Talk:Multiregional origin of modern humans/Dormant since 2009

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:

• [2] *[3]
• [4]
• [5] *[6]

-- 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)

Mungo Man

Mungo man is one line of thought that supports multiregionalism:

[7]

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).

Some thoughts

Here's one that actually supports multi-regionalism, and specifically Neanderthal gene flow: [8], 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.

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

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?

Evidence

There still needs to be some sort of couterposed view for each of the pieces of recent evidence presented. I found something by Tatersall on the "hybrid," but sourced rejections of the others would be useful. Jd2718 10:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nominated most ancient common ancestor for deletion

Someone created a new article called Most ancient common ancestor. Notice that it is ancient, not recent. It appears to be a new name coined by the author without research backing (i.e. original research). I nominated that page for deletion. Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor if you wish to participate in the discussion. I am posting this message in this discussion page because the topic in question is closely related to this article. Again, please note that I am not nominating the Most Recent Common Ancestor article for deletion; I am nominating the newly created Most Ancient Common Ancestor. Fred Hsu 05:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources & Rebuttals

There are many external links, but not a single cited source. It would be nice if there were some sources cited in this article. Also, there seems to be places where Polygenism and MR are meshed in as being the same thing.

I think there could also be a lot more information on the OOA rebuttals to this theory, and how MR deals with them. People coming to this page will ask "Hey, but what about what the OOA says on...?" and not seeing any related answer here will assume that the MR theory has no solution and conclude it to be a bum theory. Any good article on a scientific theory should not only deal with information related in support of that theory, but should also deal with anything in its opposition.

What does everyone else think?Esdraelon 20:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Section 1 and possibly 2 follow Wolpoff's exposition (in fact Wolpoff himself or at least an account by that name apparently showed up and revised it) and could probably be cited as a whole to Wolpoff and Caspari's "Race and Human Evolution" or another general book. I haven't made a point by point comparison.

A reader interested in OOA vs. MR would surely read both articles. The OOA article is more imbalanced and gives the impression that MR is simply obsolete and disproven. So far I have seen little or no OOA rebuttal to the recent evidence presented in the links section.

I also haven't seen much in the way of secondary sources compiling and integrating recent evidence supporting MR. There are science blogs, especially John Hawks, that have discussed some recent papers, but I don't know of a good survey in print yet.

The OOA article also equates MR with something more like polygenism that has been falsified by the genetic evidence of the last couple of decades. This article would do well to acknowledge that MR proponents acknowledge multiple OOA exoduses whose results look like replacement on many genetic measures, but can not accept the assumption of total lack of interbreeding because it is contradicted by other genetic measures. --JWB 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/science/13obape.html?ref=science —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Graph

The graph seems misleading as it seems to represent polygenism and not multiregional origin. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It also has the 'asians' as one group when the peoples of the orient, and Russians are very different from Indian populations yet share Asia. This from a genetics point is very misleading. --Curuxz (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The graph is rather confusing, though it would be nice to have a good one. The Humanevolutionchart.png one for the single theory, with a similar one next to it for this theory might make it very clear what the theory is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

External links

Far, far too many. See WP:External links. Doug Weller (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

definition does not work...

"The multiregional hypothesis holds that the evolution of humanity throughout the Pleistocene has been within a single widespread human species, Homo sapiens,..." - - this is just a lame attempt to make multiregionalism sound sexy. doesn't work. I am not going to attempt to do it, but please let's give the younger and layman readers a chance with a coherent definition. Grazie Spettro9 (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also wrong. It's an attempt to explain the origin of Homo sapiens (and modern H. sapiens); and unless its proposers suggest that H. habilis in a sort of invalid taxon, that it should be classified as sapiens already, then the definition is simply wrong. Maybe something in the lines of:

The multirregional hypothesis is a phyletically gradualist hypothesis for the origin of Homo sapiens. It is an alternative to the recent single origin hypothesis, hypothesizing that the main human races from different regions of the Earth descend from different ancestral local populations of Homo erectus, separated much earlier in the past, evolving anagenically into Homo sapiens through a process of parallel evolution combined with gene flow. [...] "

