Engaging the Zoo of RTB Models

Continuing the discussion from RTB's Model and Smalley:

I had a very helpful conversation with @AJRoberts that helps make sense of the RTB position. This is a must read for the OEC’s that are connected to RTB, and those of us that engage with them.

The RTB Model #1

I had defined the RTB model as follows. This, however, is best described as Hugh’s first model, the one that appears in “Who Was Adam?” Edition 1.

Regarding our comments on Smalley, it does appear this model is falsified by the evidence.

RTB Model #2

Then there was a change, that @otto pointed too, where Rana and Ross came appreciate and accept the evidence for Neanderthal-Sapien interbreeding. This means that RTB #1 is not really their current model, and we need to careful about not misrepresenting them. They changed the model in Edition 2 of their book, to include Neanderthal-Humans interbreeding as bestiality.

It is possible that this could be consistent with the evidence, but we need do some work to test it, by computing the TMR4A time within the Sapien specific lineage.

The RTB Model Zoo

This is the surprising part to me though. It often seems that the Ross-Rana model is the only accepted position at RTB. That, however, is not precisely the case. They have several visiting scholars that are “in the tent”, and have a range of view. From what I gather, the common threads now are.

There may be a few that try to deny #4, but that appears to be an outlier. This really broadens their field. It is possible (though hardly certain) that the evidence might be consistent with something within this range. This is very encouraging news, as they may be more flexible internally than their public presence indicates.

Major Sources of Confusion

I would imagine that RTB downplays the bestiality in their model. For whatever reason this is the case, however, it is exceedingly difficult from their website to clarify what their current model currently is, and what the claims of their “testable” model might be. Also, due to Dr. Ross’s deservedly dominant role at RTB, it is all but impossible to get clarity on the range of views in the RTB camp.

To help people along, I hope that RTB supporters help me figure out what is correct or incorrect about this post, Moreover, any detective work to fill in what specific people are putting forward other than Rana-Ross would be very helpful. @KenKeathley, @guy_coe, @AJRoberts.

Three Ways We Can Help

It seems Peaceful Science can help them in three ways:

  1. Make known the full range of positions at RTB, and help adjudicate what is most plausible according to the evidence. This would be a better than relying on purely internal RTB processes.

  2. Do the genetic analysis to test the genetic plausibility of RTB #2 model, and other models that included Neanderthal interbreeding. If some thing could work that would be great. And I just got the data required to do the analysis.

  3. It might be helpful for some if the bestiality aspect of the model wasn’t there. We can help resolve that. We could help them work out a better theological framework, that could remove the bestiality in their model.

I think this would be the best way to help them going forward. What do you think?

3 Likes

There are a lot more species of humans in Africa, Asia, and Europe for the past 2 million+ years. The actual history of humans is is far more complex than any of the RTB models.

2 Likes

Totally agree. I’m just trying to be helpful.

Of course, also, they do not affirm common descent, which puts them at odds with evolutionary science. There, however, no value in forcing conflict where it need not exist. In the end, it is not enough to be right. We have to be trusted.

No common decent? How did all the intermediate species get into the fossil/DNA record?

1 Like

To be 100% clear, I affirm common descent. RTB does not.

They think they were independent creation events from Homo sapiens. I’m not sure how that accounts for interbreeding though. I think rejecting common descent is difficult (impossible?) to justify scientifically, and not required by theology.

1 Like

Thanks for clarifying, AJ.

1 Like

6 posts were split to a new topic: Singularities in Progressive Creation

Just to collect a related post on the RTB position:

156 posts were split to a new topic: When do Humans Arise?

What about that lost record of cities and agriculture? How is that possible?

Well, I don’t agree with them on this. However the best case I could give on their behalf:

  1. If most human settlements were along the costs, most evidence of agriculture would have been lost when the seas rose 400 ft about 10kya ago.

  2. We are finding more and more evidence of agriculture in the past, pushing the date back for agricultural “firsts.”

Of course, the agricultural revolution still only takes places about 10 kya, so I am less convinced. This is, perhaps, the outline of the case on behalf of them.

1 Like
  1. What do you mean “if”? What possible reason to make that assumption?

  2. But that isn’t lost, it’s all maintained until the present day with the same food crops. And you can use their genetics to place limits on domestication. And as you say, this is nowhere near 100,000 years.

  3. Have we not forgotten the other claim about cities?

I gave the best argument on their behalf, but it leaves your questions largely unanswered.

However I think you are wrong o some of the details. Crops from 40 Kya are not maintained through till today.