multi regional or replacement (out of africa 2) hypothesis which one do you believe and why

After posting in a different thread I have come to realize some people believe the replacement hypothesis has been proven through genetics. It has not. In fact since 2010 the multiregional theory has been strengthened with the finding of interbreeding among archaic humans and trace dna from those archaic humans in the genome. Also the mitochondrial eve has had considerable problems over the recent years, lack of data understanding, small gene samples, lack of forensic and archaeoligical sample size, and the date of the supposed master mother of the human races has been drastically altered over the years.

Is it possible modern man came from one unbrocken lineage from a mitochondrial eve or did archaic humans interbreed and create larger genetic diversity leading to mutation?

I side with multi regional how about you and why?

Here is a link explaining some history of both as non biased as i have found. Its an article though not a scientific paper. So it still is just an overview for greater research.

www.livinganthropologically.com...

a reply to: luthier

Is it possible you could back up your claims in the OP with sources so we know where you are coming from?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Is it possible you could back up your claims in the OP with sources so we know where you are coming from?

Sure. But i think it helps to already know the subject. I dont think forming an opinion by me cut and pasting evidence for my belief would lead to a real dialogue or debate. But i will try and find an unbiased source that gives an overview of the two main evolutionary hypothesis

a reply to: luthier

You are right, but to expect everyone to come into a thread and know EXACTLY what all these theories say and imply is asking for quite a bit. It can never hurt to at least supply people with some background reading material to make sure they can be on the same page as everyone else. At least then it's only their own fault for being misinformed. At least that's what I usually try to do. But hey, if you like debunking strawmans then carry on.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

You are right, but to expect everyone to come into a thread and know EXACTLY what all these theories say and imply is asking for quite a bit. It can never hurt to at least supply people with some background reading material to make sure they can be on the same page as everyone else. At least then it's only their own fault for being misinformed. At least that's what I usually try to do. But hey, if you like debunking strawmans then carry on.

Point taken. I dont comment on subjects i dont know but i cant expect that from everyone i guess.

I believe there were several homo species that came out of africa at different times. pre modern humans, some if not all could interbreed with each other and modern humans.

originally posted by: DEANORULES24
I believe there were several homo species that came out of africa at different times. pre modern humans, some if not all could interbreed with each other and modern humans.

That is not the out of africa theory though. Nor is it true. Neadertals were in europe, densiovans and homo hobits asia etc. The out africa theory says the migration of modern humans happened 60,000 years ago and replaced archaic humans that were all over the world.

a reply to: luthier

Like I said, " homo species that came out of africa at different times"
Archaic humans came from africa.
I give a time frame, because it's just guessing!
Group a left africa 1 million yrs ago.
Group b left africa 750,000 yrs ago.
Group c left africa 300,000 yrs ago.
and d thru z left left at various times .
They settled the world at different times an evolved a little different,but they still could interbreed.
Just like a wolf and a chihuahua . Thats what i believe.

originally posted by: DEANORULES24
a reply to: luthier

Like I said, " homo species that came out of africa at different times"
Archaic humans came from africa.
I give a time frame, because it's just guessing!
Group a left africa 1 million yrs ago.
Group b left africa 750,000 yrs ago.
Group c left africa 300,000 yrs ago.
and d thru z left left at various times .
They settled the world at different times an evolved a little different,but they still could interbreed.
Just like a wolf and a chihuahua . Thats what i believe.

Archaic humans are said to have started 500,000 years ago past when the earlier man had supposedely left africa. The evolution happened outside of africa as well as within. My question is how from one mother did the species proliferate? If the out of africa is true there is a very special event or genetic tampering (bible stuff). The archaic humans neadertals denisovans etc evolved oitside of africa. It seems to me more likey we evolved across the world from the archaic humans and genetic diversity. I am looking for info to support the replacement theory and how that would happen practically

a reply to: luthier

I didn't know anyone was allowed to entertain a choice. I thought the out of Africa model was settled science like global climate change and evolution.

a reply to: TonyS

Science, my friend, is never settled. The "laws" of nature are always up for review when new data is presented which expands or replaces the old law. Happens frequently.

originally posted by: DEANORULES24
I believe there were several homo species that came out of africa at different times. pre modern humans, some if not all could interbreed with each other and modern humans.

This is pretty much how I see it. Some folks believe it was one or two big migrations, but I feel it was almost a constant thing, or at the very least dozens of migrations. Homo erectus was the first. Homo sapien was the most recent. Neanderthal are really our cousin species, so essentially it seems like they migrated out, then the 2 population diverged from one another, then they met up again some hundred thousand + years later and were still capable of breeding. I think each species of hominid found outside of Africa essentially represents a time or average time of migration. As a result, you had Denisovans, Neanderthal, Homo erectus and others all coexisting at the same time in Europe and Asia, yet their roots can all be traced back to Africa but at different times.

