Talk:Multiregional hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] POV problems
This article seems to be arguing for a single-regional origin. Or perhaps, the way it presents the evidence leads me to conclude that. Can I request/suggest that either (a) it be merged with the single-region page (not as single-region hypothesis, but as hypotheses regarding the origin of modern humans, or somesuch like that) or (b) people actually illustrate what compelling evidence there is regarding the multiregional hypothesis? I don't know anything about this area so I can't do it. 202.147.117.39 03:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Here are some links:
-- needs a lot of content added by an expert or student of human evolution. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- That was eons ago, obviously, since now the article seems to propone multiregionalism strongly. I wish a little more neutrality, i.e. some more arguments from the single-origin side, since the page Single-origin_hypothesis has some Multiregional counterarguments ... unless of course the single-origin side has lost all proponents ... Rursus 08:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mungo Man
Mungo man is one line of thought that supports multiregionalism:
The idea is that modern human remains were found in Australia 60 kybp, and the date of Homo sapiens sapiens exodus out of Africa is b/w 200 kybp and 100 kybp. This gives a fairly narrow window of travel for H sapiens to get from Ethiopia through the Levant, Eurasia, South Asia, Java, then sail to Australia (although Chris Stringer argues there is enough time).
[edit] Some thoughts
Here's one that actually supports multi-regionalism, and specifically Neanderthal gene flow: [7], although in fixing this article it may be better to go to the sources referenced there than referencing this page directly.
Some interesting points:
- Mandibular foramen: H-O type is found mostly (only?) in Neanderthals and in post-Neanderthal 'moderns'. Googling for "mandibular foramen" and neanderthal gets a good number of results.
- Most single-origin genetic arguements seem to be based on mtDNA results, both the difference between Neanderthal and living sequences and the dating of the MCA of living humans at ~200,000 years ago. Some counterpoints:
- mtDNA only tracks an unbroken female line of descent. mtDNA results would indicate you have no close relation with your own father or any of his ancestors, or with your maternal grandfather and any of his ancestors, etc.
- There is a claim that the mtDNA regions sequenced are actually too variable for such comparisons.
- The sequenced Neanderthal mtDNA is 13 mutations away from the closest living sequence, while the most-separated living sequences are 22 mutations apart.
- Taking the normally cited figure of 24 (rather than 13) mutations, 22/24 still doesn't compare well with 200,000/600,000 years since the most common ancestors.
- Other genetic regions (blood groups, major histocompatibility complex) show greater diversity and little to no evidence of bottlenecks. Some models assuming these were shared between moderns and Neanderthals require as little as 1 interbreeding every 2 generations to acheive such results.
Hopefully this helps someone with better research and writing skills to put together something useful.
[edit] Clean up?
Does anyone else think this article requires clean-up? It's linked to by a number of other articles so it would be nice if it was of a high standard. As it is now however the whole first pharagraph talks about polygenism and the Eve theory only mentioning the multi-regional hypothesis in relation to polygenism. There is in fact no real overview of the multi-regional hypothesis.
Instead I propose to have a first pharagraph outlining the multi-regional hypothesis as presented by Wolpoff and associates and then after that a historical background pharagraph about the relations between the multi-regional hypothesis and other theories(polygenism,Eve theory).
If anyone is keeping an eye on this article please report back here what you think of that idea? I'll get to work if there is a positive response to my ideas. --Whateva 17:06, 23 June 2006
- An introduction sounds like a good idea to me. --JWB 01:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, differentiating between polygenism and the MH but using a polygenic diagram as the main illustration seems a tad contradictory. -Ahruman 13:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes it doesn't really make sense. I would suggest that a graphic be inserted which explains MH. I just can't find any that is released into the public domain. I also think there should perhaps be a separate article for polygenism... the polygenism diagram could then be used as illustration for such an article.
That's unless of course there is a concensus to regard polygenism and multi-regional hypothesis as the same(this seems to have been the viewpoint of at least some of the people creating this article). --Whateva 12:43, 07 August 2006
[edit] Questions relating to lack of Mtdna in Mungo Man
I'm not sure if Mungo Man is as credible as thought for supporting the multiregional hypothesis. Although these classifications are rather out-dated in terms of genetics, in anthropology atleast, humans are divided into 5 groups:
Caucasoid: Encompassing the peoples of Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa Negroid: Encompassing the peoples of Sub-Saharan Africa Mongoloid: Encompassing the peoples of Central Asia, East Asia, Siberia, the Americas, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific Australoid: Encompassing certain peoples in Southeast Asia, the Pacific, and Oceania (New Guinea and Australia) Capoid: Encompassing certain ethnic groups in South Africa and Eastern Madagascar
So these are some questions I have in regards to Mungo Man.
-Do modern australian aboriginals have mtdna?
-Do the other australoid peoples have mtdna?
--Uh, yes. All organisms but Monera have mtDNA.
-Another point to make is that, following the single-origin hypothesis- well, I guess this would correlate with multiregional too- following the same genetic migration route of the australoid peoples, you'll find that a large number of ancient australoids settled in India. While granted, India is heavily mixed from middle eastern peoples and mongoloid peoples, there's no denying the australoid mix in modern India. Aside from genetics, looking at the southern Dravidian peoples, you'd have to be insane to doubt the blatant australoid ancestry in southern India. I could show you pictures- while granted, I doubt there are any pure australoids in modern India, there is no denying that there was heavy australoid admixture in the past. None. In fact, caucasoid and mongoloid mixing with these people is probably much, much smaller than northern Indians. And this is not any sort of afro-centrist ranting here, it's indeniable. So tell me, what does mtdna testing say about the people of South India? North India? The peoples of Bangladesh? Nepal? Pakistan? -Although it's still heavily disputed, it's most likely true that ancient australoids arrived in the Americas before ancient mongoloids did. There was a big stir about ancient skeletons that closely resembled australoid peoples, and the fact that native populations at the southern tip of south america show DNA ancestry with australoid groups. And here's something else- none of the ethnic groups, the native ones, in the Americas lack facial hair. Except the southern tip ones.
What does multiregional say about this?
[edit] New vs. Classic Multiregionalism?
I just took a look at Templeton's paper, Out of Africa again and again, which is the bases for a good deal of the genetic evidence for the multiregional hypothesis in this article. It seems to me that the evidence points not to the acceptance of Wolpoff's multiregionalism, but instead to a more nuanced hypothesis than either the complete replacement of OOA or the simultaneous origin with gene flow that most multiregionalist propose.
I always thought that the gist of the MR hypothesis was that the regional erectus-grade hominids contributed more to the AMHs in their geographical areas than hominids in other regions. However Templeton's evidence indicates that the African populations contributed a disproportionate amount of genetic diversity to archaic H. sapiens, due to large migrations out of Africa. In essence limiting the effect regional differences contributed to AMH populations.
It seems to me that this article simplifies this hypothesis down to the claim that gene flow existed between the populations, and misses most of the assertions Wolpoff and co. made which are not borne out by this new evidence.
Does anyone think it might be a good idea to have a section on 'classic' MR hypothesis, and then a section which includes the new genetic evidence and the modification of the theories? Bdrydyk 16:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
