ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags human evolution

Reply
Old 21st November 2008, 07:53 PM   #1
MaGZ
Philosopher
 
MaGZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,914
Out-of-Africa or Multiregional theory of human evolution.

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?
MaGZ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2008, 08:29 PM   #2
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
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.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2008, 09:01 PM   #3
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
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.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2008, 10:03 PM   #4
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,985
Is there a motive for this thread? If the multi-regional theory is true, does that mean that some strands of the human race are superior to others?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2008, 10:05 PM   #5
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
 
UnrepentantSinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 26,840
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
I favor the multiregional theory.
Shocking.

Put me in the OoA camp. That's where all the evidence points.
__________________
I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.
UnrepentantSinner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2008, 10:10 PM   #6
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
What three basic races?
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2008, 10:13 PM   #7
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
 
UnrepentantSinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 26,840
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
What three basic races?
My guess, based on previous experience with Magz is - whites, Jews and mud people.
__________________
I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.
UnrepentantSinner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2008, 10:19 PM   #8
athon
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,259
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
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?

Athon
athon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2008, 10:29 PM   #9
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,576
MaGZ, are you referring to the early Germans, such as the Neandertals?
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2008, 10:33 PM   #10
Madalch
The Jester
 
Madalch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,763
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
The multiregional theory claims pre-humans came out of Africa and evolved separately into the three basic races of mankind.
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.
__________________
As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius
It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker
Madalch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2008, 10:56 PM   #11
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,794
Originally Posted by Madalch View Post
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?
Might mean that to MaGZ, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 12:24 AM   #12
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,688
Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner View Post
My guess, based on previous experience with Magz is - whites, Jews and mud people.
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.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 01:06 AM   #13
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
 
UnrepentantSinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 26,840
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I'm not even sure what species Jews are supposed to be. Maybe alien.
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.
__________________
I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.
UnrepentantSinner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 01:21 AM   #14
maxfrost
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 199
Quote:
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(c...f_human_beings)

Of course, the above may just be "politically-correct" as well.
__________________
When you lie down with dogs, you wake up with dog breath.

Last edited by maxfrost; 22nd November 2008 at 01:23 AM. Reason: link added
maxfrost is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 01:23 AM   #15
IndridCold
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 34
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.

Last edited by IndridCold; 22nd November 2008 at 02:26 AM.
IndridCold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 02:41 AM   #16
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
 
UnrepentantSinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 26,840
Originally Posted by IndridCold View Post
I used to be a firm believer...





__________________
I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.
UnrepentantSinner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 03:31 AM   #17
IndridCold
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 34
My bad. *I used to support the theory of...
IndridCold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 05:47 AM   #18
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,458
Question: what do the anthropologists here think of Homo* Floresensis?
Does it hurt the OOA theory? Does it help it? Has it got nothing to do with it?



*From the information I've seen, it seems Australopithecus would actually be a better genus for this find.
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 07:26 AM   #19
joshw
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1
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...
joshw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 09:07 AM   #20
shadron
Philosopher
 
shadron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,918
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/2...anderthal.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.

Journey of Man: NG special:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Stephen Oppenheimer/Bradshaw Foundation's view: www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/
Wells' TED talk: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/s..._humanity.html

Last edited by shadron; 22nd November 2008 at 09:33 AM.
shadron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 09:16 AM   #21
gdnp
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,998
I would also like to hear why one theory or the other is considered more politically correct (sorry--didn't read all the links. )
gdnp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 09:58 AM   #22
shadron
Philosopher
 
shadron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,918
As joshw explained, part of that is that the Out of Africa supports diminishing the significance of the races, while the multiregional explanation exacerbates it by giving a genealogical basis to race. As with controversy about different race brain size studies, investigating these different theories invites attacks from both the racist and the pan-humanist fringe groups. The racists traditionally (at least by tradition over the last 40 years) assign the epithet PC to whatever theory does not please them.
shadron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 10:05 AM   #23
shadron
Philosopher
 
shadron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,918
Originally Posted by Damien Evans View Post
Question: what do the anthropologists here think of Homo* Floresensis?
Does it hurt the OOA theory? Does it help it? Has it got nothing to do with it?

*From the information I've seen, it seems Australopithecus would actually be a better genus for this find.
homo floresensisWP seems to have good coverage on this fossil. Still lots of controversy about it. There was a NOVA program on it last spring, but unforunately it is not one of the ones available for viewing (copyright issues). It would think that either theory covers it, and the fact that it could be either homo sapiens or any other variety - though, Australopithecus is a stretch; it went extinct in Africa at least 2.5 million years ago; having a tiny branch last until 18,000 years ago on Flores all on its lonesome is very likely.

There are also other dwarf human finds in the Pacific: see this article: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...l#previouspost, which cites a paper. He says they are definitely homo sapiens.

Last edited by shadron; 22nd November 2008 at 10:26 AM.
shadron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 11:25 AM   #24
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,688
Originally Posted by shadron View Post
The best current popular proponent in this area is probably Spencer Wells, who is not an anthropologist but rather a geneticist.
The best current popular poster in this area is you.

Nominated. Superb post.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 12:48 PM   #25
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78,970
How absurd to think the "Out of Africa" theory is simply more PC. The overwhelming evidence is genetic and it matches archaeological evidence and linguistic evolution evidence as well.
__________________
TRUMP CHEATS What color hat should I order with that logo? Red on black maybe? Or black on pink?

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 01:09 PM   #26
MaGZ
Philosopher
 
MaGZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,914
Originally Posted by IndridCold View Post
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.
Welcome to the forum.

Until now I was disappointed with the direction of this “discussion”. Everything I know about the two theories indicates they are equal in standing before the scientific community. The Out-of-Africa theory is basically political, having its beginnings in University of Berkeley in California. It would not have been the first politically correct theory to have ever appeared, remember Lysenkoism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
MaGZ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 01:13 PM   #27
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,814
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
...snip...

Everything I know about the two theories

...snip...
Would seem to be nothing bar their names.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 01:16 PM   #28
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
Welcome to the forum.

Until now I was disappointed with the direction of this “discussion”. Everything I know about the two theories indicates they are equal in standing before the scientific community.
That is your problem. You don't know anything about it except for how one of them seems to support you racists beliefs.

Quote:
The Out-of-Africa theory is basically political, having its beginnings in University of Berkeley in California. It would not have been the first politically correct theory to have ever appeared, remember Lysenkoism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
University of California, Berkeley
Top Graduate Schools
Number 5 in Paleontology
Number 3 in Evolutionary Biology
Number 4 in Genetics
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsa.../sciences.html

I wonder why such a major theory could come from Berkeley...odd huh?
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

Last edited by paximperium; 22nd November 2008 at 01:17 PM.
paximperium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 01:23 PM   #29
MaGZ
Philosopher
 
MaGZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,914
Originally Posted by joshw View Post
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...
Also, welcome to the forum.

You post seems to support one of my assertions in that politics today plays an important part in the study of human evolution. The idea that Europeans, Asians and Africans evolved separately from pre-humans (multiregional hypothesis) would be controversial in today’s academic settings.
MaGZ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 01:26 PM   #30
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
Also, welcome to the forum.

You post seems to support one of my assertions in that politics today plays an important part in the study of human evolution. The idea that Europeans, Asians and Africans evolved separately from pre-humans (multiregional hypothesis) would be controversial in today’s academic settings.
Well, yes, especially since there seems to be no reason to accept such a theory...
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 01:27 PM   #31
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
Also, welcome to the forum.

You post seems to support one of my assertions in that politics today plays an important part in the study of human evolution. The idea that Europeans, Asians and Africans evolved separately from pre-humans (multiregional hypothesis) would be controversial in today’s academic settings.
It would very very controversial indeed, since the genetic data and a multitude of evidence refutes it.
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 01:37 PM   #32
MaGZ
Philosopher
 
MaGZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,914
One problem with the OoA theory is why are there no remains of Cro-Magnon found in Africa only in Europe and East Asia. Cro-Magnon is modern human. If he originated in Africa why have no grave sites been discovered on that continent?
MaGZ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 01:40 PM   #33
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
One problem with the OoA theory is why are there no remains of Cro-Magnon found in Africa only in Europe and East Asia. Cro-Magnon is modern human. If he originated in Africa why have no grave sites been discovered on that continent?
Weird huh?

"The geologist Louis Lartet discovered the first five skeletons in March 1868 in the Cro-Magnon rock shelter at Les Eyzies, Dordogne, France. "

"Cro-Magnon (pronounced /kroʊˈmæɡnən/, French [kʀomaɲɔ̃]) is one of the main types of Homo sapiens of the European Upper Paleolithic, living approximately 40,000 to 10,000 years ago. It is named after the cave of Crô-Magnon in southwest France, where the first specimen was found.
The term falls outside the usual naming conventions for early humans and is used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe, though also a specific (but very frequent) subtype among their fossil remains. In recent scientific literature the term "early modern humans" is used instead."

"Other specimens have since come to light in other parts of Europe and in the Middle East."
-Wikipedia is your enemy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

Last edited by paximperium; 22nd November 2008 at 01:43 PM.
paximperium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 01:58 PM   #34
MaGZ
Philosopher
 
MaGZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,914
Originally Posted by paximperium View Post
Weird huh?

