Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Type of Ancient Human Found—Descendants Live Today?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 209 (625207)
07-21-2011 8:09 PM


For anyone who might be interested, here is the full (PDF) version of the one of the articles Bluejay cited in one of his previous posts:
Multiregional, Not Multiple Origins by Wolpoff, Hawks, & Caspari.
I cannot get the second one; perhaps if he could let me know the title I could find it.
Jon

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Dr Jack, posted 07-22-2011 4:09 AM Jon has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 197 of 209 (625287)
07-22-2011 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Jon
07-21-2011 8:09 PM


Right, so Wolpoff et al have developed a new, and different, theory that they're still insisting on calling the multi-regional hypothesis. How wonderfully helpful.
At least now we're still more or less on the same page.
They don't do a lot of explaining in that paper of what it is they're actually claiming, or what the evidence for it is. But, from what I can gather - yeah, they're still wrong. The overwhelming story of the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens is that it evolved in Africa and then spread to the rest of the world replacing local populations of other Homo species along the way. To a good first approximation that's true; there's a little more to it than that, but that's the big picture.
It's not a story of global evolution, but one of local evolution and spread. Wolpoff's bizarre claim that any reticulation renders OoA wrong is just the Bluejay Claim writ large.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Jon, posted 07-21-2011 8:09 PM Jon has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 198 of 209 (625288)
07-22-2011 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Jon
07-21-2011 10:09 AM


Cuteness not needed
You found the Wiki!
If you prefer I can cite multiple textbooks on evolution, instead. But, frankly, Wiki is easier to link to and has almost precisely the same diagram.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Jon, posted 07-21-2011 10:09 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Jon, posted 07-22-2011 4:53 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 209 (625295)
07-22-2011 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Dr Jack
07-22-2011 4:10 AM


Replies to Message 197
Right, so Wolpoff et al have developed a new, and different, theory that they're still insisting on calling the multi-regional hypothesis. How wonderfully helpful.
The book I cited is far from new, and is largely based off of previous work.
They don't do a lot of explaining in that paper of what it is they're actually claiming, or what the evidence for it is.
Maybe not; I haven't yet read it fully. It's possible to find papers on any topic that are less than explanatory. This is why I've listed sources that provide a more detailed look into the MH theory as presented by MH proponents.
Replies to Message 198
If you prefer I can cite multiple textbooks on evolution, instead. But, frankly, Wiki is easier to link to and has almost precisely the same diagram.
Too bad that citing stuff actually written by MH proponents as proof of their views does not appear as one of your options.
I can understand your reluctance to find source material supporting your claims, of course: especially if none exists.
And seeing as how you've been making the same claims about the MH model and my understanding of it since your first post in this thread (Message 8); and seeing as how you've refused to offer any evidence to support your claims about the MH model and my understanding; I can say I'm no longer interested in your shenanigans.
When you come up with a new angle, let me know.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Dr Jack, posted 07-22-2011 4:10 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Dr Jack, posted 07-22-2011 5:34 AM Jon has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 200 of 209 (625298)
07-22-2011 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Jon
07-22-2011 4:53 AM


The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Human Evolution, Steve Jones et al (ed), Cambridge University Press, 1992. p. 390 (and others)
The Human Past, Chris Scarre (ed), Thames and Hudson, 2005, p. 129 (and others)
Human Evolution: A Very Short Introduction, Bernard Wood, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 104
Do I need to pointlessly hunt out yet more references, or are you going to drop this silliness now? Wikipedia's depiction of the multiregional hypothesis is correct, and exactly as it is widely described in reputable sources. Using a different version of it, and then complaining that we're misrepresenting it is bullshit.
Would you like to accurately describe, and then discuss, what it is you're talking about now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Jon, posted 07-22-2011 4:53 AM Jon has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 201 of 209 (625402)
07-23-2011 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dr Jack
07-21-2011 4:44 AM


Re: Stop making up what the MRH says!
I am pretty sure that what you are describing about the MRH is a little off, but I might just be misunderstanding you. If I understand you, you seem to be suggesting that the MRH is saying parallel evolution occured without any gene flow. But, anyways, I hope you will forgive me if I have misunderstood .
The MRH proposes that there was enough genetic flow between the populations that they all evolved together into H. sapiens, with local variation in populations. I guess my best analogy would be ring species that maintain enough gene flow that cladogenesis is kept from happening. Iirc it is essentially saying modern humans evolved through anagenesis.
Here is the image I was taught, as regards the MRH hypothesis.
(Note the "gene flow" across "species")
P.S. I personally have a hard time with the hypothesis, but I have a hard time with the 'strict' OOA as well. Clifford Jolly did some research on hybrid zones between baboon species that had diverged something like 2 million years (i don't recall the exact timeframe but it was quite large) but were still capable of fertile interbreeding. Taken together with the patterns of migration evidenced by the fossils we've found over Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, it seems to me that some amount of gene flow is likely to have taken place, even between species seperated by 100's of thousands of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dr Jack, posted 07-21-2011 4:44 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dr Jack, posted 07-23-2011 4:32 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 202 of 209 (625429)
07-23-2011 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by DBlevins
07-23-2011 2:02 AM