Looking at the OP, couldn't both premises be true or at least partially true?

originally posted by: luthier
Archaic humans are said to have started 500,000 years ago past when the earlier man had supposedely left africa. The evolution happened outside of africa as well as within. My question is how from one mother did the species proliferate? If the out of africa is true there is a very special event or genetic tampering (bible stuff). The archaic humans neadertals denisovans etc evolved oitside of africa. It seems to me more likey we evolved across the world from the archaic humans and genetic diversity. I am looking for info to support the replacement theory and how that would happen practically

Every fossil of a species that has been found in Africa predates the fossils that were found of that species in Europe and Asia. Also mitochondrial eve isn't referring to one single mother, it refers to the time when the population bottlenecked to 1,000-10,000 reproducing individuals. It wasn't a single woman, it was a group. All of the species you mentioned evolved in africa AND outside of Africa. The evolution doesn't stop. A group leaves Africa, they adapt. A new group leaves, they adapt. Many breed together. You can still trace the origins back to Africa.

Anyways, from what I've seen "Out of Africa" has the most fossil evidence and genetic evidence to support it. I just feel there was way more migration than currently believed.

Also I don't think homo sapiens, "replaced" anybody. All of them coexisted together originally. Homo sapiens survived the last ice age, while the rest of them did not.

originally posted by: Barcs

Every fossil of a species that has been found in Africa predates the fossils that were found of that species in Europe and Asia. Also mitochondrial eve isn't referring to one single mother, it refers to the time when the population bottlenecked to 1,000-10,000 reproducing individuals. It wasn't a single woman, it was a group.

These are some pretty common misunderstandings/misrepresentations of the data. Most people are completely unaware of what a genetic bottleneck even is let alone that there was one that almost wiped out all of humanity across the globe while completely eliminating H. Erectus and setting off the death throws of Neandertal and Denisovan.

All of the species you mentioned evolved in africa AND outside of Africa.

Not exactly... Neandertal and Denisovan(Homo Altaiensis) both evolved in their respective environments. HN in Europe, HA in Western Asia from H. Heidelbergensis which is just a fancy way of talking about a European version of H. Erectus when you strip away all of the associated aphorisms. Either way though, their ties go directly back to East Africa just like HSS who evolved from the East African Erectus lineage. Our Erectus forefathers just happen to be separated from the Eurasian varieties by a couple hundred thousand years.

The evolution doesn't stop. A group leaves Africa, they adapt. A new group leaves, they adapt. Many breed together. You can still trace the origins back to Africa.

All evidence currently indicates an African origin for hominids. Both physical and genetic. There would have to be a rather large, earth shattering discovery to turn OOA on its head and based on everything we currently know...I have serious doubts that's going to happen. As always though, if new data is legit, we will follow it to its conclusion even if we have to completely rethink MES in the process.

Anyways, from what I've seen "Out of Africa" has the most fossil evidence and genetic evidence to support it. I just feel there was way more migration than currently believed.

I think there are far more people in the Anthropology community who would agree with you on this point than you will ever hear about. It's illogical that HSS would just sit on the border of the Sinai and only once ever 10 or 20 thousand years venture out to the rest of the world. I think a better analogy would be 19th century American 'Manifest Destiny' where groups were leaving the Eastern US in small groups continuously for years and years for the West Coast and Midwest as opposed to a handful of large migrations spread out over vast periods of time.

Also I don't think homo sapiens, "replaced" anybody. All of them coexisted together originally. Homo sapiens survived the last ice age, while the rest of them did not.

Seeing as HSS is comprised of not just HS genetics but additional contributors from HN, HA(Denisovan) and the mystery west African hominid as well as possible contributions from HE, I would definitely concur with that. It was more of an assimilation than a takeover. We aren't the same people who walked across the Sinai 60-70KA, we are the sum of all of the Archaic Hominids living contemporaneously as we spread across the globe. "We" might not have made it very far were it not for the assistance of the Neanderthal we encountered in the Levant who actually had better lithic tool kits than the HSS who were on their way out to explore the rest of the globe. It's one of the first areas where we made friends and relationships with a foreign hominid species, lived with, worked with, loved with and shared with one another. The fact that we see grave sights with both species buried amongst each other with similar grave goods testifies to the familial and relationship bonds created between both species, at least in my opinion and I feel this is supported additionally by the genetic data.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Barcs

Every fossil of a species that has been found in Africa predates the fossils that were found of that species in Europe and Asia. Also mitochondrial eve isn't referring to one single mother, it refers to the time when the population bottlenecked to 1,000-10,000 reproducing individuals. It wasn't a single woman, it was a group.

