Can we talk about multiregional theory?
What are the arguments against it? It makes a hell of a lot of sense to me from an evolutionary standpoint, and I feel like the insistence on single origin is a relic from Judeo Christian belief.
Pic kinda related, Neanderthal descendant
Multiregional theory
Angel Lewis
Other urls found in this thread:
newsweek.com
biorxiv.org
twitter.com
Chase Rodriguez
>What are the arguments against it?
It's often exaggerated and distorted by proponents until it Just Happens to line up with 1800s race theory
Aaron Campbell
Ok, yes, this is problematic, but not a reason that disproves anything.
Colton Morales
>What are the arguments against it?
Genetics.
>Neanderthal descendant
97% H.sapiens
The theory thats popular now is H.sapiens originated in Africa and mixed with local Hominids. Eurasians have Neanderthal and/or Denisovan. East Asians actually have higher percentages of Neanderthal which is interesting.
So really its a mix of the two theories. Also phenotypes can shift over a 1000 years or less given environmental conditions and if the phenotype is governed by multiple unlinked alleles.
Chase Taylor
>1000 years or less given environmental conditions and if the phenotype is governed by multiple unlinked alleles.
cont. for example skin color is driven by multiple unlinked alleles. So is eye color, however there is one SNP that will determine blue eyes with an odds ratio >3
Michael Torres
This mix of 2 theories certainly seems a bit more reasonable.
Matthew Smith
Explain to me why were supposed to believe homo erectus left Africa over a million years ago, died off massively, only to be replaced by h. Sapiens within 50k years of its extinction?
I'm just a layman but it doesn't taste good to me.
Thomas Lee
>believe homo erectus left Africa over a million years ago, died off massively, only to be replaced by h. Sapiens within 50k years of its extinction?
Fossils in China prove H.erectus was OoA.
Forager societies (possible Hunter Gather for H.erectus) only supports small populations. They could be quickly wiped out if smarter more adapted species controls the game and/or kills them. Also possible environmental tragedies, like the food source leaving.
H.sapiens population exploded during the agricultural revolution. Before then there were barely 1,000,000 H.sapiens on the entire planet
Robert Rogers
Literally why do we think they did not breed together?
Luis Perez
Out of Africa is bullshit. Homo-Sapiens originated in different parts of the world simultaneously. Considering the genetic differences in humans this is far more logical.
David Hall
No one said that. Problem is all H.erectus fossils are too old for sequencing. DNA is pretty degraded as it ages, it was really really hard to get Neanderthal DNA (being 40,000 years old and what not)
So you can imagine a 1,000,000 year old fossil is not going to (currently) give you anything.
Easton Nguyen
cont. scientists used to believe Neanderthal did not interbred but with the genome we know they did. So we need a H.erectus genome which is nearly impossible to get, but might actually happen in the years to come.
>Considering the genetic differences in humans this is far more logical
get out /pol/ this is not true. The genetic differences in humans is not great if you consider other species. What are you going to show a PCA plot and tell me there are differences? Do you even know what Principle Component Analysis actually does?
Clearly there are genetic differences between whites and blacks. The fact that the skin color is different implies different genes. But the majority of the genome is common among all humans. A black and a white differ on about 1-2 million single nucleotides (compare 3 billion nucleotides for a haploid genome, which means each person has 6 billion nucleotides to their name) 1-2 million is less than 1%. There are structural differences, like deletions and duplications, but this is too esoteric to talk about here (I study structural difference of DNA for my PhD)
Colton Bell
The first human ancestor came from Europe over 7 million years ago.
newsweek.com
Out of Africa is going to be as debunked as the flat earth theory because more and more evidence will comes out supporting the multi-regional hypothesis. Of course lefties, Blacks and sjw's will continue to grasp unto their delusions as long as possible and attempt to stigmatize anyone challenging their dogma.
William Wood
You really think Humans magically developed extreme differences despite supposedly only migrating for a short time? Why is Eskimos have dark skin, black hair and slant eyes while Nordics have fair skin, light hair and round eyes if both groups supposedly migrated out of Africa and established themselves in similar biomes?
Liam Turner
>a bunch of teeth
>PLoS One and not Nature/Science
Right.... since having over 50 hominid fossils in Africa ranging 4-1 million years and two jaw bones in Europe proves OoA is wrong.
In either case, if Hominids began in Europe it doesn't disprove that H.sapiens came from one ancestor, just the ancestor was in a different place that we once believed.
John Walker
>4-1 million years
Get on our level, pleb. Balkans is the Garden of Eden.
Aaron Martinez
>magic
Babby doesn't know about selection driving multiple alleles. Read this, biorxiv.org
Basically Nords carry one set of marbles with different colors and the Eskimos carry a different set of marbles. Both share a lot of marbles but each group has a small number of unique marbles between them.
Given selective pressures (environment, sexual, and other factors like selfish genes/lethality) one of the rare marbles becomes common because the people that hold it adapt better. Nords might not have ever seen this marble (and vice versa, which would explain blue eyes since that evolved quite recently and only in European Hunter Gatherers)
Imagine this marble analogy occurring over many marbles (like over 100) each with a tiny effect, driving the phenotype to one direction. Also Eskimos have light skin compared to their Amerindian cousins, showing that their "light skin marbles" were selected for.
But people that browse /pol/ and think human population genetics can be explained with a PCA plot from 2005 know more about this subject than a PhD in genetics...
Austin Flores
There's a fringe theory that says that modern sub-Saharan Africans are mixes between either Homo Ergaster or Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens.
While at first it sounds like a racist nonsense theory, the idea is supposed to be like how Eurasians have a small amount of Neanderthal genes.
Nolan Ortiz
Multi-regional theory in it's strong form is not possible. It's likely a mix of the two theories. 70% OOA, 30% MR.
Austin Johnson
It's not fringe; all human populations likely contain traces of archaic mixture. SSAs are no different.
Jackson Nelson
*blocks your anthropological path*
Blake Clark
>The first human ancestor came from Europe over 7 million years ago.
AY YO, HOL UP, HOL UP
Kayden Hill
>Scienctist find hominid fossils dating from 7 million years ago in Europe
>DUHUUU DAT DOESN'T COUNT
Sorry Tyrone. Africa wasn't the "cradle" of humanity after all.