3 ms·

This is an incredibly outdated view. There's no conflict between the strong multiregional hypothesis and SRO because the strong multiregional hypothesis is comp

This is an incredibly outdated view. There's no conflict between the strong multiregional hypothesis and SRO because the strong multiregional hypothesis is completely dead. To quote wiki [1]: Outside of China, the Multiregional hypothesis has limited support, held only by a small number of paleoanthropologists. What remains is largely a debate over when and how human evolution occurred within Africa. The classical view is that there's some singular population where H. sapiens evolved and spread from. In that view, we just have to sort out the chronologies and it'll work out. Opposing that is the relatively newer 'weak' or 'african' multiregionalism depending on who's talking. It argues that humans evolved as structured populations across Africa before leaving. It's a lot nicer conceptually and goes much farther to explaining the confusing apparent chronologies, but it requires revisiting a lot of prior work and assumptions. [2] is a good overview. It's important to emphasize that these latter two aren't diametrically opposed and most paleoanthropologists are somewhere along the spectrum of both. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans#Overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern... [2] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.05.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.05.005

marcusverus 5y ago
> because the strong multiregional hypothesis is completely dead. If you do a Google Books search of the cited quote, you'll find that A) the cited sentence doesn't actually support your assertion, and B) the surrounding context (shockingly left out of the wiki) basically says that the hypothesis is mainstream science. "It needs to be noted, however, that this is a minority view among paleoanthropologists, most of whom support the African replacement model. This of course does not mean that [guys who support strong multiregional hypothesis] are incorrect, and they do raise some interesting points." So while I'm wide open to the idea that this hypothesis is dead, the actual cited sources basically says that it's mainstream science. And given that the parent comment's only real assertion was that... > [the article] starts looking alot like the rest of politicized "science" ...I've got to say--your comment does more to strengthen this assertion than to rebut it.
- AlotOfReading 5y ago
  Did we read the same passage? The editor called wolpoff and caspari "minority views" and "provocative" in the book they were contributing to! In an academic work, that's excoriating. Moreover, that's from a book in 2013, not a cutting edge work. Here's what how it's phrased in more recent papers: [1] Genetic studies have repeatedly falsified classic multiregionalism. However, various aspects have returned under different guises, for example, refs. 1,2, and thus it requires repeating: genetic data do not support an origin of Eurasian peoples primarily from locally evolving Homo populations over the past one to two million years, with a limited contribution from later African arrivals. [2] In the 1980s and 1990s, much of paleoanthropology was focused on whether modern humans originated across the Old World (Multiregionalism) or exclusively within Africa (Out of Africa). With the resolution of this question [1] — current consensus has modern humans originating in Africa — attention has now turned to discussion of what was happening within the continent before modern humans expanded their range globally... [3] Therefore, models for the origin of our species, H. sapiens, have moved away from the confrontation of two extreme antagonistic points of view: (1) the Multiregional Model of modern human origins implying the gradual evolution of global archaic hominin populations towards a modern human morphology over the course of the last 2 million years;9,10 and (2) the hypothesis of a unique Out of Africa event... It's very, very dead. [1] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0992-1 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0992-1 [2] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2018.10.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2018.10.003 [3] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11213-w https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11213-w

marcusverus 5y ago

> because the strong multiregional hypothesis is completely dead. If you do a Google Books search of the cited quote, you'll find that A) the cited sentence doesn't actually support your assertion, and B) the surrounding context (shockingly left out of the wiki) basically says that the hypothesis is mainstream science. "It needs to be noted, however, that this is a minority view among paleoanthropologists, most of whom support the African replacement model. This of course does not mean that [guys who support strong multiregional hypothesis] are incorrect, and they do raise some interesting points." So while I'm wide open to the idea that this hypothesis is dead, the actual cited sources basically says that it's mainstream science. And given that the parent comment's only real assertion was that... > [the article] starts looking alot like the rest of politicized "science" ...I've got to say--your comment does more to strengthen this assertion than to rebut it.

AlotOfReading 5y ago
Did we read the same passage? The editor called wolpoff and caspari "minority views" and "provocative" in the book they were contributing to! In an academic work, that's excoriating. Moreover, that's from a book in 2013, not a cutting edge work. Here's what how it's phrased in more recent papers: [1] Genetic studies have repeatedly falsified classic multiregionalism. However, various aspects have returned under different guises, for example, refs. 1,2, and thus it requires repeating: genetic data do not support an origin of Eurasian peoples primarily from locally evolving Homo populations over the past one to two million years, with a limited contribution from later African arrivals. [2] In the 1980s and 1990s, much of paleoanthropology was focused on whether modern humans originated across the Old World (Multiregionalism) or exclusively within Africa (Out of Africa). With the resolution of this question [1] — current consensus has modern humans originating in Africa — attention has now turned to discussion of what was happening within the continent before modern humans expanded their range globally... [3] Therefore, models for the origin of our species, H. sapiens, have moved away from the confrontation of two extreme antagonistic points of view: (1) the Multiregional Model of modern human origins implying the gradual evolution of global archaic hominin populations towards a modern human morphology over the course of the last 2 million years;9,10 and (2) the hypothesis of a unique Out of Africa event... It's very, very dead. [1] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0992-1 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0992-1 [2] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2018.10.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2018.10.003 [3] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11213-w https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11213-w