That's the best I can came up with right now.--Extremophile (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

A very early concept of multiregionalism/polygenism, plus alternative theory about the closest species

I wish I could remember more details about it, but I've read somewhere that once it was hypothesized that Europeans had evolved from chimpanzees, Africans from gorillas, and Asians from orangutans. It's not clear if he was referring about it or something closer to more recent multi-regional theories, but a fellow of the Royal Geographic Society, Akhil Bakshi recently said that "the human races came from different ape ancestors". Somewhat (not much) less fringely, the anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz, who co-wrote at least one article with Ian Tattersall, hypothesizes that we're in fact more closely related to orangutans than to chimpanzees, based on anatomical similarity. --Extremophile (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll backpedal on some of what I've said. I've searched for a while and I couldn't find anything reliable about someone proposing different races coming from these different ape species; the best I've found was part of a text of Cheikh Anta Diop, but I think it was more intended to be mockery of multiregionalism than a description of some actual thought on the beginning of the 20th century. Even if it is not, I couldn't find anything else. I'm sure I've read lots of early crazy ideas, and it may have been among them. --Extremophile (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Useful article?

Browsing recently I found this article [9]. I am not an expert in this issue, but the arguments in it seemed reasonable. Aigest (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a 'Branch' missing

In my opinion, the only logical theory of the "Evolution of Man" is the 'Multiregional' theory. However, there is a 'Branch' missing from the "Multiregional" diagram. It does not include the Americas. It is my belief that Humans evolved as each part of the Earth became inhabitable. Gene traits match the climate in which each race evolved. Size, skin, hair, eye color, etc. can all be matched with climate characteristics.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreneet (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's stick to reliable sources, please. Phenotypes being appropriate to their local environment gives no support for a multiregional origin. Fences and windows (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is my belief that humans evolved from sharks, scientific evidence aside, it's the only logical explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.226.230.36 (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have known my share of "sharks" in my day. Maybe that has to do with the evolution of tribes??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreneet (talk • contribs) 14:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Hybrid-origin

The page Hybrid-origin relies entirely on one old 1970s book, and basically repeats the section here. We should merge in anything extra that page adds, and redirect here. Fences and windows (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bottleneck info

While I'm not an expert on these topics, it seems that there might not be a conflict between this theory and Recent African origin of modern humans if something like the Toba Catastrophe eliminated most humans except those in deepest Africa 70,000 years ago. So it seems the topic might be better covered with refs like The effect of ancient population bottlenecks on human phenotypic variation ("Nature" 2007) and this BBC article. Topic is better covered in Human and Human evolution articles. Have any proponents of this theory dealt with the issue? In any case a slightly better explanation of their views helpful, since this Toba catastrophe theory that has been featured a lot in popular science publications and tv shows. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Also relevant are these two refs contained in this text from Toba Catastrope article:

Recent work by archaeologist Michael Petraglia suggests that in fact modern humans survived relatively unscathed in at least one settlement in India.

Finally given that some people have strange racial theories which they may try to insert in articles like this, and others may try to counteract what they consider even the tiniest shade of such a theory, we should be careful to expunge any unsourced or poorly sourced povs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No bottelneck, but low genetic diversity in Pleistocene hominins (500 kya) :http://www.pnas.org/content/106/1/33.abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.127.200 (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

At least one well-known multiregionalist is not thrilled with the Toba catastrophe theory: At last, the death of the Toba bottleneck --JWB (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

distruption by sources

there is secondary (coordinated?) attempt[10] to remove sourced edits . The question is why do you POV your idea about the thesis in the article over authors in scientific website Nature.com ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.127.200 (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's quite common for edits to be reverted, and it is certainly not coordinated. One issue is that articles need to be written in good English (particularly in the lead), so it might help to post a draft of one changed paragraph on this talk page first. Also, I doubt that this article is the right place for a discussion on "eliminating racism and xenophobia". Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Read this Human_evolution#Implications_for_the_concept_of_race . 24.15.127.200 (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I read it. I have not read the sources, and can't really grasp what point is being made: an appeal to be nice? a suggestion that "human race" has no scientific foundation? I am not asking for an explanation, merely expressing my opinion that the section is somewhat vague. I intend leaving this topic for a short while and will see what others make of any proposed changes. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The edits were not written well, disrupted the lead, and went against the consensus that the Out of Africa theory is mainstream, thus giving undue weight to a fringe theory. Fences and windows (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 76.16.176.166

