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 wor

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