Thursday, July 12, 2018

The Braided River


The Waimakariri River in the South Island of New Zealand is braided over most of its course
By I, Gobeirne, CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2437562

If you look for an inheritance tree, you will find a tree; but a tree is only a model.
Multiregional theory of human origins in Africa:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/07/the-new-story-of-humanitys-origins/564779/
The New Story of Humanity's Origins in Africa
Several new discoveries suggest that our species didn’t arise from a single point in space. Instead, the entire continent was our cradle.

Perhaps the same is true for the Indo-European languages.

Excerpt, emphasis added:

This can be a tricky concept to grasp, because we’re so used to thinking about ancestry in terms of trees, whether it’s a family tree that unites members of a clan or an evolutionary tree that charts the relationships between species. Trees have single trunks that splay out into neatly dividing branches. They shift our thoughts toward single origins. Even if humans were widespread throughout Africa 300,000 years ago, surely we must have started somewhere.

Not so, according to the African-multiregionalism advocates. They’re arguing that Homo sapiens emerged from an ancestral hominid that was itself widespread through Africa, and had already separated into lots of isolated populations. We evolved within these groups, which occasionally mated with each other, and perhaps with other contemporaneous hominids like Homo naledi.

The best metaphor for this isn’t a tree. It’s a braided river—a group of streams that are all part of the same system, but that weave into and out of each other.

These streams eventually merge into the same big channel, but it takes time—hundreds of thousands of years. For most of our history, any one group of Homo sapiens had just some of the full constellation of features that we use to define ourselves. “People back then looked more different to each other than any populations do today," says Scerri, “and it’s very hard to answer what an early Homo sapiens looked like. But there was then a continent-wide trend to the modern human form.” Indeed, the first people who had the complete set probably appeared between 40,000 and 100,000 years ago.

Comments (5)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Reproductive isolation is the key to forming new species. Humans are quite mobile and tend to interbreed quite freely. Modern humans and Neandertals were isolated from each other by two or three hundred thousand years, enough to form essentially different species but not quite long enough to prevent fertile interspecies hybrids. Presumably if French and English were to avoid intermarriage for 100,000 or 200,000 years, they would become separate species. Certain castes in Ethiopia and India have avoided intermarriage for 2000 - 4000 years, but they are in no danger of becoming separate species anytime soon.
1 reply · active 351 weeks ago
And yet people persist with a tree model for language.
Tree models work very well. You just need to consider the appropriate time scales. It seems to take five or ten thousand generations of humans to genetically separate branches at the species level, but only twenty or thirty generations of linguistic isolation to separate languages to mutual unintelligibility.
1 reply · active 350 weeks ago
Tree models are parsimonious and fit the rather sparse prehistoric linguistic data with minimum additional assumptions. But it doesn't mean that they are correct. The sparse aDNA data suggest gene flows on the scale of twenty to thirty generations (at 28 years a generation, 560-840 years), and detectable gene flows means a lot more people-people interaction. In particular, a braid model would suggest that there never was a P.I.E.; like the braid model of human origins in Africa where the whole of Africa is the homeland of human origins, there was no "P.I.E." homeland or original P.I.E speaking population.
Cladistics was there before the theory of natural selection. What drives cladistics is some theory. What is the theory behind the classification of languages? Just similarities won't cut it. Can the so-called laryngeal theory do the job?

Post a new comment

Comments by