1. This edit[11] removed a reliable source as "spam", which is not what is done with paid article sources. It also disrupted the lead; discuss detail in the body of the article, do not try to introduce all detail in the lead.
2. Again the lead is disrupted by adding in too much detail,[12] also adding an apparently POV slant.
3. Unexplained blanking of content:[13]

I have reverted these edits, as I do not believe that they are constructive. Fences and windows (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• • re 1:spam - the article is available without pay, just search it if you really need it in abstract. Note that the statistical simulation applied by source do not support fully art. sentence.
    • re 1 POV also adding an apparently POV slant -how you can put in researcher mouth that he say although it is increasingly unlikely for Neanderthals while he wrote : While we regard this latter idea as unsupported by the available Neanderthal and human genome sequences, it is worth considering worth considering the possibility that ... adaptive introgression has occurred You see the data are not supported by available genomic neanderthal sequence. the available neanderthal sequence at present is ZERO. Even the Max Planck NGP did not publish coherent data but they just trying to sequence neanderthal genome taken from only one specimen (one person simply). Please try to understand what the source saying when you diverge its thesis.
  • re2: details moved to other chapter where you put 'request'[14]. Will you say that too much details from prime sources equal POV and why you don't counterbalance the the detail by scientific replies to the multiregional thesis? (So far I didnt find any serious reply falsifying DNA sequence (the sequences anybody with sufficiently equipped lab can check for correctness)
  • re3: i opt for deleting "Polygenism" an 18 century conception from top of article. This chapter explicitly words: Polygenism is mistaken for multiregional evolution so it is plain mistake and put undue wight in modern theory of multiregional evolution. The other phrase is: the term "multiregional hypothesis" was first coined in the early 1980s by Milford H. Wolpoff < its there where I suggest start of history. Otherwise we my start that 'neanderthal painting is visible picture of the beginning of though' which somehow contributed to present day debate. (i hope you 'distinguish' that the last sentence may be just a little deeper (~satiric) exploration of historic boundaries). Anyway why you like to start the history from something what you yourself introduced to the article as explicit mistake [15] F.? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

ps. Please point to some recent google scholar articles that are not skeptical to recent replacement scenario. There is some help. Now debate is on multile back and out of Africa. This is multiregional evolution when genes flow widely . Between Africa and Eurasia was no species barrier; that one is quite recent and will not last for long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.176.166 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I find it very hard to follow what you say when you write. But please stop making personal attacks on me. Sarcastically directing me to Google Scholar isn't useful. An example of your approach is to quote "is worth considering the possibility that (from Neanderthal) adaptive introgression has occurred" from Hodgson and Disotell, but the authors themselves conclude that "We interpret the findings discussed above as effectively eliminating the multiregional model of evolution with respect to Neanderthals." To represent the source as favourable towards multiregional evolution is not honest. Fences and windows (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The scientific value of research paper may be estimated from citation index. The source you using has as many as two. The only one in english say [16] :In a recent review, Hodgson and Disotell [218] have concluded that "it seems unlikely that Neanderthals contributed any substantial fraction of modern variation and it remains to be seen whether any adaptive alleles crossed the human-Neanderthal species boundary". Moreover, more recent major events in human evolution, such as the re-colonization of northern latitudes after the Ice Ages, could also be taken into account.

Do you agree that the bolded words of Eric Faure are critical to Hodgson conclusion?

The other Spanish language citation mention the Hodgson paper the one you like to use as omnipotent counter balance. You may try to get something from it if you understand Spanish and elaborate on 'how Baptista Gnozales building his review on Hodgson review'.

I suggest moving Hodgson thesis, if you relay want to stick to it, to the section of creticism.

