Engaging the Zoo of RTB Models

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

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.

@swamidass

1. Humans = Homo sapiens.
2. Neanderthals are more close mentally to Apes, and are beasts without intelligence.
3. Homo sapiens must arise less than 100 kya, genetically from a single couple
4. No interbreeding with Neandertals.
5. A lost record of cities and agricultures

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

Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man: Fazale Rana, Hugh...

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.

1. Humans = Homo sapiens.
2. Neanderthals are more close mentally to Apes, and are beasts without intelligence.
3. Homo sapiens must arise less than 100 kya, from a single couple
4. Homo sapiens interbreed with Neanderthals, and this is bestiality.
5. A lost record of cities and agricultures

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.

Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity: Fazale Rana...

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.

1. Humans = Homo sapiens or behaviorally modern Homo sapiens
2. Neanderthals are more close mentally to Apes, and are beasts without intelligence.
3. Humans arise between 200 kya to 50 kya, from a single couple.
4. Humans interbreed with Neanderthals, and this is bestiality.
5. A lost record of cities and agricultures

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?