The are two competing theories of human evolution, Out-of-Africa and Multiregional. One theory say humans first appeared in Africa and moved out to the rest of the world. The multiregional theory claims pre-humans came out of Africa and evolved separately into the three basic races of mankind.
Out-of-Africa is the politically correct theory today. I favor the multiregional theory.
Are there any physical anthropologists on this forum?
The are two competing theories of human evolution, Out-of-Africa and Multiregional. One theory say humans first appeared in Africa and moved out to the rest of the world. The multiregional theory claims pre-humans came out of Africa and evolved separately into the three basic races of mankind.
Out-of-Africa is the politically correct theory today. I favor the multiregional theory.
Are there any physical anthropologists on this forum?
I am not a physical anthropologist but I know that the Out-of-Africa theory is not the "politically correct theory today". It is merely the one with the better evidence and thus supported by more anthropologists than the Multiregional theory.
Or to put it another way: As soon as the Multiregional theory gathers more evidence it will become the politically correct theory.
Unless they find another proof bigger than the founding "Eve" - proven by mitochondrial DNA that is in every group tested so far(all the majors....), it's Africa all the way.
It's the geneticists you need to check with on this one.
The are two competing theories of human evolution, Out-of-Africa and Multiregional. One theory say humans first appeared in Africa and moved out to the rest of the world. The multiregional theory claims pre-humans came out of Africa and evolved separately into the three basic races of mankind.
Out-of-Africa is the politically correct theory today. I favor the multiregional theory.
Are there any physical anthropologists on this forum?
Not a physical anthropologist, but I've done a bit of study on human evolution from a genetics perspective.
The fact you so readily make it a political discussion by insinuating it is 'politically correct' to go with the evidence indicates you're not really interested in making this a scientific discussion. So...if you're not out to be convinced by the evidence, is there a point to this thread?
I'm not an expert on cladistics, but if these three groups were evolutionarily separated -before- becoming human, wouldn't that mean that one group is human and the other two aren't?
Since this is clearly wrong, your hypothesis is swiftly dismissed.
I'm not an expert on cladistics, but if these three groups were evolutionarily separated -before- becoming human, wouldn't that mean that one group is human and the other two aren't?
That's fair. After all, it's politically correct at stormfront to refer to the mud-people as "anthropoids", which is ok, because it's not like they're human or anything.
I'm not even sure what species Jews are supposed to be. Maybe alien.
That's fair. After all, it's politically correct at stormfront to refer to the mud-people as "anthropoids", which is ok, because it's not like they're human or anything.
Really? It's been so long since I've perused any supremacist literature or websites I wasn't aware they had become so PC in their own sick way. I recall one piece from Kingdom Identity ministries that claimed blacks were the "beasts of the field" referred to in Genesis.
If I remember the content of this pamphlet I got years ago they're descended from when the Nefilim had sex with human women. So demons... aliens... flip a coin.
Some argue that although race is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans. Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity. Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Many contend that while racial categorizations may be marked by phenotypic or genotypic traits, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into races or racial groups, are social constructs.
I am in an introductory course to physical anthropology, and I plan to progress to Alberta to get serious about it in the near future. This is a subject we just covered.
I used to be a firm believer of the Out-of-Africa theory, but now that I am learning more about Neandertals, and the mtDNA and DNA (I point you towards the studies from Vincent Plagnol, Jeffrey D. Wall) research that is being done. I am starting to think it's Multiregional. There seem to be gene drifts out of Africa then back again as well as some involvement from Europe. I think the fossils could indicate a mere difference in appearance, allowing for interbreeding from across the "known world" of the Mid and Upper Palaeolithic, resulting in our modern humans.
I am in the process of getting a degree in anthropology, and I have to say that the professors at my school hardly even mention the multi-regional hypothesis, simply because it may be offensive to some. However, I personally lean towards this interpretation, rather than the out of Africa hypothesis, for a few reasons.
The OoA hypothesis posits that modern homo sapiens came out of Africa, and in a period of about 150,000 years, either killed all the neanderthals, or out competed them for resources. I find this hard to believe considering the vast amount of area the neanderthals already inhabited. Is it also realistic that the modern humans had such an advantage over them?
I do think there are also some studies on the genetics of both species showing evidence for some possible gene flow between the two. I do not know the specifics, nor do I feel like researching this right now , but it is there.
Personally, I do not think the multi-regional hypothesis gets enough love. I think this is primarily because it would imply semi-distinct origins of certain human ethnic groups. And no anthropologist wants to touch that subject.
The feeling I get, is that both interpretations are half right...
The best current popular proponent in this area is probably Spencer Wells, who is not an anthropologist but rather a geneticist. He did the "Journey of Man" project with National Geographic, which has expanded into the Genographics project (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/genographic) to attain more DNA data about human origins. In brief, the former, based on DNA sampling methids, posits roughly this history:
Homo and its precursors (australopithecine and other -pithecines) developed in eastern Africa (the Rift valley). At various times after about 200,000 years ago, before the latest ice age, early men migrated away from his cradle area to populate other parts of the globe, just as apes themselves had done some million or so years before; these included homo habilis as Sinjanthropus and Java man, and slightly later homo neandertalensis: Neandertals. Immigration stopped about 80,000 years ago because of the ice age, which left northern Africa an uncrossable desert. Somewhere in this time gap homo sapiens developed and succeeded its brother species, but in the process the total population of homo sapiens dropped to perhaps as low as 2000-10,000 individuals, because of the difficult environment. When the ice age started easing 50,000 years ago, another wave of migration started, his time with homo sapiens. They appear to have displaced all previous homo species; there is no DNA proof that there was any mixing of species, most notably with Neandertals (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/no-neanderthal.html).
Mitochondrial Eve lived about 200,000 years ago, Y-chromosomal Adam 60,000 years.
Once they left Africa, the immigrants branched - one branch crawled the Asian shoreline to get to Australia 40,000 years ago, the other migrated North as the ice retreated. In central Asia it branched west to Europe, and east to east Asia. This latter eventually made it across the Bering land bridge (perhaps several times), they may have gotten into the Americas proper as far back as 25,000 years, but certainly no later than 10,000 years ago.
While either theory was possible to hold up to the 1970s, fossil evidence from Africa and DNA evidence has pretty well put the kabosh on the multiregional hypothesis. Like Steady State theory in physics, it just cannot explain the evidence as well. Indeed, there are still arguments about the details as I've described them; see the reference to the Bradshaw Foundation below. There are even hypotheses about eastern North America being colonized from Europe about 10,000 years ago, albeit from traditional cultural arguments rather than DNA evidence.
As far as I know, there is no reason besides simple advocacy of racial prejudice to label out of Africa as politically correct. Both were possible, but later evidence has lifted OA and left multiregional behind. It is certain, based on DNA studies, that everyone alive today is a single race, all derived from something very close to the Han culture of today's southwest Africa. The differences among the "races" we see today are all characteristics adapting to their different environments, from skin color to vitamin A and lactose tolerances.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
, but it is there.