Let me replay to scientific honesty you question in your words: To represent the source as favourable towards multiregional evolution is not honest. Look, when Hodgson cite papers about deep genetic lineages he writing what I quote verbatim. Cant you dismiss the verbatim quote? Is it your opinion that the verbatim quote is favorable. I see more problems in Hodgson paper. He build his thesis of yet nonexistent NGP data, I may invoke yet notexisting citation of his paper but as others do I prefer to skip.

You may try to get full NGP sequence or not, but if you do not explore the details in source you quoting and correspondence to other sources, it will be 'very hard to follow what i say when i write'. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum or a mailing list. We do not score points of each other or make sarcastic comments. Even if everything you do is correct (apart from your spelling), you still need to cooperatively point out why each change is an improvement. Ranting makes it very hard to work out what you are trying to say. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

76.16.176.166 looks for evidence that supports the multiregional hypothesis, and interprets evidence in a favourable way towards it. But that isn't how Wikipedia - or science - works. We present the balance of the views and evidence available in reliable sources, and the balance of reliable sources is that the multiregional hypothesis is now less supported. I actually want to do away with the "Criticism" section, and present the evidence for and against multiregional evolution together in two sections, fossil evidence and genetic evidence. We need to source more reliable sources, but we need to do this neutrally - finding all opinions on this. I've added Alan Templeton's research on the genetics and some work on fossils, so I've no objection to adding sources that argue for the multiregional hypothesis, but they need to be counterbalanced by dissenting voices. The section on deep genetic lineages need explaining more clearly, and it needs balancing with the views of those who do not support this interpretation of the genetic evidence, e.g. [17]. Hodgson and Disotell aren't the only researchers to be arguing that Neanderthals didn't contribute much if at all to modern Europeans, e.g. Currat and Excoffier, Noonan et al. and Faguendes et al.. On the other hand, Wall and Hammer support some admixture, also Wall et al. and Cox et al.. We need to reflect the consensus that admixture is generally seen as increasingly unlikely, that there is not yet any direct genetic evidence for any admixture, and that estimates of the maximum amount of admixture are often quite low, and that full analysis of the nuclear genome of Neanderthals will be very useful in resolving this question. Of course, we also need to reflect the research on fossils and on populations outside Europe. Fences and windows (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You say: I actually want to ... present the evidence for and against multiregional evolution Are the 3 paper(one is duplication) you cite definite evidence against? Look:

• Currat and Excoffier: interbreeding rates as high as 25% could not be excluded between the two subspecies| this scenario, which explicitly models the dynamics of Neanderthals' replacement| almost complete sterility between Neanderthal females and modern human males, implying that the two populations were probably distinct biological species.
• Noonan et al :definitive answer to the admixture question will require additional Neanderthal sequence data
• Faguendes et al: it is still unclear if it completely replaced former members of the Homo genus, or if some interbreeding occurred during its range expansion.| In conclusion, although our best supported model (AFREG) certainly does not represent the exact history of modern humans

Bear in mind that the standard genome sequence is anonymous. I do not know 'who' was the donor of sample so all the partially known neanderthal sequences are compared to ancestrally unknown sample. It may be one of descendant of African tribe(P=37%) eg. Youruba or someone from Baltic area. Could you quote some papers reasoning of something I really wonder: 'why the neanderthal ranges perfectly mach the ranges of phenotypically distinctive population; or what is the probability that descendant of Idalu spreading from Africa mutationally 'chose' to mimic some neanderthal traits, but only, in post neanderthal settlements? From Europe was one of larges demographic expansion. Why it was not posible to expand (or just walk) to Africa 300-200 ky ago and then move back and forth, for the rest of time; or even much much earlier? I don't see in RAO/RAR to much will to try to answer the obvious questions but multilregional evolution show a possibility to address it. Note from HGP :'the DNA for the public HGP came from a single anonymous male donor from Buffalo, New York (code name RP11)'

Do you/'we' finding all opinions on this or rather finding factuall related information ? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

For the 'deep genetic lineages' if you provide some thesis explaining in RAO/RAR framework how it was possible to happen for me it will be quite interesting to read it. If you would like some explanation just ask.