These are some pretty common misunderstandings/misrepresentations of the data. Most people are completely unaware of what a genetic bottleneck even is let alone that there was one that almost wiped out all of humanity across the globe while completely eliminating H. Erectus and setting off the death throws of Neandertal and Denisovan.

All of the species you mentioned evolved in africa AND outside of Africa.

Not exactly... Neandertal and Denisovan(Homo Altaiensis) both evolved in their respective environments. HN in Europe, HA in Western Asia from H. Heidelbergensis which is just a fancy way of talking about a European version of H. Erectus when you strip away all of the associated aphorisms. Either way though, their ties go directly back to East Africa just like HSS who evolved from the East African Erectus lineage. Our Erectus forefathers just happen to be separated from the Eurasian varieties by a couple hundred thousand years.

The evolution doesn't stop. A group leaves Africa, they adapt. A new group leaves, they adapt. Many breed together. You can still trace the origins back to Africa.

All evidence currently indicates an African origin for hominids. Both physical and genetic. There would have to be a rather large, earth shattering discovery to turn OOA on its head and based on everything we currently know...I have serious doubts that's going to happen. As always though, if new data is legit, we will follow it to its conclusion even if we have to completely rethink MES in the process.

Anyways, from what I've seen "Out of Africa" has the most fossil evidence and genetic evidence to support it. I just feel there was way more migration than currently believed.

I think there are far more people in the Anthropology community who would agree with you on this point than you will ever hear about. It's illogical that HSS would just sit on the border of the Sinai and only once ever 10 or 20 thousand years venture out to the rest of the world. I think a better analogy would be 19th century American 'Manifest Destiny' where groups were leaving the Eastern US in small groups continuously for years and years for the West Coast and Midwest as opposed to a handful of large migrations spread out over vast periods of time.

Also I don't think homo sapiens, "replaced" anybody. All of them coexisted together originally. Homo sapiens survived the last ice age, while the rest of them did not.

Seeing as HSS is comprised of not just HS genetics but additional contributors from HN, HA(Denisovan) and the mystery west African hominid as well as possible contributions from HE, I would definitely concur with that. It was more of an assimilation than a takeover. We aren't the same people who walked across the Sinai 60-70KA, we are the sum of all of the Archaic Hominids living contemporaneously as we spread across the globe. "We" might not have made it very far were it not for the assistance of the Neanderthal we encountered in the Levant who actually had better lithic tool kits than the HSS who were on their way out to explore the rest of the globe. It's one of the first areas where we made friends and relationships with a foreign hominid species, lived with, worked with, loved with and shared with one another. The fact that we see grave sights with both species buried amongst each other with similar grave goods testifies to the familial and relationship bonds created between both species, at least in my opinion and I feel this is supported additionally by the genetic data.

Excellent response exactly what I was looking for. However I dont have time to write the response right now, I will ask questions about mitochondrial eve which I think has some manor issues and dating problems as well as jungle enviornments not preserving bones and artifacts very well,..among other cultural anthro and archailogical problems with the physical anthro descriptions of when the OOA took place.

Over all I agree and like your response.

Certainly a great subject, with many theories, of which we will never be 100% sure is correct.

Another theory.....

forgottenorigin.com...

That Modern Homo Sapiens developed in Australia and moved throughout the Planet to Europe, Asia, Africa etc.

Referencing the Toba Volcano of Indonesia, as the "Cleanser" of humanity...well some of it.

Certainly this subject is more fluid, than written in stone...

Just think, we are still on the Tree of Man, and that tree is still growing....imagine what our descendants will argue about in the year 9595 ........ if man is still alive...

a reply to: peter vlar

m.huffpost.com...

Getting interesting the last year.

A set of fossilised teeth dating back a staggering 9.7 million years could rewrite the famous ‘out-of-Africa’ theory that suggests humanity moved from Africa to Europe after a major change in the climate

rperon1017blog.wordpress.com...

a reply to: luthier

I agree with you to the extent that I haven't thoroughly researched the subject. But I have read many journal articles which suggest that there's serious questions about the "out of Africa" hypothesis. It's an interesting topic because it may change the entire view of where the origins really are. Thanks for posting.

a reply to: Phantom423

Thanks. I really just like the open Question. It isn't so much an answer I want but why, how, when, explorations. I find it fascinating and that is pretty much my strongest opinion of the subject.