It certainly will slow down diffusion into the South African population, which needs to be taken into account. It doesn’t disprove GAE - and Inever claimed that it did - but to say that it isn’t a problem is going too far. It might turn out that it isn’t, but to me the duration of the isolation suggests - only suggests - that there is an issue.
My point is that it suggests nothing. When the data say nothing about a question, we can’t infer anything, even tentatively.
2 Likes
That’s a relief.
I disagree. That’s the beauty, and IMO the whole point, of the GAE.
1 Like
There is no point of GAE at all. GAE is as pointless as the number of angels that can fit on the end of a pin. For those who want to understand the real story of our evolutionary history, read about the latest findings in aDNA.
1 Like
So you disagree with the premise that genealogical ancestry doesn’t perfectly correspond to genetic ancestry?
2 Likes
The point is to reconcile creationists to evolutionary biology. You aren’t the audience.
4 Likes
I certainly know the difference between genealogical ancestry and genetic ancestry. Genealogical Homo Sapien Adam and Neanderthal Eve is far more interesting than biblical GAE.
There is no audience for GAE. Creationists dismissed it a long time ago.
1 Like
Wouldn’t know. Why do you care?
The creationist organizations have dismissed it, of course, because they can never afford to let their adherents know about alternatives to creationism. But I know that GAE has been rhetorically useful in my own discussions with creationists (both IRL and online).
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.