Your reply highlights two problems with your approach. The broad thrust of those three articles is to support a recent African origin, while still leaving some admixture as a possibility. But you prefer to highlight the caveats - this is special pleading for the multiregional hypothesis. The second issue is your own speculations about the Neanderthal range perfectly matching a phenotypically distinct population (which is dubious), about why populations didn't mix from 300,000 years ago, and your view on the genomics research - these are all your own opinions, so of no use at all to us in writing this encyclopedic entry. If reliable sources hold these opinions and pose these questions, please show them. Otherwise, please stop using this as a forum to present your own original research. I want to get on and improve this currently rather scrappy article using published reliable sources presented using a neutral point of view, and if you want to help with that, great. If all you want to do is push the multiregional hypothesis, you're not helping Wikipedia. Fences and windows (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot: Fagundes et al. give this explanation for the 'deep genetic lineages': Because the occurrence of deep lineages in modern humans has sometimes been taken as evidence against replacement models (e.g., refs. 13 and 16), we have computed the empirical distribution of the times to the most recent common ancestors (TMRCAs) for the best model under each of the three scenarios (Fig. 2 A and SI Table 3). We see that the multiregional model has the narrowest and shortest distribution because of the small estimated archaic population size that promotes coalescent events as soon as archaic Asian lineages are brought back (looking backward in time) to Africa ≈800 Kya in our model. On the other hand, very old TMRCAs exceeding several millions of years can be readily obtained under the African replacement models (in agreement with previous expectations, see, e.g., ref. 35), because the larger ancestral size in Africa prevents a rapid coalescence of the lineages that passed through the speciation bottleneck... the best African replacement model explains key features of other data sets, such as recent TMRCAs for mtDNA or Y-chromosome loci, as well as occasional deep lineages of nuclear loci, previously thought to be indicative of balancing selection or interbreeding with H. erectus or Neanderthals.[18].

Garrigan and Hammer dispute this finding:[19], author reply here:[20]. However, Garrigan and Hammer discuss the evidence from mitochondrial genomics in a way totally consistent with a recent African origin here, and the majority of recent papers I can find on human migration start with the assumption of a single recent African origin and don't even consider admixture or multiregional evolution.

I'm going to 'dump' some more links here for relevant articles:[21][22][23][24][25][26] Fences and windows (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

More on why individual "deep genetic lineages" don't necessarily support multiregional evolution or hybridisation: "Inference of relationships amongst DNA sequences has been used most commonly to estimate phylogenetic trees. However, the genealogical relationships at any one locus in the genome do not necessarily correspond to the phylogeny of the species as a whole. As we trace back the lineages of two genomic segments, sampled from two separate biological species, they may coalesce in a common ancestor at any time before those species became completely reproductively isolated. In the simplest case of a single, well-mixed ancestral population coalescence times are exponentially distributed, with a mean number of generations equal to twice the effective population size, 2 Ne. This distribution is highly variable, so that there is a 1% chance of coalescence more recently than 0.02 Ne generations before speciation, and a 1% chance of coalescence earlier than 9.2 Ne generations. Thus, if we have three species that diverged at closely similar times, it is quite likely that genealogies of individual genomic segments will not correspond to the overall phylogeny." Nick Barton, Current Biology 2006.[27] Fences and windows (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In short: do we can agree that the in RAO/RAR(R/R) framework explanation to deep genetic lineages is:

1. The deep old lineages (time around 1 My or more) betwen Africa and Asia got to evolve/originate/arouse in Africa.
2. Some of the branches got to disappear in Africa (for any reason eg. outbreeading/drift/selection/etc... lets do not focus on why, now, for simplicity)
3. Got to move out of Africa around 100 kya (+/-)

This is how I understand that this is/(may be) explanation in R/R framework.

• What do you think about point 1,2,3 do you agree? .
• Or if not or how do you understand(/interpret/can correct above) the R/R explanation?

