Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Multi-regionalism and Probability
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 30 (387688)
03-01-2007 11:59 PM


... ante up everyone ...
Forumites,
I was going to save this topic until I finished my paper, but recent chat discussions bring a feeling in me saying that it should not wait.
Imagine a deck of 52 cards. You must draw one. The probability of you drawing a card is 52/52 = 100% (since you must draw a card, and the card you draw doesn't matter).
Now, suppose you draw the Jack of Clubs. After doing so, you place it back in the deck and reshuffle, etc. Now, you must draw again. The chances of you getting a card are still 100%, but the chances of you getting the same card as before--or in other words, the same card as from a different draw which was itself an independent event--is 1/52 = 1.9%.
In my opinion, this is similar to what we see when looking at present Asian skulls, and H. erectus Asian skulls from so long ago. The skulls have the same features. It is as if H. erectus grabbed the Jack of Clubs, and then H. sapiens grabbed it right afterwards, i.e., extremely unlikely assuming they are independent events. I would first like to point out to the member from chat, that this is not an "argument of incredulity" as the common Creo would put it--life can't evolve because of odds against it, etc.--but this is an argument based on sound reasoning.
In this case, the odds are against the two populations evolving the same characteristics independent of each other. A better explanation is that they interbred, and the traits from H. erectus were passed onto modern Asian populations. Like I said, given they are independent events, it is extremely unlikely to see what we see today. The more likely explanation is that they are not independent events and are closely linked through breeding and gene passing.
Max
Edited by Jonicus Maximus, : grammar & subtitle
Edited by Jonicus Maximus, : message to admins removed

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 03-02-2007 1:59 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 30 (387702)
03-02-2007 2:12 AM


Ahem :: Clearing up Some Points
I've been requested to clarify the positions. I will try to describe them as best as I understand each one.
Out of Africa:
The Out of Africa hypothesis (OOA) states that H. sapiens evolved in Africa about 100,000 years ago, and then migrated outward to where populations of H. erectus and H. neandertalensis were living. The sapiens then out competed/killed off the native populations and took their place. Separate racial characteristics, such as skull features (mentioned in OP), then evolved to what they are today. It claims that mtDNA variation supports the idea.
Multi-regional:
The Multi-regional hypothesis (MH) states that after H. erectus, H. neandertalensis, etc. moved from Africa, their populations, though separated, continued to interact and breed. In a sense, they became a "world population," and not just separate populations in complete isolation. On a global scale then, modern humans--which are considered in MH to be only a variety of the entire H. sapien line that they believe includes erectus and neandertalensis--evolved from these other populations. Evidence for MH comes from the "ginger gene", and fossil similarities between regional skull characteristics, especially those found in Asian H. erectus populations and modern populations.
____________________________
The probability of these skull characteristics arising independently as claimed in OOA is the topic of this thread. Where OOA says they did arise independently, but MH says they are better explained if we accept that earlier "humans" were breeding with local populations of H. erectus (and neandertalensis) and not just replacing them.
I hope this serves to clear up any confusion people may have had regarding the meaning of my post.
Max
Edited by Jonicus Maximus, : conventions & subtitle

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2007 7:58 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 8 by kuresu, posted 03-02-2007 2:20 PM Jon has replied
 Message 16 by sfs, posted 03-05-2007 10:06 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 30 (387818)
03-02-2007 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by kuresu
03-02-2007 2:20 PM


Re: Ahem :: Clearing up Some Points
I want to see the proof that H. sapiens could in fact interbreed with erectus, neandertalensis, and heidelburgensis. Or for that matter, that erectus and neandertalensis could inertreed, or that erectus and heidelgurgensis could interbreed, or any other combination (seeing as how the MRH requires them all being able to interbreed, from what I understand).
If you cannot show that they could, then MRH is dead in the water from the get-go.
Here you are making the assumption that humans won't stick their member in anything that moves. Also, you sound like a Creationist with that "oh yeah? prove it!" attitude.
Did this multiple-region speciation event occur simultaneously? How can you tell? If they didn't, how can you tell that it isn't just H. sapiens replacing the elder species?
Read this from Message 4:
quote:
In a sense, they became a "world population," and not just separate populations in complete isolation. On a global scale then, modern humans--which are considered in MH to be only a variety of the entire H. sapien line that they believe includes erectus and neandertalensis--evolved from these other populations.
Further more, where is the oldest H. sapiens fossil located? The oldest cro-magnon fossil (modern man)? If H. sapiens arose independently through all this interbreeding, shouldn't we find ancient H. sapiens in more than one place?
You seem not to realize how few fossils we actually have. Most are nothing but chunky little fragments of skulls, legs, whathaveyou.
Also, if the MRH is true, shouldn't there be more than one line (everyone today is related to a single ancestor, based off of genetic studies)?
You seem to know little to nothing about mtDNA, and I cannot describe everything I know about it here. You will have to read up on it a little and then ask specific questions about how it relates to the two theories.
Max