"The geologist Louis Lartet discovered the first five skeletons in March 1868 in the Cro-Magnon rock shelter at Les Eyzies, Dordogne, France. "

"Cro-Magnon (pronounced /kroʊˈmæɡnən/, French [kʀomaɲɔ̃]) is one of the main types of Homo sapiens of the European Upper Paleolithic, living approximately 40,000 to 10,000 years ago. It is named after the cave of Crô-Magnon in southwest France, where the first specimen was found.
The term falls outside the usual naming conventions for early humans and is used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe, though also a specific (but very frequent) subtype among their fossil remains. In recent scientific literature the term "early modern humans" is used instead."

"Other specimens have since come to light in other parts of Europe and in the Middle East."
-Wikipedia is your enemy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon
Are you making the point Cro-Magnon evolved separately outside of Africa which supports the multiregional position?
MaGZ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 02:06 PM   #35
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,814
No paximperium is showing with evidence that your statement was wrong.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 02:12 PM   #36
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78,970
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
Are you making the point Cro-Magnon evolved separately outside of Africa which supports the multiregional position?
Nothing supports the multi-regional origin of humans. All the evidence supports the OoA theory. Multi-regional has been ruled out. Does it bother you or something?
__________________
TRUMP CHEATS What color hat should I order with that logo? Red on black maybe? Or black on pink?

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 02:54 PM   #37
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,985
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
Welcome to the forum.

Until now I was disappointed with the direction of this “discussion”. Everything I know about the two theories indicates they are equal in standing before the scientific community. The Out-of-Africa theory is basically political, having its beginnings in University of Berkeley in California. It would not have been the first politically correct theory to have ever appeared, remember Lysenkoism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
So because OOA has proponents at UC Berkeley, the theory is politically motivated? By your reasoning, the discovery of plutoniumWP must also be "politically correct" and thus invalid.

What evidence do you have to tie OOA with Lysenko's crackpot theories? Are you suggesting that millions will starve unless we accept your point of view?
ravdin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 03:49 PM   #38
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,278
What about OoAAaA? That is: "Out of Africa Again and Again"? How is that different from Multiregional? I know OoAaA claims humans migrated from Africa at several times, may have moved back on occasion, and moved out again, etc. This possability is described by Dawkins in The Ancestor's Tale.
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 04:32 PM   #39
kedo1981
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,595
Johnny Clegg said it best

“Who made us, Who made us; from the dust of Olduvai; we are all African.”
kedo1981 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2008, 05:39 PM   #40
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,870
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
The are two competing theories of human evolution, Out-of-Africa and Multiregional.
This is untrue. These are caricatures of models that were once held forward as plausible.




Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
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.
I don't think that's a fair description of the multiregional theory. Yes, there is some suggestion that Asians developed regionally, but this is superficial and by the 1980s the concept of parallel isolated development from h. erectus to h. sapiens in Asia had to be abandoned, as so many traits across so many years were demonstrably migrated from Africa.

The multiregional theory was originally proposed in an effort to explain observations such as shovel-shaped incisors, flatter and lower upper-facial parts, mid-saggital elevation of the skull vault, high frequency of lambdoidal ossicles in early stages, contour of the lower margin of the cheekbones, &c, in archaic humans in Asia. Archaic humans are not pre-humans. These are homo sapiens, advanced tool-users, &c. Technologically indistinct from contemporaries in Africa and Europe.

There appears to be regional continuity in Asia from at least the Pliestocene. But by the 1980s, it became evident that even these findings showed population influx from Africa: the Yanghtze has become a very usable boundary that distinguished the relatively isolated northern population from the more frequently mixed southern population. I can recommend a paper on this: Zinzhi and Zhenbiao 1985.




Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
Out-of-Africa is the politically correct theory today.
Not true. The current model is a sort of hybrid of the two: since there was no clear point where h. erectus, h. habilis, and other advanced hominoids 'suddenly' became h. sapiens, the reality appears that populations had a mix of local development and injection of genes from African migration. It's merely a question of how recent. My guess is that the least Africanized population would be the Australian aboriginals, as they were the most remote population during the last major migration, and their Asian population appears to have been replaced rather than ethnoclined.





Are there any physical anthropologists on this forum?[/quote]

While I'm not a physical anthro undergrad, four courses of physical anthro were part of my biology undergrad. I assisted with a site excavation on the west coast for four months, as part of my immunology undergrad (examining the possibility of obtaining smallpox viral strain information from burial sites over 100 years old).
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.