Concerning the genesis of modern humanity, there are two primary theories that receive credence in anthropological circles. One is the “Out of Africa” hypothesis, which in short argues that today’s humans are the evolved descendants of a primitive race of hominids that roughly 70,000 years ago, departed its homeland in Africa and spread across the globe. Upon entering Asia and Europe, these archaic humans displaced the indigenous Neanderthals through violent conflict and higher birthrates.
The other theory is “Divergent Evolution,” or "Multiregional Hypothesis" which posits that the various races of mankind were spawned out of continuous admixtures between the different proto-humans (Homo-erectus, Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, etc.) many millennia ago. The countless hybrid amalgams then underwent localized evolution like the single ancestor of the “Out of Africa” process.
Which theory do you regard as the most plausible one and why?
The multiregional hypothesis does no longer receive credence in anthropological circles.
Besides, your picture alone is enough to invalidate it: when has evolution ever happened so cleanly and symmetrically? At the very least, Asians and Europeans should share a more recent common ancestor.
>In Weidenreich's original graphic there were also diagonal lines between the populations, e.g. between African H. erectus and Archaic Asians and between Asian H. erectus and Archaic Africans. This created a "trellis" (as Wolpoff called it) or a "network" that emphasized gene flow between geographic regions and within time. It is important to remember that the populations on the chart are not discrete – i.e., they do not represent different species, but are samples within a long lineage experiencing extensive gene flow.
The out of Africa theory is currently the best supported by evidence to be sure, but that doesn't mean that race is genetically unimportant. There are smaller differences between some animal species than Sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans for example.
Not that poster but there's a cited, academic source entirely and you can look it up and judge its credibility and whether it supports anon's gist.
That's good, but that wasn't my point. Europeans and Asians diverged more recently from each others than from the other branches, I don't see how it's possibly to argue against that without rejecting almost all the genetic evidence.
Also the branches are rather misplaced: Europeans should be between Africans and Asians. There was obviously more gene flow between Caucasians and Africans than between Asians and Africans, and there was more geneflow between Asians and Australians than between Australians and Caucasians until very recently.
The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic cultural marxist influenced campaign in the 1990’s to remove the concept of Race. This is the same agenda Jews push through multicultural tv-shows, etc. Another symptom of cultural marxism without any basis in reality.
Multiregional hypothesis isn't supported by any proof. Out of Africa is supported by dating the age of haplogroups.
There was admixture with archaic humans in europe, asia, africa and australia, but the common ancestor of all humans today is homo sapiens who originates from africa.
>Out of Africa is supported by dating the age of haplogroups.
Not just the age but also the relations between them.
How can people not support the multi regional hypothesis when we know that different races of homo sapiens mixed with separate groups of extinct hominids and at different rates?(i.e Neanderthals, Denisovans, others yet to be identified)
Just for the record, I'm well convinced that there are genetic factors to intelligence and that the distribution of alleles affecting IQ and psychosocial traits is closely linked to recognizable ethnic groups. I don't think grouping people in great continental races has much meaning for anything other than paleontology, but the genetic differences between smaller populations are significant and useful for most disciplines.
I've actually read studies on the subject and I've even occasionally posted digests of the findings on /pol/ to try to educate you retards before I realized it was throwing pearls before swine.
Yet another /pol/ thread.
Archaic long abandoned theories must be true because I am so racist that I am willing to abandon science in the name of denying blacks might be more closely related to whites than I am comfortable with.
It's not even a problem of ignorance and lack of education, it's a problem of intellectual dishonesty, distrust of experts' motives, confirmation bias, wishful thinking and generally a lack of interest in finding the truth (you might have noticed that this is what race denialists are guilty of as well.)
This is something that poisons all HBD debates to some extent, but /pol/ is a particularly toxic environment for intelligent discussion.
>Don't let the few redditors fool you into believing /pol/ is this monolithic anti-intellectual board
I've formed my own opinion of /pol/ by wasting entirely too much time on it and related boards over the years.
This is probably the stupidest post I've ever seen on this board.
/pol/ is an echochamber for disillusioned teens. If you think anyone there has any expertise on any topic, you're a fool.
No idea, I didn't read the paper and off hand I'd guess that paper itself doesn't compare human and animal populations.
> you can look it up and judge its credibility and whether it supports anon's gist