How do you think Humans came to be?

**Canmoore** · 20 Mar 10,, 05:29

I am suprised that there is little support for multi-regional theory. I know that the theory is very popular in China, mainly because of the Peking man

"Multiregional evolution, a model to account for the pattern of human evolution, was proposed by Milford H. Wolpoff[49] in 1988.[50] Multiregional evolution holds that human evolution from the beginning of the Pleistocene 2.5 million years BP to the present day has been within a single, continuous human species, evolving worldwide to modern Homo sapiens.

According to the multiregional hypothesis, fossil and genomic data are evidence for worldwide human evolution and contradict the recent speciation postulated by the Recent African origin hypothesis. The fossil evidence was insufficient for Richard Leakey to resolve this debate.[51] Studies of haplogroups in Y-chromosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA have largely supported a recent African origin.[52] Evidence from autosomal DNA also supports the Recent African origin. However the presence of archaic admixture in modern humans remains a possibility and has been suggested by some studies."

Multiregional hypothesis at AllExperts

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/multiregional.html

http://www.directessays.com/viewpaper/24657.html

The more I read about multiregional theory, the more questions I ask. Like why do caucasian's have traits similar to Neanderthals. Yet humans from Africa and Asia look completely different..yet at the same time, share the same characteristics (five fingers, large brain, hair on the head.)

If we are one species, from a common ancestor, why the vast array in body types? A northern pike from say Canada, looks nearly identical to one from say England. They are the same species.

Yet take a human from Czechslovakia, and take a human from Ethiopia, you would swear they are seperate species, based on physical appearance!

**dalem** · 20 Mar 10,, 10:04

Originally Posted by Canmoore

If we are one species, from a common ancestor, why the vast array in body types? A northern pike from say Canada, looks nearly identical to one from say England. They are the same species.

Yet take a human from Czechslovakia, and take a human from Ethiopia, you would swear they are seperate species, based on physical appearance!

Well, DNA tells the story better than pictures, and I daresay that your Czech and your Ethiopian look "nearly identical" to the average Northern Pike.

Occam's Razor dictates that an interbreeding Genum and species come from the same source, not multiples.

-dale

**astralis** · 20 Mar 10,, 16:47

What do you think the Big Bang is?

isn't that tankie's yearly party when he drops by the closest university?

**tankie** · 20 Mar 10,, 16:49

Originally Posted by astralis

isn't that tankie's yearly party when he drops by the closest university?

**devgupt** · 20 Mar 10,, 18:02

One thing that has always intrigued me about human evolution has been the extinction of neanderthals.The adults had bigger cranial capacity and were more heavily built and stronger compared to homo sapiens.
There has been evidence that they used fire and made tools.
Yet they got extinct .There has been no concrete explanation for their extinction.Were we just plain lucky or we had some advantages that they lacked?

**Blue** · 22 Mar 10,, 01:47

Originally Posted by Canmoore

I am suprised that there is little support for multi-regional theory. I know that the theory is very popular in China, mainly because of the

Multiregional Evolution

The more I read about multiregional theory, the more questions I ask. Like why do caucasian's have traits similar to Neanderthals. Yet humans from Africa and Asia look completely different..yet at the same time, share the same characteristics (five fingers, large brain, hair on the head.)

If we are one species, from a common ancestor, why the vast array in body types? A northern pike from say Canada, looks nearly identical to one from say England. They are the same species.

Yet take a human from Czechslovakia, and take a human from Ethiopia, you would swear they are seperate species, based on physical appearance!

Your link touches on it. Geological and Atmospheric conditions played a huge part in adapting to those conditions in the regions in which those early humans migrated to and settled. We have only began to shrink the globe and mix the races in the last 200 years or so and technology has halted the the evolutional adaptations for the races.

If we survive another 300 or 400 years, I predict most distinct racial features will disappear due to interacial breeding which would trump evolution in the race game.

**astralis** · 22 Mar 10,, 05:31

7th,

We have only began to shrink the globe and mix the races in the last 200 years or so and technology has halted the the evolutional adaptations for the races.

that's how the theory went, but IIRC the surprising scientific data shows evolutionary changes to be -increasing-, not decreasing.

If we survive another 300 or 400 years, I predict most distinct racial features will disappear due to interacial breeding which would trump evolution in the race game.

300-400 is probably too fast for the world in general; after all, the US has been racially intermixing for well over 200 years (almost every single "white" american has african/native-american blood somewhere) but races are still somewhat distinct.

you're right, though; it's accelerating.

in the US, the funny thing is that one response to this has been the enlargement of the "white" race. "white" used to be defined as just anglo-saxon as recently as 120 years ago. then the italians and the irish managed to "blend" in, followed by Europeans in general--the further East you went, the longer it took.

now, increasingly, hispanics are marking themselves down as "white", as well (although the japanese and indians beat them to it; they tried in the Supreme Court in 1922/1923 to define themselves as white.)

it's pretty much to the point where in another 50 or 100 years, everyone in the US will be "white"...