Re: Stop making up what the MRH says!
Yes, that is what I understand as the (weak) multiregional hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by DBlevins, posted 07-23-2011 2:02 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 203 of 209 (625736)
07-25-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Jon
07-21-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Multiregional hypothesis
Hi, Jon.
The links are working for me. Can any lurkers (if there are any) please test the links to see if the troubles are specific to Jon? Jon, can you just cut-and-paste the links from the "peek" mode?
Here are the bibliographical references, if that helps:
Wolpoff MH, Hawks J & Caspari R (2000) Multiregional, not multiple origins. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 112(1):129-136.
Wolpoff MH, Spuhler JN, Smith FH, Radovcic J, Pope G, Frayer DW, Eckhardt R & Clark J (1988) Modern human origins. Science 241(4867):772-773.
I have to admit that I've only read several peer-reviewed papers by Wolpoff. I've also read a couple other papers by some of the co-authors on those Wolpoff papers, but I can't remember what any of those papers said now.
I have not read the book Race and Human Evolution, but I am familiar with the concept and understand his brief arguments about it from the letters I linked to. His way of dealing with it seems to be that, while one would normally expect center-and-edge effects from a mixing population, there are numerous reasons why these effects would not be apparent, which I would refer to as "ad hoc explanations."

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Jon, posted 07-21-2011 7:27 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by fearandloathing, posted 07-25-2011 11:27 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 204 of 209 (625737)
07-25-2011 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Blue Jay
07-25-2011 11:18 AM


Re: Multiregional hypothesis
Hi,
The first link works, I had to load it twice though before I got it, the second wanted me to sign in to view the page....ect
quote:
To access restricted UK Library resources while off-campus you must log in using your Link Blue accountthe same as for MyUK, Blackboard, email, and other UK Internet services. Please see EZProxy instructions for more information, or send questions about this service to the Libraries using our form.
Electronic resources are licensed for the noncommercial, educational, and research use of University of Kentucky students and employees and those who are physically present at our library facilities.
Systematic downloads, distribution or long-term storage of substantial portions of information is prohibited. By using these products you are agreeing to the terms and conditions for the use of electronic resources .

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Blue Jay, posted 07-25-2011 11:18 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 205 of 209 (625745)
07-25-2011 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Jon
07-21-2011 7:43 PM


Re: Modern genetic distributions
Hi, Jon.
I certainly have trouble letting go of a debate: this is the second time I've come back immediately after claiming to be summarizing. Oh well: you're not a bad debate partner, so I don't mind.
Jon writes:
Bluejay writes:
...that their genes diffused virtually unmolested throughout all of the world through hybridization while the archaic Africans themselves stayed in Africa.
There is nothing in MH about unmolested genes.
Agreed. I wasn't presenting a tenet of a hypothesis: I was presenting the physical evidence in human genomes that demonstrates essentially a total African whitewashing of regional gene pools, which has to be incorporated into any hypothesis.
-----
Jon writes:
MH would predict that the first wave of gene outflow would show up on the peripheries as being highly 'molested'. However, a continued outflow would eventually lead to the central genetic information overtaking the regional genetic information; each outflow would leave behind less peripheral genetic information in its wake, especially if the outflow involved genes carrying beneficial adaptations.
These aren't predictions: these are ad hoc apologetics to explain why we don't see the center-and-edge effects that a strict hybridization model would predict.
-----
Jon writes:
Bluejay writes:
There is no conceivable reason why a model that proposes regional adaptations and extensive hybridization would result in such lopsided dominance by haplotypes from Africa.
I've mentioned several times in this thread why we would see 'lopsided dominance'.
I realize this. My trouble with your explanation is that you haven't yet offered an observed example of this mechanism actually accounting for such a pattern of lopsided dominance in a real-world population. On the other hand, I have provided at least one clear example of a historical migration event resulting in an identical pattern of lopsided dominance.
I can certainly think of examples in which hybridization has been observed to feed population turnover, such as with Africanized (killer) honeybees. However, in this example, migration and replacement play a key role---a bigger role than hybridization, actually---in the turnover of the population. And, I predict that the same will be found in all other examples that you might bring to the table, because, rationally, migration is simply a better explanation for massive, unilateral genetic influx than is hybridization.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Jon, posted 07-21-2011 7:43 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Jon, posted 07-26-2011 8:23 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 209 (625889)
07-26-2011 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Blue Jay
07-25-2011 12:02 PM


