4 ms·

Given the implications of this kind of science, people often find it hard to accept the findings and much preferred the multi-regional hypothesis as many find i

Given the implications of this kind of science, people often find it hard to accept the findings and much preferred the multi-regional hypothesis as many find it more palatable and similar to the mythos of people having popped out from the same area or region that they their most recent ancestors have lived

nabla9 2y ago
Genetic studies have put an end to that kind of speculation. Only crackpots and religious nuts are supporting alternatives.
- wolfhumble 2y ago
  Which "religious nuts" support a "multi-regional hypothesis"? A mono-regional 'Eden' is supported in Abrahamic religions.
  - Boogie_Man 2y ago
    Presumably tribal religions
    - AlecSchueler 2y ago
      Which tribes? Don't the Abrahamic religions stem from the tribes of Israel?
      - Boogie_Man 2y ago
        I might accidentally be using a dated term for it, Wikipedia redirects to "Ethnic Religion". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_religion
        AlecSchueler 2y ago
        So Judaism for example?
      - trallnag 2y ago
        For example the religious group "Nation of Islam" believes that Yakub, a black scientist, crated the white race / ethnic group and tricknology a few thousand years ago
        bilbo0s 2y ago
        The Nation of Islam are Muslims. They would be considered theologically descended from the Abrahamic line of religions. They would certainly not be considered a "tribe". And they take their creation mythology from the Koran. I think you may be talking about the ADOS people who believe all sorts of conspiracy theories like that, but are not a religious group at all. However they do believe black Christians and black Muslims are following the "white man's" religions. In any case, their beliefs would mean the ADOS nutjobs are technically "crackpots", as the initial post indicated, rather than a "tribe".
        DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        > The Nation of Islam are Muslims. They would be considered theologically descended from the Abrahamic line of religions. Not really, and most Muslims would dispute that the Nation of Islam is Islam. The Nation of Islam is essentially a newly invented religion from the early 1900s. It has its own extensive Sci-Fi mythology (including the Yakub story) that is pretty much entirely different from Islam, though it borrows some aspects of Islam. It's heavily influenced by Black Nationalism and Pan-Africanism.
        School-Cotton 2y ago
        > The Nation of Islam are Muslims. Not according to mainstream Muslims.
- ty6853 2y ago
  All Americans are African Americans, as I put it. Put it on your med school applications too when submitting MCAT scores.
  - foxhop 2y ago
    Politically motivated bollocks. The white colonizer did not get colonized by tribes in Africa.
- noch 2y ago
  > [T]he mythos of people having popped out from the same area or region that they their most recent ancestors have lived […] >> Genetic studies have put an end to that kind of speculation. Only crackpots and religious nuts are supporting alternatives. David Reich (author of "Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the new science of the human past") says[^0]: " The modern human lineage, leading to the great majority of the ancestors of people today, was probably in sub-Saharan Africa for the last 500,000 years at least. It might be much more. Certainly our main lineage was in Africa, probably 3-7 million years ago. But in a period between about 2 million to 500,000 years ago, it's not at all clear where the main ancestors leading to modern humans were. There were humans throughout many parts of Eurasia and Africa with a parallel increase in brain size and not obviously closer ancestrality to modern humans in one place than in the other. It's not clear where the main lineages were. Maybe they were in both places and mixed to form the lineages that gave rise to people today. There's been an assumption where Africa's been at the center of everything for many millions of years. Certainly it's been absolutely central at many periods in human history. But in this key period when a lot of important changes happen—when modern humans develop from Homo habilis and Homo erectus all the way to Homo heidelbergensis and the shared ancestor of Neanderthals, modern humans, and Denisovans— that time period which is when a lot of the important change happened, it's not clear, based on the archaeology and genetics, where that occurred as I understand it. " (emphasis mine throughout) --- [^0]: https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/david-reich https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/david-reich
  - nabla9 2y ago
    >But in this key period when a lot of important changes happen—when modern humans develop from Homo habilis and Homo erectus all the way to Homo heidelbergensis That's a time period before homo sapiens, not after.
    - themgt 2y ago
      David Reich is widely acknowledged as a top if not the foremost leader in the field of ancient human origins, and he's talking about exactly the debate you claim is settled to everyone but crackpots. His interview with Dwarkesh Patel linked by OP is one of the most informative you'll find anywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reich_(geneticist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reich_(geneticist)
Tor3 2y ago
"people often find it hard to accept the findings and much preferred the multi-regional hypothesis" Why would people find it hard to accept out of Africa? Why would people prefer the / a multi-regional hypothesis? Is this even true? Can't say I've ever met anyone who've argued "it must be so", not to mention providing any reasoning for anything such.
- Mountain_Skies 2y ago
  Anytime something is declared an unquestionable truth, it's going to attract questions. Usually this ends up being pointless but sometimes unquestionable truths end up being false.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  These people exist, though much more rarely than they did 30/40 years ago when the genetic data wasn't yet fully in. It's quite a popular school of thought among Chinese biological anthropologists because originally, it was used to support the idea of China as the ethnic homeland for han people back in the 50s. Now it's just an idea that's become institutionally ingrained.
- graemep 2y ago
  Racism. Much easier to believe in intrinsic differences between races if they do not share close common ancestry. Other systems of racism can also tied to some sort of belief in separate origins - caste in India.
- willmadden 2y ago
  Here's why I find it hard to accept out of Africa (OOA). Ancient Fossil Evidence Outside Africa – Fossil remains predating the supposed OOA migration (~60,000 years ago) have been found in China (Dali skull, 260,000 years old), Greece (Apidima 1, 210,000 years old), and the Levant (Misliya jaw, ~177,000 years old), suggesting Homo sapiens or proto-sapiens were present outside Africa long before the mainstream migration timeline. Genetic Discrepancies – Some non-African populations (e.g., Australo-Melanesians and East Asians) possess archaic DNA from unknown hominins not found in Africans, implying deep regional continuity rather than a complete replacement by recent African migrants. Multiple Ancestral Lineages – The discovery of distinct ancient hominin populations, such as the Denisovans and Red Deer Cave people, suggests a complex web of interbreeding rather than a single-origin replacement model. Stone Tool Continuity in Asia – The presence of advanced stone tools in Asia (e.g., at Jwalapuram, India, ~74,000 years ago) suggests technological continuity rather than a disruption expected from an OOA replacement event. MtDNA & Y-Chromosome Inconsistencies – While mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is often cited in support of OOA, recent studies indicate that some deep-rooted Y-chromosome lineages (e.g., haplogroup D found in Tibetans and Andamanese) show ancient divergence outside Africa, inconsistent with a recent African bottleneck. Early Human Artifacts in the Americas – Artifacts and footprints in the Americas (e.g., White Sands, ~21,000–23,000 years ago) suggest a much earlier presence of humans, challenging the late migration model and implying deeper population history. Human evolution and migration were likely far more complex than a single, recent dispersal from Africa. The evidence supports alternative models such as multiregional evolution or earlier, undocumented migrations.
Asooka 2y ago
Exactly. Even if it is not entirely correct, the single-origin "out of Africa" theory is extremely useful in fostering unity and stamping out racism amongst people. We need to be really careful in how we present scientific advancements that may affect that theory, since any erosion of its political power will give ammunition to alt-right racism at a very precarious time in world history. It is the duty of every intelligent individual navigating these topics to keep in mind that the Africa theory must be presented as the main branch of humanity with any additional findings shown only as alternate streams that change, but do NOT enhance, the base human. Obviously we must also explain that any evolutionary change to the human species coming out of Africa has been entirely lateral and not vertical, lest the same alt-right racism take it to mean the African diaspora is somehow "less evolved".