**Blue** · 22 Mar 10,, 15:08

Originally Posted by astralis

that's how the theory went, but IIRC the surprising scientific data shows evolutionary changes to be -increasing-, not decreasing.

Are you reffering to the height and weight increases of people in 1st world countries over the last 50-60 years? I would tie that to growth hormones in foods, not evolution.

Either way, where are hearing that it evolution is increasing?

it's pretty much to the point where in another 50 or 100 years, everyone in the US will be "white"...

Michael Jackson did it!

I wonder what we'll find to fight about when there are no races?

Can you imagine how that would affect politics and all the other facets of our society that play the "race card"?

**Tarek Morgen** · 22 Mar 10,, 15:49

now, increasingly, hispanics are marking themselves down as "white", as well (although the japanese and indians beat them to it; they tried in the Supreme Court in 1922/1923 to define themselves as white.)

Are you sure about this? The US did not start to differ between whites and hispanics until the 1970 Census. During the world wars latin americans were also considered white and served in "white" units. For me (an outsider of course) it looks rather like the trend is for them to being viewed "less white" then "more white".

**astralis** · 22 Mar 10,, 16:17

tarek,

are you sure about this? The US did not start to differ between whites and hispanics until the 1970 Census

it was because the US was still overwhelmingly "white"/anglo-saxon, not because they accepted hispanics into the fold. there was one boom of immigration during the 30s and 40s, but the second, bigger boom came in the 60s, which was when they started to have some real political power.

racial tensions were far worse then:

Zoot Suit Riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**Tarek Morgen** · 22 Mar 10,, 18:17

While there were certainly racial tension, were they not at least considered white in the legal sense?

And were the negative feelings towards Italians and Irish not rather based on them being Catholic instead their skin color?

I guess it is rather hard to understand from a complete outside view...if hispanics are not white for americans, what about spanish or portugese people in europe?

**dalem** · 22 Mar 10,, 19:22

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

Are you reffering to the height and weight increases of people in 1st world countries over the last 50-60 years? I would tie that to growth hormones in foods, not evolution.

Either way, where are hearing that it evolution is increasing?

Michael Jackson did it!

I wonder what we'll find to fight about when there are no races?

Can you imagine how that would affect politics and all the other facets of our society that play the "race card"?

Liberalism moves us closer to a South African style "racial makeup" ID every day. If you take away the physical signs of race, liberals will still want to know how much darkie blood you have in you so they know how to treat you.

-dale

**gunnut** · 23 Mar 10,, 00:16

Originally Posted by Canmoore

I am suprised that there is little support for multi-regional theory. I know that the theory is very popular in China, mainly because of the Peking man

Multiregional hypothesis at AllExperts

Multiregional Evolution

Multi-Regional Continuity the Fossil Evidence essays

The more I read about multiregional theory, the more questions I ask. Like why do caucasian's have traits similar to Neanderthals. Yet humans from Africa and Asia look completely different..yet at the same time, share the same characteristics (five fingers, large brain, hair on the head.)

If we are one species, from a common ancestor, why the vast array in body types? A northern pike from say Canada, looks nearly identical to one from say England. They are the same species.

Yet take a human from Czechslovakia, and take a human from Ethiopia, you would swear they are seperate species, based on physical appearance!

Ever looked at a wiener dog and a german shepard, or a yorkshire, or a chow chow, or a husky? They can all interbreed and basically the same species. Yet I could swear the wiener dog is nowhere close to a french poodle.

**Canmoore** · 23 Mar 10,, 05:30

I am playing devlis advocate, no one seems to want to talk about out of africa vs multi regional. Just evolution vs creationism, there is already a thread on that. Just wanted to get back on topic!!

Personally I believe the out of africa theory, but there is some evidence that cannot be ruled out that may support multiregional. I was reading that peking man, and aboriginies in australia may hold a key to understanding if multiregional evolution happened or not.

**dalem** · 23 Mar 10,, 10:06

Originally Posted by Canmoore

I am playing devlis advocate, no one seems to want to talk about out of africa vs multi regional. Just evolution vs creationism, there is already a thread on that. Just wanted to get back on topic!!

Personally I believe the out of africa theory, but there is some evidence that cannot be ruled out that may support multiregional. I was reading that peking man, and aboriginies in australia may hold a key to understanding if multiregional evolution happened or not.

That's not how speciation works, no matter how interesting it might be.

-dale