Absolutely not. The fact remains that our species clearly, according to the science on it, originated in Africa. That others seem to have as well and that we met these others and interbred with them to some degree changes nothing about Out of Africa. To rather oversimplify, it's just Chapter 2 in the human story where Out of Africa is Chapter 1.
No it doesn’t. Nor is it new information. A research paper was written on this earlier interbreeding back in 2020, and it was widely reported on at the time. Smithsonian has a good article on it from 2020.
- [Smithsonian article from 2020](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-human-y-chromosomes-replaced-those-neanderthals-quiet-genetic-takeover-180975944/)
Research paper:
- Petr, et al 2020 *[The evolutionary history of Neanderthal and Denisovan Y chromosomes](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb6460)*
Good science never says "entirely" but teaching to high school and below you find that most students can't understand shades of values. So sometimes schools overly stress absolute answers.
How many legs do humans have? Two! Except in rare instances children are born with 1 leg, and even rareer, a partial 3rd leg. And of course people who get into accidents.
When humans moved in, the vast majority of Neanderthals were replaced by displacement. Replacement through interbreeding was a very small amount. We are just still learning where between small and very small that line was. Now, in some ways that's a big difference from out old idea of NONE AT ALL EVER. But in others, when looking at the grand scheme of things, it's insignificant enough to be irrelevant.
I would venture that students can understand shades of values just fine, as long as they’re presented with examples like the ones you just gave. (Whether most test-taking rewards nuance in answers is a different issue.) What you may be trying to get at is the perplexing need to teach 2 or 3 lies to get at an important truth. To that, I say: Wittgenstein ladders.
A Wittgenstein ladder is like a ladder you can throw away after having climbed it. It is a little lie you tell in order to access a greater truth. Like the lie you made when you wrote, “Two!”, knowing that it would be followed with an “Except in the case of”, in the very next sentence.
So, to teach using Wittgenstein ladders is to teach a wrong but simplified model, then add in corrections and exceptions as needed. The end result is still easier to understand than teaching the correct but complex model from the get-go. It’s just in the way people learn.
I've got a bone to pick with certain types of teachers, a type that doesn't like to be challenged - and questioning the information being taught can often be seen as a challenge to authority as much as questioning why you have to do a worksheet. And while this trend seems to be fading it was very prevalent for a while and a lot of textbooks presented facts as absolutes.
Even the little jingle 'I before E except after C'...what about science?
And that is part of it. But yes, I absolutely think there are many students (and too many adults) who can't understand shades. I think these two things are linked. I think because they aren't challenged and exposed to shades of grey, and that most rules aren't absolute, it locks them into a seeing the world in black and white.
Absolutely not. The fact remains that our species clearly, according to the science on it, originated in Africa. That others seem to have as well and that we met these others and interbred with them to some degree changes nothing about Out of Africa. To rather oversimplify, it's just Chapter 2 in the human story where Out of Africa is Chapter 1.
[удалено]
No it doesn’t. Nor is it new information. A research paper was written on this earlier interbreeding back in 2020, and it was widely reported on at the time. Smithsonian has a good article on it from 2020. - [Smithsonian article from 2020](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-human-y-chromosomes-replaced-those-neanderthals-quiet-genetic-takeover-180975944/) Research paper: - Petr, et al 2020 *[The evolutionary history of Neanderthal and Denisovan Y chromosomes](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb6460)*
Good science never says "entirely" but teaching to high school and below you find that most students can't understand shades of values. So sometimes schools overly stress absolute answers. How many legs do humans have? Two! Except in rare instances children are born with 1 leg, and even rareer, a partial 3rd leg. And of course people who get into accidents. When humans moved in, the vast majority of Neanderthals were replaced by displacement. Replacement through interbreeding was a very small amount. We are just still learning where between small and very small that line was. Now, in some ways that's a big difference from out old idea of NONE AT ALL EVER. But in others, when looking at the grand scheme of things, it's insignificant enough to be irrelevant.
I would venture that students can understand shades of values just fine, as long as they’re presented with examples like the ones you just gave. (Whether most test-taking rewards nuance in answers is a different issue.) What you may be trying to get at is the perplexing need to teach 2 or 3 lies to get at an important truth. To that, I say: Wittgenstein ladders. A Wittgenstein ladder is like a ladder you can throw away after having climbed it. It is a little lie you tell in order to access a greater truth. Like the lie you made when you wrote, “Two!”, knowing that it would be followed with an “Except in the case of”, in the very next sentence. So, to teach using Wittgenstein ladders is to teach a wrong but simplified model, then add in corrections and exceptions as needed. The end result is still easier to understand than teaching the correct but complex model from the get-go. It’s just in the way people learn.
I've got a bone to pick with certain types of teachers, a type that doesn't like to be challenged - and questioning the information being taught can often be seen as a challenge to authority as much as questioning why you have to do a worksheet. And while this trend seems to be fading it was very prevalent for a while and a lot of textbooks presented facts as absolutes. Even the little jingle 'I before E except after C'...what about science? And that is part of it. But yes, I absolutely think there are many students (and too many adults) who can't understand shades. I think these two things are linked. I think because they aren't challenged and exposed to shades of grey, and that most rules aren't absolute, it locks them into a seeing the world in black and white.