76.16.176.166 (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• The basic explanation is that variation in an ancestral population can sometimes survive through speciation or a bottleneck, especially if there was a large ancestral population, so not all coalescence times will give the actual time of the most recent common ancestor. The general problem is that estimating anything from changes in allele frequencies depends on a lot of assumptions and requires complicated statistics, so this kind of argument goes on for a long time!
• I've done a lot of searching for sources on this topic and I have probably 100+ to dig through. I was genuinely surprised at the level of debate surrounding the molecular and fossil evidence, but there is a consensus that Out of Africa is the correct theory; many sources discussing human origins don't now even mention multiregional evolution. To give a quick summary of my reading of the sources:

1. Multiregional supporters have historically preferred fossil evidence, as they argued that the mitochondrial estimates were unreliable. It was argued that evidence of regional continuity could be seen in the morphology of fossils, particularly crania, and some researchers like Trinkhaus still argue this. Chinese scholars are particularly keen on this as it fits a racial myth of a separate origin for the Chinese. However, recent work using 3D morphometrics highlights the large differences in skull forms between modern Homo sapiens and Neandertals or Homo erectus. There are some suggestions of hybrid forms between Cro-Magnon and Neandertal being found, but this is disputed and fairly subjective. Even the existence of confirmed hybrid fossils wouldn't necessarily show a contribution of Neandertals to the genetics of modern Europeans - it would be possible that any hybrids would be sterile hybrids, or that those lineages died out.
2. The mitochondrial evidence gives no support for any admixture between modern humans moving out of Africa and exisiting non-African hominins. Estimates of the most recent common ancestor of Homo sapiens and Neandertals based on mitochondrial phylogenetics are about 300,000 YA. There are various estimates on the maximum admixture possible in light of this; the estimates vary from tiny (120 matings in total) to a maximum of 25%. The fact that the mitochondrial lineage of Mungo Man - an Australian modern human from ~30-40,000 years ago - is not found in modern Australian aborigines leads some researchers to suggest that this makes admixture more likely, but Mungo Man's lineage falls within modern human variation, whereas the Neandertal sequences don't. The debate has shifted from being between the classic multiregional hypothesis and Out of Africa to being between whether the Out of Africa migration entirely replaced the existing populations of Neandertals and H. erectus, or whether there was some low level of interbreeding between the Out of Africa migrants and existing populations.
3. The existence of coalescence times in some genes on the X chromosome and autosomes of greater than 150,000 years - up to around 1.5 MYA, or perhaps even longer - has been taken as evidence that some genes crossed in modern populations from H. erectus by introgression, but other interpretations of these coalescence times suggest that coalescence times of a minority of genes will be much higher than the age of the actual most recent common ancestor. Templeton's interpretation of three waves of Out of Africa migration with interbreeding has some traction, but has been disputed by those who say that his statistical method is flawed.

• p.s. You were right to delete the section about Hybrid origin, I checked and this theory is totally fringe with no references to it in reliable sources, and I've nominated it for deletion.
• p.p.s. It might be semantic, but "anthropogenesis to" is grammatically incorrect, while "anthropogenesis of" is correct. I can see your point that under the multiregional hypothesis the whole human population evolved from H. erectus, but it is still a theory concerning the origin/anthropogenesis of modern humans. I can find no sources that use the wording "anthropogenesis to". Please don't let ideology get in the way of good written English! Fences and windows (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the lead sentence must read clearly – the point of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to baffle. There is no reason to put "anthropogenesis" in the first sentence unless there is substantial error by saying "origin" (I don't think there is, although I understand that no species has an "origin"; in fact the article could clearly state that point). Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• a) since evolution is a process and
• b) anthropogenesis is particular part of evolution and
• c) going back in our (anthropo) evolution we(sources) may put the start at given time as good as
• d) a moment before it (/ or arbitrary later).

Do you see a crucial point in time where the anthropogenesis has to begin to postulate the notion: anthropogenesis 'the origin of' versus 'a proces to ' [28]?

