Recent African Origin (RAO) Hypothesis vs MRE (Multiregional Evolution) Hypothesis

[Hellbender]

An interesting ongoing debat in the field of biological anthropology is the origin of modern Homo sapiens. "The Recent African Origin hypothesis states that humans evolved as a seperate species in in Africa, and then spread to replace more "archaic" populations of hominids." (Park, 315, Biological Anthropology) A different hypothesis is the Multiregional evolution hypothesis, which states "that humans are about 2 million years old and human traits evolved in geographically diverse locations and then spread through the species." (Park, 315) Both hypotheses are backed up with equally compelling evidence, and some of the general data can be used to suport either model.

 

MRE Model Here: http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/multiregional.html

RAO Model here: http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/genome.html

 

what do you think is a more valid hypothesis?

[Hellbender]

Durn it, another dead thread by Hellbender. Crap.

[Deathby]

The problem is that you're threads are intelligent. For some reason most of the other stuff is "Oh gee evolution is crap" or something else that is easily answered. I think your post is practically a free-standing thread on its own.

 

I don't entirely understand everything they're saying, probably because I'm a bit tired. Is the second article suggesting that the first articles says we interbred with Neanderthals and the like? The first article seems to say that humans moved out of Africa then evolved certain characteristics to suit their new environments... I don't see how this is wrong, or even contradictory to the second article.

 

 

Just one note, I could have sworn it was mitochondrial RNA (not DNA) that was used to prove the age of humanity.

[Skye]

The problem with the thread is the name. Few people would know the acronyms, and so most people are going to skip it as they scan through the boards.

[Hellbender]

True, thanks guys. As for the mRNA, the age has been estabilished, was used, but the question is more of the finer points of how and where we evolved. SKye, you are right, i shouldn't assume people would know the acronyms, I just couldn't think of a better title.

[Hellbender]

The problem is that you're threads are intelligent. For some reason most of the other stuff is "Oh gee evolution is crap" or something else that is easily answered. I think your post is practically a free-standing thread on its own.

 

Thanks. Even though I enjoy occasionaly defending evolution against the relentless onslaught of crappy creationist arguments, it gets old. Time after time, the same tired arguments are copied and pasted, with the poster thinking it is the most original argument against evolution yet. A a side not, I am firm in thinking that creationist arguments should be moved to the religion forum.

[dreovid]

I can't believe that this is so old!

We're actually going over this in my Human Origins class, and I found the articles that you posted helpful and interesting- and your title was just perfect for me to have found it.

I can't say that I side with the RAO hypothesis completely- but as always, its hard to be sure of the fossil record.

We do know that neandertals were only found in Europe and that most fossils are dated around the same time- and none have been found on the African continent as of yet, although they have been close.

Did AMH come only from Africa and then take over or appear elsewhere? We know we're separate species, but did we recognize each other as mates? Which could explain why some Europeans have neandertal DNA.

So much isn't clear, but the fossil record is like looking through a keyhole into a room, we only get a small glimpse of what might of been.