border of the scapula
(64.7%, 0.4%). The percentages quoted here are the percentage of
Neanderthal followed by Modern Europeans. The only way to get a good
connection from Frayer's data is to make an eight-way recessive
assumption. All of this relies on a single, overarching and generally
untested assumption: that the morphological traits provide a reliable
indication of ancestry. In fact, the assumption is likely *inaccurate*
for many of the traits used to trace the origins of modern humans. See
Lieberman DE. 1995. Testing hypotheses about recent human evolution from
skulls. Curr Anthropol 36:159-197. To repeat, if these traits really are
there there should still be enough of a genetic residual but Europeans
are too similar to other populations for this to be the case. MRE does
special pleading by saying that this is due to positive natural
selection without the evidence that this actually has happened.
 
Plus, there are reasonable inferences we can make from the push to
extinction of Neanderthals after contact with Homo sapiens and the human
tendency to save women and children while slaughtering the protective
males. Why should we think it was any different then?

Uh, I don't know, like, evidence? It's reasonable to test for admixture
as it is possible. But there is little to no evidence that it actually
happened. This is the difference between science and speculation.

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, 05 May 2008 23:06:16 -0400