human origin debate (out-of-africa?)

Originally posted by calvo   I also had a look at some of its links, such as www.racialreality.com

nothing with terms like racial is serious. There are no human races.

Originally posted by calvo  The truth is, I really don't know whether to take them seriously or not.

I wouldn't call the multi-regional or the out-of-asia theory unserious. They are probably wrong, but not in any case not serious.

Originally posted by calvo  So far, most genetists and anthropological experts have settled with the "out-of-africa" theory on the origins of Homo-Sapiens based on the testing of the mutation mark on DNA chromozones; explaining that all human beings alive descend today from a Mitocondrial Eve that lived in Eastern Africa some 150,000 years ago.

This made the multi-regionalist a bit quiet, but one single exploration can change the whole picture we have about human evolution.

Many of the so-called "scientists" on these anthropological forums seem to challenge this view, claiming that there is ample of evidence to explain separate biological origins for the different races of man, and that distinct human races are equivalent to sub-species, only that they are not allowed to be published by the Politically-Correct pressure of today's world.[/QUOTE] The problem is, are Homo erectus and Homo sapiens or Homo heidelbergensis or Homo neanderthalensis different species or not. Nobody can really say this. They are what we had to call Palaeo-species. So it is possible that Homo was just one specie since perhaps two million years. The problem with the multi.regional theory is that e.g. in Europe the difference between the habitus of Homso s. and Homo n. is to great for saying they developed from each other. and we found Homo s. and Homo n. in Palestine in different layers and Homo n. wasn't the elder one. Of course multi-regional-theory could be right nevertheless. So just in Europe the modern Homo sapiens arrived and wiped the Homo n. out. In all other regions the populations developed without a break. But we have to doubt here too. I don't want to accuse every multi-regionalist, but this seems to be a racist view. The modern "race" developed in the Near East and Europe. All other "races" , of course "inferior races" developed from less modern forms.

Originally posted by calvo  Personally speaking, I try to be objective and form my opinion with what scientific evidence comes up, and so far I trust the "out-of-africa" model more than the "multi-regional" model based on the fact that scientists from several prestigious universities all over the world have agreed with the same thing. (doubt that all of them are part of the same PC conspiracy).

The family tree of the hominids has more whit and unknown branches than it has branches with known palaeo-species. Gibbons and Orangs appear in Asia, so why Asia isn't an important area for human evolution. It was once thought that Homo erectus was the first who left Africa. This is no longer sure. Perhaps we just explored no early Hominid outside Africa till now but they came from Asia or from Miocene Europe, who knows? I hope one day the nationalism while be wiped out in science. So that e.g. Chinese can be proud of Homo pekinensis allthough he's not the Chinese ancestor.

Originally posted by Cryptic Originally posted by beorna nothing with terms like racial is serious. There are no human races. That is PC nonsense. Our species has six or seven physically distinct divisions. These divisions are most commonly called "races". Just because the term "race" was / is used to justify crimes is no reason to deny the obvious fact that there are distinct divisions in our species. In fact, acknowledging and studying the divisions (races) gives us a better understanding of very early human migration.

This all depends on the definition of the word "race", which no one seems to have a clear criteria. Often the people who argue for and against the existence of "race" believe in exactly the same facts, yet only their definition of the word differs.

Speaking about my personal definitions, if "race" were defined solely by skull shape , then there ARE several major branches (yet overlapping) of human races.
If race were defined by genetic differences, then "racial divisions" of human beings would be insignficant, because the genetic diversity among all non-Africans is only a fraction of those within a single African population (an argument in favor of the out-of-Africa theory); and that only a small fraction of human genetic differences occur "across" the boundary of the so-called Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid races (presumably those in charge of physical phenotypes).
If "race" were defined by other biological traits such as "blood type", or "ability to digest milk or meat", or even "skin colour", then another picture would be drawn....

What the multi-regionalists argue on these forums is that there is ample of evidence to support that Europeans descend (at least partly) from Neanderthals, and Asians from Homo-Pekinisis etc; and that typical "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" features have almost a million years of existence and imply much more biological distances than mere physicaly appearance; yet that all this evidence has been concealed by the "politically-correct" mafia.
I tend to regard their opinion with skeptism, because I doubt that scientists from universities such as Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, Yale, Pekin, and Tokyo have all uninanymously formed part of a "politically-correct" conspiracy.

Race is certainly an outdated concept ... and that's not a political statement, it's a scientific one.

There are some broad groupings, which geneticists call "clines", but this is an entirely different concept than race. Individuals have ... and have always had ... partial membership in multiple population clusters, which pretty much negates race as a viable concept, because there are no discrete distinctions. 


Edited by edgewaters - 31-Dec-2008 at 10:47

Yes, to understand the diversity of human populations  one must abandon the concept of race and embrace the concept of "partial belonging" of fuzzy logic. One must thinker a bit with genetics of population, distribution of probabilities and the concept of cline. I am afraid, most people don't understand very much at all the mathematics that go behind the concept of population and "clines". It is much easier for them to talk about the childish concept of "race".

Well. genetics point to Khoisan people, and not to negritos or australoids

Originally posted by Cryptic Originally posted by beorna nothing with terms like racial is serious. There are no human races. That is PC nonsense.Our species has six or seven physically distinct divisions. These divisions are most commonly called "races". Just because the term "race" was / is used to justify crimes is no reason to deny the obvious fact that there are distinct divisions in our species. In fact, acknowledging and studying the divisions (races) gives us a better understanding of very early human migration.

Hi, Cryptic,

My understanding is that two animals belong to the same species if they can reproduce fertile offspring. As such, there is a single human species, homo sapiens. Obviously they are different physical differences between people, and these have been used to examine migration patterns already. Mitochondrial research does that, and it is this mitochondrial evidence that gives the out-of-Africa theory more weight than others. And there also has been research on how difference came to be.

If we want to talk about blond people, we can say "blond people" rather than saying the "blond race". And talking about specific differences is a lot more accurate than putting those differences together under the "race" label.

Originally posted by Penguin And indeed, men came from Kenya around 150.000 years ago and abandoned Africa just 60.000 years ago.

Sorry, humans were already at Lake Mungo in NSW 60,000 years ago. Incidentally, I think humans left Lake Mungo then and have never gone back.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1108413.stm

Evidence that there was a common ancestor is not evidence there was a single common ancestor.

It is difficult to say when a man is a modern one. Ngaloba, Florisbad, Omo show an early stage of modern men and it goes back more than 200.000 years.But a modern habitus doesn't mean an superiority. The first quite modern types outside are around 120000 to 100.000. So I suppose that during the Eem Homo sapiens populations spread into the near east. when a new ice age began Homo neanderthalensis moved south and pushed these populations further to the east. So they were isolated from the African populations aroud 75000 to 60000 years. In that times Homo sapiens migrated to Australia, Asia and probably to America.

I wouldn't call the first Homo sapiens Khoisanide or Australide or Pygmide, because we can't say if the people 100.000 years ago looked like these types. Perhaps the special habitus originated much later.

Some multi-regionalists are against out-of-Africa because the theory can be linked to religous ideas. Most religions claim we have the same original ancestors and spread from them.