Regional, Out of Africa, or regional admixture? (Again)

Question

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homosapiens.htm

This gives some pretty fair data on information concerning human evolution.

"There are various models which embody combinations of these ideas, different "strict" interpretations of the two theories, etc. Multiregionalists look for similarities between populations in the same geographic location that are separated spatially, while people who follow replacement look for differences. It is oft a difference of semantics between different interpretations rather than real differences of opinion, but often there is real disagreement on the validity of research, and theoretical interpretations. This has led to some fairly severe strife within the paleoanthropological community, with potshots often taken unfairly at rival theories and rival theoreticians. For example, multiregionalism is often portrayed as a racist theory that claims different "races" have evolved to different "levels" of intelligence. Out of Africa II has often been portrayed as a religiously motivated idea that tries to come to terms with the biblical story of Genesis, as reference to the "Eve" theory suggests."

What say you, without resorting to drivel about creationism?

Answer 1

I accept the out of Africa version of the story of human evolution only because species whom P***k other species tend to have have sterile offspring. (Mating between a horse and donkey,producing a pack mule is a prime example). but I also don't think humans left Africa in just one migration,more like maybe 3-4 migrations out of Africa in different directions,hopefully explaining a lot of the human bio-genetic diversity we see today.

Answer 2

Some summaries of debates about multiregionalism vs out of africa may be out-dated.  The field has changed quickly over 10 years.  The genetic evidence has become stronger and stronger for Out of Africa.  And I think any portrayal you came across of Out of Africa2 as reconciling with Genesis  is a sideshow, far from mainstream science.  Just what we get for playing around with the word "Eve".

Answer 3

First off, human migration was not obliged to follow any rules.

Secondly, of those who ventured out from Africa, some survived and others didn't.

Clearly, migrations had to have come at all different times, and from different points of origin.

Whether we interbred with slightly different variations of our "general" species within the last 2-3 million years, doesn't matter anymore, and that's because...

The volcanic explosion in Indonesia, 75,000 years ago, which reduced the human population to a few thousand worldwide, is what makes it look like only one successful migration survived, but in retrospect, this is only the equivalent to a severe pruning, or editing job, which doesn't alter the previous facts, it just eliminates earlier combinations from the DNA which has survived until today!

Answer 4

The evidence for out of africa has seemed to come to the forefront in recent years. Some people still promote multiregionalism, but it seems to be on the wane.

Answer 5

Let me just say I’m with Stephen Oppenheimer on this one. That ‘60,000 years ago’ exit date is pretty impossible, for several reasons…

The age of the haplotype M mutation, occuring in the Pakistan? area is dated to 64,000 years ago at least.

There’s a modern human skull in Luijiang China 68,000 years old (at least) and quite likely older.

There’s evidence of modern humans under the mount Toba explosion 74,000 years old in the Malay peninsula

There’s evidence of modern humans on top of the Toba Ash, suggesting the population didn’t die out in East Asia

The age of Y chromosome Adam in Africa is estimated to be 60,000 BP 4,000 years after the date of the M mtDNA mutation in South Asia. There were also people in Far East Asia by then. They must have some men not descended from Y chromsome Adam to keep going, but they are not present now.  If that isn’t proof of selection in Y chromosmes I don’t know what is.

A good look at the Mt DNA of Pakistan and India shows some L haplotypes present in Asia, so it seems a good amount of lead time can be added to the 64,000 years date, as haplotype L ’s seems to have got there a while before. Also, In an age that great for the estimated date of a MtDNA haplotype, even a minor percentage error can add up to ten thousand years and more.

After reading some of his articles, it seems Oppenheimer is behind the colonisation of Australia at the low tide date of 65,000 years. He then worked out that you’d need at least 10,000 years to reach there from Africa.

Add this 10,000 years to the 74,000 date (Toba date) and this gives you at least 85,000 years BP from the Gate of Tears (Red sea).

So essentially, you are looking at an exit date of at least 85,000 years and probably a lot older.

There’s also the issue of ‘was there really one exit ?’ To my knowledge the Nile has always flowed into the Mediterranean, making a permanent route to the Mahgreb. There does seem to be an early seperation of Mt DNA haplotype N and M, one swinging North into central Asia (from a Nile exit?) and the other following the coastal route into Australia.

This brings me to the issue of modern humans in North Africa, in Jebel Irhoud, dated to 160,000 years years ago. If modern humans were in North africa then, how did they first exit sub Saharan Africa 100,000 years later? Another seeming impossiblity. There still seems to have been a human population there 82,000 years ago, they left bones and beads.

This all leads me to question the validity of ‘one recent exit by the Gate of Tears’ quite deeply. This mistrust of it is made stronger by a couple of studies that have concluded mt DNA is subject to natural selection, and is not a neutral marker, so it’s entirely possible for less successful lineages to die out (there’s evidence climate affects what lineages thrive).

One DNA study I’ve seen based on other DNA markers dated the split from the East African population at 120,000 BP, and the European split from Asians at about 40,000 BP. This would roughly fit the presence of modern humans in Israel at Skhul, at 125,000 BP. It also matches roughly the date at which modern Humans started moving into Neanderthal territory, so I’m inclined to support this, and assume that the MtDNA dates are very wrong, for the older clades at least.

Then there’s the issue of Mungo man, mt DNA from him showed he wasn’t descended from mitochondrial Eve.

It has to be remembered that the world wasn’t empty of people at this time. Asia was full of Homo Erectus, and from Europe into Siberia there were Neanderthals. This wasn’t just a case of expanding into an empty territory, they had two subspecies (or races, the jury is out on that one) to wipe out. This would add to the time it took to get from A to B.

This also raises the point ‘were we ever really genetically isolated from Neanderthals and Homo Erectus?’, as AMH’s seem to have been mooching around in North Africa nearly the whole time before we officially exited Africa. The fact that the Jebel Irhoud remains were initially misidentified as Neanderthal should be a clue to the answer.

I've also found multiple DNA studies that show the OOA possible is impossible.

The out of Africa theory makes no sense at all. Beats me how it remains the accepted paradigm.

BTW, I had Dr Milford Wolpof add a comment to my blog with a reading list for the 'not out of Africa' crowd. Check the comments on the link.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpre...