Human Evolution -- Which theory do you take?

[Archbob]

So in the realm of evolution(so this thread can be devoid of creation vs. evolution posts), there are two main theories on the Emergeance of the Human stock.

1. Humans in the form of Homo Sapiens first appeared in Africa sometime in the last 100,000 years and slowly spread itself arou d the world.

2. Not quite humans(like in the form of H. Habalis or H. Erectus) spread out around the world in the last million and a half years and slowly and separately evolved into homo sapiens.

Which view do you take and why.

Me, I personally am an advocate of the 2nd view because Not-quite humans have been found in Asia and Java before 100,000 years. And there is the fact that H. Sapiens co-existed already with Neandralthals.

However, the first theory has alot going for it too because of genetic commonality. We should have evolved from one general group.

The real debate is when the different branches of H. Sapiens branched off.

 

[Winterfell]

Why cant these two theories co exist?
Not quite humans spread over the world, and then homo sapiens emerged in africa and spread out.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I don't think the scientific data shows evidence enough either way yet to have to pick one.

 

[Elta]

Well according to the estamation (done by the amount of links back to the women that all women came threw) it is estimated that all women are born from one women 100,000 years ago and all men of one women 70,000 years ago.
If you did not come threw one of them ..well your not human
I don't care how smart java man is ....we win

 

[Archbob]

Hmm, so by estimates, men came later. Does that mean, it took more evolution to become man than it did to become women?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Hmm, so by estimates, men came later. Does that mean, it took more evolution to become man than it did to become women?

What it actually means that women's reproductive success is more equitably distributed. It's left as an exercise to the reader to figure out why this might be so.


As for the question in the OP, I lean towards Out-of-Africa models, but can't say I'm knowledgeable enough to have an authoritative opinion.

 

[jonatas]

My impression is that Out of Africa is generally favoured over multiregional now.

 

[Samson]

2. Not quite humans(like in the form of H. Habalis or H. Erectus) spread out around the world in the last million and a half years and slowly and separately evolved into homo sapiens.

Does this involve Homo sapiens evolving together in widly geographicaly seperate locations into what we know as humans today? I cannot see how there could be enough genetic flow around the world for us to all end up as the same species.

 

[Archbob]

Does this involve Homo sapiens evolving together in widly geographicaly seperate locations into what we know as humans today? I cannot see how there could be enough genetic flow around the world for us to all end up as the same species.

Yes, this would have required us to branch off into the different races around 300,000 or so years ago. This could account for the different races of human beings. The evidence is that there have been found remains of very old human skeletons in Asia and even in the oceania area, remains over 50,000 years old.

There is also Peking man reaching hundreds of thousands of years into th past. We might have branched off fairly late in the evolutionary chain to allow us to keep enough common genetics to interbreed and be called a single species.

I think you'll have to agree that Australian Aboriginals look quite different from the modern Caucasian person.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I say a mix

 

[warpus]

I'd say 1.

With 2. we'd have ended up with sub-species of man. Instead we are 1 species with very slight differences.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I mostly hear about the African Origin theory, but that may be incompetent journalists.

 

[jonatas]

I don't think it's just that.

 

[Dida]

I am leaning towards Out of Africa theory. With multiregionalism, we have multiple, isolated lines of human evolution somehow converge to form the modern human race, with seemingly minimal internal diversity. This is impossible/highly unlikely from evolution point of view. Evolutionary lines tends to diverge rather than converge because each group is exposed to different enviornments.
The way we currently explain very early human existence in Asia, for example, is that there were more than one wave of human migration out of Africa, and it was the last wave, or migration of the Cromanians that eventually gave rise to the human race around the globle as we know it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Genetics says "out of Africa" for all humans alive today. Earlier versions of humans may have lived and prospered in Asia, but they all died out or were exterminated by our ancestors.

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

 

[Souron]

The first, because of how evolution works. A speices does not simmply evolve into another. H. Habalis don't suddely at some date start producing homo sapein ofspring. One species has to die out for the better species to take it's place. There has to be a first homo sapein, who propagated and untimately his direct decendants became the best of the H. Habalis at everything and H. Habalis died out.

 

[Masquerouge]

Out of Africa looks to me to be the more logical and simple explanation.

 

[chef pablo]

12th century scribes from the middleeast left acounts of hairy short squat tribes in northern uerope.
16th century naval documents from dutch traders describe acounts of men 3 ft in hight and covered in hair.
there have been many acounts of subspieces up into the very recent past,now they are finding concrete evedince that these could have been more than tall tales from travelers.
In Java they have found BONES of a subspeices standing 3ft in hight ,probaly related to erectus.
carbon dating is thus far incuclusive but the estimate to be 400-1000 years old.
On the coast of western africa they have found fossils of a juvinal male sub spieces of erectus, estamated hieght of the spacimen is 6ft.these are also relativly young in the evelotional scale.
The current thinking is that when erectus,sapien and neandratal were co existing there were far more sub-spieces around the world,and is possible that many of these spieces interbread with sapiens.they have already found evedince that sapien and neandratal had interbred and for others to breed is not that much of a streach.
My opinion is that migration of sapien and erectus happened mush sooner than most beleave,and periods of ice ages were kind of a lock down on migration,so in essence migration of these speices would go on untill an ice age and that point they would settle into thier areas possibly interbreeding creating sub spieces,until the ice reeceded 10000 years later,and would begin to migrate again,this would explaine the variences in sapiens from one region to the other.
If sapiens had migrated from Africa i dont think there would be the vast differences between the races(skin color,hight,hair color so on).we had the ability to conquere mother nature,so unless there wasnt a blender affect going on with the gene pool(interbreding) ,I dont think there would have been alot of changes .
If sapiens had continued to evolve durring migration,than why are native americans,brown skined.would it not make since that inuit be fair skinned and blonde hair.How about the asians that were geographicly locked in northern latitudes by the himilayans ,why arent they fair skinned?
Is it possible that neandratal was fair skinned and because of interbreeding ueroeans recieved the fair skin traite?

 

[warpus]

chef pablo:

Do you have links to sources that will back up these claims?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Out of Africa makes far more sense to me. All those H. erectus (or H. heidelbergensis, or whomever) were far too isolated from each other to form a single genetic stock.