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by kuresu, posted 03-02-2007 2:20 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 30 (387820)
03-02-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Chiroptera
03-02-2007 5:33 PM


Re: Oliver!!! i want somore!!
Pretty much, but one thing of MH is that the different "species" are actually one specie, and that modern humans would just be a variation. So you don't really have evolution into a new species, but rather just a world-wide change to a different variation. The genes of that variation eventually watered down the genes of old variations enough to where the new variation was more common, until soon it was all there was. Yet, as I said with skull similarities and the "ginger gene," some traits still exist from these early breedings.
Max

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 03-02-2007 5:33 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 30 (388778)
03-07-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by sfs
03-05-2007 10:06 PM


Re: Ahem :: Clearing up Some Points
An Out of Africa model is supported not just by mtDNA, but by X, Y and autosomal data. As far as genetics is concerned (and genetics is very powerful here), full multiregional models are dead.
Are they, really?
quote:
Recent research suggests that variation in Y-chromosome DNA is relatively low, and a hypothetical ”Adam’ ... may have lived at an even younger date than the hypothetical mitochondrial ”Eve’.
In whatever way these "scientists" are reading the DNA evidence, they are making a mistake. The genetics should show a rather agreeable date, but it shows really old mtDNA populations, and relatively younger Y-chromosome DNA populations; this is only explainable if we realize that current methods for genetic reading are semi-(if not entirely)-flawed.
I believe that the genes that define our sapiens variation may, indeed, have arisen mostly in African populations, but that these genes (not the individual creatures themselves) spread through interbreeding, slowly becoming incorporated into already existing populations of what we would call H. erectus, and slowly altering what is really the erectus variety of Humans to become the modern variety. Other "human" traits could also have arisen in other population outside of Africa, and spread to the rest of the erectus world.
And then:
quote:
In [the case of beta-globin, the DNA coding for which is found on chromosome 11], there are beta-globin types found in modern Asians, but not Africans, which appear to have been evolving their distinctive patterns for at least 200,000 years. This would suggest local continuity in Asia, which goes back well beyond the time of the supposed ”Out of Africa’ dispersal.
Genetic studdies seem glitchy at best for OOA, and at the far end, seem to support MH moreso.
Now, I should really be puting this in my report . Laters.
Max
________________
Chris Stringer and Peter Andrews. The Complete World of Human Evolution (New York: Thames & Hudson Inc., 2005), 177.
Ibid., 177.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by sfs, posted 03-05-2007 10:06 PM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 03-07-2007 5:19 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 20 by sfs, posted 03-07-2007 10:47 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 30 (389288)
03-12-2007 12:33 PM


MtDNA Report Finished:
My report:
Extension was given by instructor for the report, so I removed the link for now
It should serve as an effective response to questions about why I do not find mtDNA evidence convincing as absolute proof for OOA.
I would like to ask that this report does not recieve the same treatment as my last I posted. Do not attack the style of the report, or how it's written, or the language used, or the conventions, or its straigh-forwardness/lack thereof. Instead, I want to address its content, and how the argument pertains to the subject of this thread. I am not posting this paper as an effort to show off my writing any more than a post on the boards could be seen as such an effort. It is, like any post, meant to convey the information, and it is the information on which I am hoping you will all focus. Why I post this as a paper instead of as a standard post is simply for the fact that I have already written this once, and do not wish to do so twice.
Jns
Edited by Jns, : halvzees, onzees, twozees! :-
Edited by Jns, : Removed link.

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Wounded King, posted 03-12-2007 1:29 PM Jon has replied
 Message 27 by fallacycop, posted 03-12-2007 2:15 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 30 (389297)
03-12-2007 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Wounded King
03-12-2007 1:29 PM


Re: MtDNA Report Finished:
My apologies for the incorrect information. That information was taken primarily from the source cited in footnote one of page 2.
Their information on mtDNA is that it is, indeed, rather pointless. I will definately take what you said into my mind, but as for the paper it should not be too big a concern, as the primary points still apply, only they apply in regards to the "control region," instead of to all of the mtDNA strand--I would assume that it is this region that is used in mtDNA analysis of population history.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Wounded King, posted 03-12-2007 1:29 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 30 (389302)
03-12-2007 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by fallacycop
03-12-2007 2:15 PM


Re: MtDNA Report Finished:
quote:
How do you explain that with your model?
In my report, I do not argue in favour of any particular model; instead, I argue against the OOA interpretation of mtDNA data. According to mtDNA, either population fluctuations could explain it or OOA. And so, I argue that neither should be assumed correct.
Because the OOA seems to be the currently accepted theory, I decided to focus on it could being wrong slightly more than on why population fluctuations can be equally as wrong.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by fallacycop, posted 03-12-2007 2:15 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by fallacycop, posted 03-12-2007 3:19 PM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024