Missed this thanks.
Recent findings like this and Neanderthal admixture seem to speak well of Cochrane and Harpendings work from waaay back in 2009. I've stumble upon news like this a few times in the past year or so.
I'm a bit concerned about my own biases in reading science news and articles and what I recall. So I'm just wondering has anyone stumbled upon things that speak mostly against any of their key hypothesis in the book or are most people here more or less agreed that their work seems to propose a reasonably good model?
This seems intuitively true but I can't articulate why it seems so.
Could you please elaborate for my sake?
Now that you've made me think about it I'm less sure how big of a concern it should be. My problem is that I just don't know the issues in population genetics well enough to know if my hypothesis is right. Maybe you can tell me. My sense is that a lot of the evidence that confirms Cochrane and Harpending's views is positive evidence demonstrating genetic divergence coincident with the development of agriculture. The discovery of any genetic divergence is interesting and is likely to be published. The absence of a divergence, on the other hand doesn't give us as much to talk about.
My sense with the Neanderthal stuff is that is is pretty conclusive. But one would expect evidence for Modern human- Neanderthal interbreeding to get a lot more publicity than evidence against it. You know, just because the former is weird and exciting.
The other thing is that Cochrane and Harpending contradicted the prevailing wisdom on a lot of the issues they brought up. Evidence that contradicts the consensus view seems 'newer' and is often more likely to get published and more likely to get picked up by science news outlets (as long as it doesn't contradict the consensus view too much). In contrast, evidence that simply confirms the dominant hypothesis seems more like a replicated study and is less frequently published and less frequently picked up by news outlets. Note that I'm trying to extend general notions about publication bias to population genetics. I don't really know much about the field, this is a very 'outside view' hypothesis.
Thanks for the write up. :)
I agree with you on the argument on the genetic divergence with agriculture. Same for your third paragraph.
However I think the second one doesn't seem that strong. For most experts no modern human- Neanderthal admixture was weird and exciting. Since they where in the past luke warmly for it, the studies in the early 00's (that pointed against this) made news in the community.
It was actually one of the points that was more often criticized in the book as being unlikely. G. Cochrane and Harpneding where even accused of some of having known of the results of the new study before hand and latching it on in order to strengthen their case. The accusation is a bit preposterous.
The recent result of probably Neanderthal admixture (remember there are other explanations for that particular set of data) was a surprise but it was basically a return to a sort of common sense position.
The Neanderthal point isn't really about publication bias but about science news bias. Scientists are likely to find either result interesting but human-Neanderthal admixture was like science catnip for the press. They get to run all these headlines about us being part cave-man and use a lot of lame puns.
I think I agree with you.
The Neanderthal point isn't really about publication bias but about science news bias. Scientists are likely to find either result interesting but human-Neanderthal admixture was like science catnip for the press. They get to run all these headlines about us being part cave-man and use a lot of lame puns.
This is true, but I mostly get news like this from following Gene Expression and various anthropological sites and blogs. They are vunreable to similar biases but I think they are closer to publication biases than just any mass media science news section bias.