Re: Modern genetic distributions
Jon writes:
MH would predict that the first wave of gene outflow would show up on the peripheries as being highly 'molested'. However, a continued outflow would eventually lead to the central genetic information overtaking the regional genetic information; each outflow would leave behind less peripheral genetic information in its wake, especially if the outflow involved genes carrying beneficial adaptations.
These aren't predictions: these are ad hoc apologetics to explain why we don't see the center-and-edge effects that a strict hybridization model would predict.
But we do see center-and-edge effects, we see what those effects are after a couple million years in the works. If you want to address the possible validity of the center and edge hypothesis in explaining past situations, you have to do what I've suggested several times now: look at actual evidence from the past.
Oh well: you're not a bad debate partner, so I don't mind.
LOL. Glad to see you think that now
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Blue Jay, posted 07-25-2011 12:02 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Blue Jay, posted 07-26-2011 2:55 PM Jon has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 207 of 209 (625960)
07-26-2011 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Jon
07-26-2011 8:23 AM


Re: Modern genetic distributions
Hi, Jon.
Jon writes:
But we do see center-and-edge effects, we see what those effects are after a couple million years in the works.
Or, in other words, we don't really see center-and-edge effects, because they have been eroded and obscured over a couple million years. I find it curious that the pattern left behind "after a couple million years in the works" looks for all the world like a pattern of near-complete replacement.
-----
Jon writes:
If you want to address the possible validity of the center and edge hypothesis in explaining past situations, you have to do what I've suggested several times now: look at actual evidence from the past.
And, as I've already stated, this comes off as an evasion tactic. I am provided reasons why a given prediction isn't upheld by evidence from modern populations, I am referred to evidence from the past to make my conclusion, I am informed that the evidence from the past may be too sparse to form a solid conclusion, and I am still being told that the evidence does not show an alternative pattern, when, to me, it looks for all the world like it does show that alternative pattern.
It all feels like little more than proponents of multiregionalism denying me every possible recourse by which I might falsify it.
So, I want to change the focus of the discussion and ask you what evidence would falsify the multiregional hypothesis.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Jon, posted 07-26-2011 8:23 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Jon, posted 07-26-2011 3:26 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 209 (625966)
07-26-2011 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Blue Jay
07-26-2011 2:55 PM


Re: Modern genetic distributions
Jon writes:
But we do see center-and-edge effects, we see what those effects are after a couple million years in the works.
Or, in other words, we don't really see center-and-edge effects, because they have been eroded and obscured over a couple million years.
No; we do see the effects. We see what we would expect given a couple million of years worth of center-and-edge processes.
Now if we want to address how the situation looked earlier on, we have to go digging.
I am informed that the evidence from the past may be too sparse to form a solid conclusion, and I am still being told that the evidence does not show an alternative pattern, when, to me, it looks for all the world like it does show that alternative pattern.
The evidence from the past isn't actually all that sparse. Multiregionalism, when it was still the prevailing model, was founded largely on the basis of physical remains. The physical evidence still unequivocally supports MH. The genetic evidence is, as I've already admitted, somewhat ambiguous, but nevertheless in line with a working MH model.
So, I want to change the focus of the discussion and ask you what evidence would falsify the multiregional hypothesis.
Thank you for the question. I did lay out one scenario a while ago when Taq asked the same question. Here is my response to Taq:
quote:
Jon in Message 174:
Assuming an migration+interbreeding model: any halflings that result from interbreeding will be 50/50 carriers of sapiens and pre-sapiens genetic material and should be the oldest hybrids found in a region. If our model is mostly migration with limited interbreeding, then we should find these locations of 'halflings first' to be spotted around the Old World following the lines of migration.
Assuming a mostly gene-flow model with little migration: the earliest hybrids in the region will not be 'halflings', per se, but will be characterized by a higher proportion of pre-sapiens traits and a lower proportion of sapiens traits, with each later generation showing a higher proportion of sapiens characteristics than the generation(s) previous. If our model is mostly gene flow, then we should find 'halflings first' only at the genetic contact point between the non-originator populations and originator-of-the-DNA populations, and the further out we go from this point of contact, the lower the proportion of sapiens traits in the oldest hybrids will be.
I can certainly look into developing some others; I don't have easy access to most of my sources anymore, so I'll have to think up some more on my own.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Blue Jay, posted 07-26-2011 2:55 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 209 of 209 (632246)
09-06-2011 3:36 PM


Human evolution even more complicated
New study finds that our human ancesters interbred in Africa, roughly 20-60 kya, with another hominin, which had diverged from humans roughly 700 kya:
PNAS
RedoOrbit science report

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024