Re: trichotomy revisited

Pat Dooley (
Mon, 12 DEC 94 00:10:22 -0500

Phillip Bigelow <> writes:

> Read Benveniste and Todaro's research article in _Nature_, v. 252,
>pp. 456-459. This paper is one of the references used by the supporters of
>the AAT for "evidence" of isolation from the African continent. In fact,
>Beneviste and Todaro _did_ find that humans carry a marker for baboon-C
>virus, but for only the p30 protein of the virus. This shows that humans
>_were_ exposed to the virus. It is in direct conflict with the supporters
>of the AAT, who had the audacity to use the paper as evidence for geographic
>isolation. I think that this is an example of proponents relying too
>heavily on non-peer-reviewed popular books, rather than bothering to read
>the original research.

Todaro used this evidence to argue for an Asian originf of man in Current
Arguements on Early Man. Todaro and Benveniste's Nature article was
entitled "Evolution of Type C viral genes; evidence for an Asian origin
of Man". What could be more explicit that that? Why would they give their
article such a heading and then contradict it in the body of the text?
I did take the time to look up the papers to see if Morgan was quoting
them fairly. All the AAH proponents have done is suggest a more
plausible out-of-Africa scenario. Even ignoring the aquatic elements
of the AAH, the theory of a period of island evolution has some
merit, especially when we try to explain the rather radical
adaptations that humans compared to their nearest relatives.

Pat Dooley