nabla9 2y ago

Genetic studies have put an end to that kind of speculation. Only crackpots and religious nuts are supporting alternatives.

wolfhumble 2y ago
Which "religious nuts" support a "multi-regional hypothesis"? A mono-regional 'Eden' is supported in Abrahamic religions.
- Boogie_Man 2y ago
  Presumably tribal religions
  - AlecSchueler 2y ago
    Which tribes? Don't the Abrahamic religions stem from the tribes of Israel?
    - Boogie_Man 2y ago
      I might accidentally be using a dated term for it, Wikipedia redirects to "Ethnic Religion". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_religion
      - AlecSchueler 2y ago
        So Judaism for example?
    - trallnag 2y ago
      For example the religious group "Nation of Islam" believes that Yakub, a black scientist, crated the white race / ethnic group and tricknology a few thousand years ago
      - bilbo0s 2y ago
        The Nation of Islam are Muslims. They would be considered theologically descended from the Abrahamic line of religions. They would certainly not be considered a "tribe". And they take their creation mythology from the Koran. I think you may be talking about the ADOS people who believe all sorts of conspiracy theories like that, but are not a religious group at all. However they do believe black Christians and black Muslims are following the "white man's" religions. In any case, their beliefs would mean the ADOS nutjobs are technically "crackpots", as the initial post indicated, rather than a "tribe".
        DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        > The Nation of Islam are Muslims. They would be considered theologically descended from the Abrahamic line of religions. Not really, and most Muslims would dispute that the Nation of Islam is Islam. The Nation of Islam is essentially a newly invented religion from the early 1900s. It has its own extensive Sci-Fi mythology (including the Yakub story) that is pretty much entirely different from Islam, though it borrows some aspects of Islam. It's heavily influenced by Black Nationalism and Pan-Africanism.
        School-Cotton 2y ago
        > The Nation of Islam are Muslims. Not according to mainstream Muslims.
ty6853 2y ago
All Americans are African Americans, as I put it. Put it on your med school applications too when submitting MCAT scores.
- foxhop 2y ago
  Politically motivated bollocks. The white colonizer did not get colonized by tribes in Africa.
noch 2y ago
> [T]he mythos of people having popped out from the same area or region that they their most recent ancestors have lived […] >> Genetic studies have put an end to that kind of speculation. Only crackpots and religious nuts are supporting alternatives. David Reich (author of "Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the new science of the human past") says[^0]: " The modern human lineage, leading to the great majority of the ancestors of people today, was probably in sub-Saharan Africa for the last 500,000 years at least. It might be much more. Certainly our main lineage was in Africa, probably 3-7 million years ago. But in a period between about 2 million to 500,000 years ago, it's not at all clear where the main ancestors leading to modern humans were. There were humans throughout many parts of Eurasia and Africa with a parallel increase in brain size and not obviously closer ancestrality to modern humans in one place than in the other. It's not clear where the main lineages were. Maybe they were in both places and mixed to form the lineages that gave rise to people today. There's been an assumption where Africa's been at the center of everything for many millions of years. Certainly it's been absolutely central at many periods in human history. But in this key period when a lot of important changes happen—when modern humans develop from Homo habilis and Homo erectus all the way to Homo heidelbergensis and the shared ancestor of Neanderthals, modern humans, and Denisovans— that time period which is when a lot of the important change happened, it's not clear, based on the archaeology and genetics, where that occurred as I understand it. " (emphasis mine throughout) --- [^0]: https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/david-reich https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/david-reich
- nabla9 2y ago
  >But in this key period when a lot of important changes happen—when modern humans develop from Homo habilis and Homo erectus all the way to Homo heidelbergensis That's a time period before homo sapiens, not after.
  - themgt 2y ago
    David Reich is widely acknowledged as a top if not the foremost leader in the field of ancient human origins, and he's talking about exactly the debate you claim is settled to everyone but crackpots. His interview with Dwarkesh Patel linked by OP is one of the most informative you'll find anywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reich_(geneticist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reich_(geneticist)

