At 05:17 PM 2/28/98 -0600, Robert L Trivers wrote:
>
>On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 15:22:11 -0600 grmorton@waymark.net (Glenn Morton)
>writes:
>
>" So when in the late 1980s Cann, Stoneking and Wilson
>> (1987) published their analysis of mtDNA lineages purporting to show
> >that >all modern humans were the descendants of a single female who
>lived >somewhere between 60 and 200,000 years ago, anthropologists jumped
>on
>>the>bandwagon with vigor. This view is probably the most widely accepted
>
>>view in >anthropology today. It is known as the Out of Africa(OoA)
>hypothesis.
>>Modern humanity, in this view,
>
> No. The "out of africa hypothesis" is not the same as the
>discreditied "Eve" hypothesis.
I don't believe that a careful reading of the above says what you said. I
said that after the Cann et al view was published, anthropologists jumped on
that bandwagon. Out of Africa of course did exist earlier.
>
>>Eve must have resided in Africa, and that the geographic distribution of
>genes must
>>reflect the total replacement of the archaic population. These
>>predictionsof the Eve theory are testable.
>>
> Populations do not arise from single individuals. Species arise
>from populations.
>
>Glenn, I just couldn't read any further...
>
>There is no question that all humans came out of Africa; the only
>question is whether they came out only once or al least twice.
>
Of course all humans came out of Africa. Where did I deny that?
[snip]
>But it is a bizarre view because it contradicts the basic rules of
>evolution where isolated populations of a single species generally evolve
>into different species in response to differing environments and their
>resultant natural selection pressures.
>To combat this obvious problem, defenders of the multiregional view had
>to come up with the notion that although the populations were essentially
>isolated, they were not totally isolated and there was a small but
>sufficient amount of interbreeding among them to prevent the basic
>speciation process from operating. This was also a bizarre view (a foot
>mobile homo erectus in Indonesia is going to be interbreeding with
>erectus populations in northern China and Europe? I don't think so).
Well, you totally misreprent what multiregionalists are saying. Of course
an Indonesian Homo erectus is not going to make love with an Homo erectus
from China and Europe. This is a ridiculous strawman on your part and no
multiregionalist has ever suggested such a thing. But the spreading of his
offspring, given their own travels, could spread his genes in the direction
of China and Europe. The grandkids carry and spread the genes further.
[snip]
>But if the isolated populations became extinct, erectus in his homeland
>of Africa did not, and in fact he continued to evolve into the tool
>making habilis.
Now you really show your lack of anthropological knowledge. Erectus did not
evolve into habilis. Habilis is the predecessor of erectus. Habilis first
appears around 2.4 million years ago and the earliest erectus is from around
2.0 million years.For more than 40 years erectus has been the connecting
link between sapiens and habilis (see Science News June 20, 1992, p. 408,
See Pat Shipman "Human anncestor's early steps Out of Africa," New Scientis
Feb. 1, 1992, p. 24)
> Then at the end of the last ice age (roughly 250,000
>years ago), one particular population of early humans in Africa spread
>out behind the retreating ice sheets and repopulated the globe, creating
>thereby the single human species we know today as sapiens sapiens.
This is the theory that Templeton appears to have sunk with his molecular
analyses. Why have you decided that Templeton is incorrrect before reading
his paper? Is this justice Alice-in-Wonderland style? Verdict first Trial
later.
>However, the prevailing view is that anatomically modern humans first
>left Africa around 130,000 years ago.
I think that is what I said, the Out of Africa view is the most widely held
view. See above where I wrote: "This view is probably the most widely accepted
view in >anthropology today."
I would point out that even prevailing views get overturned once in a while
and it is worthwhile examining the evidence against one's own view. Maybe
you should get Templeton's paper.
> Second, instead of "repopulating
>the globe", they replaced whatever previous human species still existed
>when they arrived.
Then instead of merely stating a mantra "H.sapiens sapiens replaced all
archaic forms," please explain why the nuclear genetic data indicates an
origin of the genes longer ago than 130,000 years, indeed up to 2 million
years? I would point you to this by Hey,
"The PDHA1 polymorphisms are consistent with the African-origin
portion of this hypothesis as they were found among the sequences of African
origin, suggesting that African populations are more variable at this locus.
However, the site frequency distributions of the nuclear genes are in conflict
with the population expansion scenario. The positive D values from nuclear
genes suggest that human populations were relatively large and not subject to
population bottlenecks during the time that human ancestors evolved into
modern form."~Jody Hey, "Mitochondrial and Nuclear Genes Present Conflicting
Portraits of Human Origins," Molecular Biology and Evolution, 14(1977):2:166-
172, p. 171
If there were no population bottleneck the Out of Africa view is unlikely
to be correct. A small group of Africans were supposed to have developed a
modern morphology and the REPLACED everybody. That small group would
require a population bottleneck.
Furthermore, the 5-globin gene appears to have had a more ancient origin
than the strict Out of Africa view would allow. see Science, 25 April, p.
535 and Gibbons A., "Y Chromosome Shows That Adam Was an African", Science,
Vol. 278, 31 October 1997, p805
Third, the "single human species" was created in
>Africa before they left there (maybe as much as 200,000 years ago), not
after >they had migrated out of Africa.
Once again, you simply state a mantra and fail to go look at Templeton's
article and deal with his data. Is your mind already made up before you even
look at Templeton's work? What Templeton said seems to apply to you.
"Ironically, despite this overwhelming evidence that there
never has been a genetic split between Africans and non-Africans but rather
genetic interchange, the premise of a split is so ingrained that many authors
of these studies still talk about an African/non-African split and date this
'event' that their own data indicates never occurred."Alan R. Templeton,
"Testing the Out of Africa Replacement Hypothesis with Mitochondrial DNA
Data," in G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed., Conceptual Issues in Modern
Human Origins Research, (New York: Aldine de Gryuter, 1997), pp. 329-360, p.
356
It seems that someone who is not religiously attached to a view would at
least get the article before dismissing the data therein contained. Unless
of course, you are religiously attached to the Out of Africa view.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm