has been a force for (Darwinian, natural selection) adaptation....But broadly, I have no evidence that it has been essential in any way to adaptation..."
David Reich
"I would just warn against drawing inferences of what is good and bad from the type of genetic work that we do..."
Svante Paabo
Yet Reich also inferred, in this very presentation, from some hard evidence he alluded to, that neanderthals had been run to ground by their genetic inconsistencies, over tens of thousands of years, with the genomics of modern humans, whom they confronted, and with whom they also intermingled.
He even goes so far as to say something like that selection against neanderthal traits is still going on now, and will continue!
What is the difference, if any, between the meaning of 'natural selection' and 'adaption' in this context?
He even goes so far as to say something like that selection against neanderthal traits is still going on now, and will continue!
What is the difference, if any, between the meaning of 'natural selection' and 'adaption' in this context?
He and Paabo cannot have it both ways.
Maybe he simply means that there are no new neanderthals left to contribute to modern human DNA, and thus existing small amounts of neanderthal DNA are gradually being supplanted.
That does not mean that there had not been a long process of natural selection, or adaptation, call it what you will, as a result of mixing as well as confrontation.
"...I would not want to infer any ethical values that you should mix or you should not mix. We are very afraid of that...."
Paabo
Reich is more an advocate of the mixing thesis in human prehistory.
The populations Paabo mentions that did perfectly well without mixing are counterexamples, or at least ideological inconsistencies, as between these two researchers.
As I noted in a prior post, Reich's research itself appears to show that endogamy was as important as mixing in human prehistory.
Was there selection, adaptation, against neanderthals or not?
This is not an ethical question, but rather a question of hard scientific fact, as you put it.
You want to be taken to be doing hard science, while skating away from pesky ethical questions.
Then answer the scientific question, not the ethical one.
Maybe he simply means that there are no new neanderthals left to contribute to modern human DNA, and thus existing small amounts of neanderthal DNA are gradually being supplanted.
That does not mean that there had not been a long process of natural selection, or adaptation, call it what you will, as a result of mixing as well as confrontation.
"...I would not want to infer any ethical values that you should mix or you should not mix. We are very afraid of that...."
Paabo
Reich is more an advocate of the mixing thesis in human prehistory.
The populations Paabo mentions that did perfectly well without mixing are counterexamples, or at least ideological inconsistencies, as between these two researchers.
As I noted in a prior post, Reich's research itself appears to show that endogamy was as important as mixing in human prehistory.
Was there selection, adaptation, against neanderthals or not?
This is not an ethical question, but rather a question of hard scientific fact, as you put it.
You want to be taken to be doing hard science, while skating away from pesky ethical questions.
Then answer the scientific question, not the ethical one.
No comments:
Post a Comment