Tor3 2y ago

"people often find it hard to accept the findings and much preferred the multi-regional hypothesis" Why would people find it hard to accept out of Africa? Why would people prefer the / a multi-regional hypothesis? Is this even true? Can't say I've ever met anyone who've argued "it must be so", not to mention providing any reasoning for anything such.

Mountain_Skies 2y ago
Anytime something is declared an unquestionable truth, it's going to attract questions. Usually this ends up being pointless but sometimes unquestionable truths end up being false.
AlotOfReading 2y ago
These people exist, though much more rarely than they did 30/40 years ago when the genetic data wasn't yet fully in. It's quite a popular school of thought among Chinese biological anthropologists because originally, it was used to support the idea of China as the ethnic homeland for han people back in the 50s. Now it's just an idea that's become institutionally ingrained.
graemep 2y ago
Racism. Much easier to believe in intrinsic differences between races if they do not share close common ancestry. Other systems of racism can also tied to some sort of belief in separate origins - caste in India.
willmadden 2y ago
Here's why I find it hard to accept out of Africa (OOA). Ancient Fossil Evidence Outside Africa – Fossil remains predating the supposed OOA migration (~60,000 years ago) have been found in China (Dali skull, 260,000 years old), Greece (Apidima 1, 210,000 years old), and the Levant (Misliya jaw, ~177,000 years old), suggesting Homo sapiens or proto-sapiens were present outside Africa long before the mainstream migration timeline. Genetic Discrepancies – Some non-African populations (e.g., Australo-Melanesians and East Asians) possess archaic DNA from unknown hominins not found in Africans, implying deep regional continuity rather than a complete replacement by recent African migrants. Multiple Ancestral Lineages – The discovery of distinct ancient hominin populations, such as the Denisovans and Red Deer Cave people, suggests a complex web of interbreeding rather than a single-origin replacement model. Stone Tool Continuity in Asia – The presence of advanced stone tools in Asia (e.g., at Jwalapuram, India, ~74,000 years ago) suggests technological continuity rather than a disruption expected from an OOA replacement event. MtDNA & Y-Chromosome Inconsistencies – While mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is often cited in support of OOA, recent studies indicate that some deep-rooted Y-chromosome lineages (e.g., haplogroup D found in Tibetans and Andamanese) show ancient divergence outside Africa, inconsistent with a recent African bottleneck. Early Human Artifacts in the Americas – Artifacts and footprints in the Americas (e.g., White Sands, ~21,000–23,000 years ago) suggest a much earlier presence of humans, challenging the late migration model and implying deeper population history. Human evolution and migration were likely far more complex than a single, recent dispersal from Africa. The evidence supports alternative models such as multiregional evolution or earlier, undocumented migrations.

Asooka 2y ago

Exactly. Even if it is not entirely correct, the single-origin "out of Africa" theory is extremely useful in fostering unity and stamping out racism amongst people. We need to be really careful in how we present scientific advancements that may affect that theory, since any erosion of its political power will give ammunition to alt-right racism at a very precarious time in world history. It is the duty of every intelligent individual navigating these topics to keep in mind that the Africa theory must be presented as the main branch of humanity with any additional findings shown only as alternate streams that change, but do NOT enhance, the base human. Obviously we must also explain that any evolutionary change to the human species coming out of Africa has been entirely lateral and not vertical, lest the same alt-right racism take it to mean the African diaspora is somehow "less evolved".