...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Egyptian DNA, Forumbiodiversity, sub-Saharan Africa
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by capra: [qb] Man, Cass, your trolling here gets such predictable responses it's positively unsporting. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/: [qb]No. I work with skulls/fossils. Isn't autosomal ancient DNA extraction limited to a certain time period? I mean where is the autosomal DNA for "AMH" 100,000 years ago? Obviously though ancient DNA will settle things for stuff like ancient Egypt, but this is a far more recent in time. How is ancient DNA going to help the human origins debate when there is none? We have to work with fossils.[/qb][/QUOTE]OK, I don't know much about fossils. So I'm not going to tell you your opinion is unjustified, or quote some unreviewed palaeontogy paper that says what I like. See how easy it is! Actually we do have some relevant ancient DNA from northern Eurasia. It's Neanderthal and Denisovan. Hopefully we will get some aDNA from some of those interesting fossils in China. It's not really political in the West, from what I can see. The evidence is straightforward. There's no political implications to these human origins theories in reality, people just use them for rhetorical purposes. If Multiregionalism had won out, people would be talking about how everyone is united by a million years of race-mixing. If you want to demonize Out-of-Africa, describe it as superior people from one continent conquering the world. No one's deciding whether the Negro is a man and a brother based on their common ancestry being 80 000 years ago with minimal gene flow and not a million years ago with lots of gene flow. Anyway, we went over this before, so back to the topic. Whatever the topic was supposed to be. [/qb][/QUOTE]The Out-of-Africa (OOA) theory has creationist baggage, its pseudo-science. That's why I call it religious. I will leave you with a quote from evolutionary biologist C. Loring Brace- "The continued enthusiasm for finding an identifiable Sub-Saharan African cradle for the origin of all 'modern' human form, then, owes more to the Judaeo-Christian faith in the traditions of a Garden of Eden than it does to anything that can be called science (Brace, 1979, 1986, 1989). There is virtually no unequivocal evidence to support that faith, and no processes or dynamics are considered by which such an origin could have occurred. As it is generally presented (Cann et al., 1987; Stringer and Andrews, 1988), this model of human origins has more in common with the 'special creation' in the 'scientific' creationist approach of Christian fundamentalism (Morris, 1974: 104, 133) than anything resembling the expectations of evolutionary biology." (Brace, 1991 [2000]) The advantage of the Multiregional model is it is Darwinian, for example it assumes phyletic gradualism ("That many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a doubt." ~ Darwin), the opposite of OOA theory. This is covered in detail by Wolpoff (1997), who also criticizes OOA proponents for using biblical terms, e.g. "Mitochondrial Eve". The Out of Africa theory in the 80s/90s was sometimes even named the "Garden of Eden" theory since its committed to a single (not multiple) origin centre for "anatomically modern humans". I'm formerly a religious nutjob (many years ago now). The Multiregional model helped me make sense of the theory of evolution and drop religion; Wolpoff's major book [i]Human Evolution[/i] (921 pages). The OOA theory isn't Darwinian, and like Brace says- it has more in common with Christian fundamentalism, than actual science. No evolutionary process has ever been offered to explain how anatomical modernity originated exclusively in Sub-Saharan Africa. That "AMH" was a speciation event has been falsified and Stringer, the leading OOA proponent no longer argues dispersing "modern" humans were a new species. Heck, OOA proponents invented this concept of "anatomical modern" and have failed to even define it. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3