F.A.W.: For the Q. how are interpreted the existing (obvious and not disputed) deep genetic lineages(DGL) in RR framework i assume we basically agree. That the explanation is: some old branches may exist today far away from the area where they originated if the ancestral population was sufficiently large and genetically structured. (if you tracing other explanation compatible with recent replacement framework ... I'm waiting) 76.16.176.166 (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It would help if your replies addressed the point you are replying to. It is quite clear from what I wrote that I understand the technical error of the word "origin". Please concentrate on the fact that we are working on a page for a general encyclopedia. Of course words have to be used correctly, but they also have to convey meaning, otherwise the first sentence could just be "go away and read a bunch of stuff, and when you're sufficiently qualified, come back here". Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdent, arbitrary break

• Your latest edits add too much detail to the lead, use unexplained acronyms like "NGP", and you're still editing only in favour of the multiregional hypothesis. You really need to tighten up your editing - please use citation templates, for example - and balance what is obviously your point of view with other sources.
• I'm working on going through the sources I've found to do a rewrite that will incorporate the criticism section into the article. One aspect I've not looked into much is the sociological aspect. You removed "Some critics even argue that multiregionalism may be motivated by ethnocentrism and is meant to instill beliefs of purity of lineage", which is OK as it wasn't sourced, but this is an area I think would be good to explore, e.g. the Chinese racial identification with Peking Man.[29][30][31]
• You still aren't going to convince me to let you use "anthropogenesis to" rather than "origin of". Regardless of your arguments on how species evolve - we all know it is a process - nobody uses your construction so it is entirely your own invention and it is not grammatical. "Anthropogenesis" is unnecessarily wordy. We're talking about the "origin of modern humans" so whether we count H. erectus, Neandertals, H. antecessor or H. heidelbergensis as "human" is a moot point. Fences and windows (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes you are not talking about anthropogenesis you're talking about the "origin of" as the racial resourcers who always point to 'others' (like the 3 papers you want to use to politically pollute scientific otherwise debate). Also I do not think the sources talk like 'you'. Perhaps those who have to get research grants from politically influenced agendas. I do not finding intellectually independent researcher who before publishing got to carefully consider compatibility of his thesis to post WW2 trauma, Israeli separation barriers, biblical origin and walking o water.

Are you trying to imply that I'm racist? Any more of that kind of remark, and I'll request a block for making personal attacks. What does the Holocaust, Israel, Bible origins and walking on water have to do with this topic? You're not making any sense. Fences and windows (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

F:"Are you trying to imply that I'm racist?"

• 7: No I'm trying to imply. I do no know how you get this. Your words don't mean you are racist: "I think would be good to explore, e.g. the Chinese racial identification" .
• I just pointed that this may unnecessarily and politically pollute scientific otherwise article. (you may perhaps make new article to drain down your subject)
• The Torah contextual and textual (exodus!) interconnections are pretty obvious in RAR (eg.Howells Noah's Ark theory[32].) I very like the biblical dreams but not mingling it with science with persistence of scientific Marxist to impose false Jewish dreams eg. walking on water on eg. Chinese people who my have own heroes) its jealous but since you seem boiling let it cool out.

Sigh. More POV editing from User:76.16.176.166:[33]. "But the Duarte et al. discovery was already cited in more than 130 scholarly publication [34]" is beyond words, really. We edit by using reliable sources, not using citation counts as caveats. And this addition is special pleading, and is badly written in addition: "But mitochondrial DNA has only 0.0005% of genome DNA and the mtDNA come from captured bacteria". How is that at all relevant, other than to try to cast doubt on the mtDNA evidence? And you've removed all traces of Polygenism again without any discussion. This is getting ridiculous; 76.16.176.166 seems incapable of neutral editing. Fences and windows (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• It was true but you are right the bacterial relevance was relevant as previous revelations;).(treat it as a jock 'be bold' for those kids who spoofing melodramatic PR of mtEve and yAdam in love but 100,000 years apart) You flogging dead horse with the aDNA of thousand year dead neanderthal. Look how you put 'your' words(in abstract): can you show any African aDNA supporting RAR? No you cant there is nothing as far I know. What is the relevance ? Even if in aDNA is paleogenetic evidence it may be discredited by repalcionist in words "it is modern contamination". The aDNA research is extraneously difficult due to rarity of samples and to principal in science methodology of experimental verification (multiple samples verifications is impossible, there are other theoretical problems with results falsification). Its very lucky that some bones yielded enough aDNA to start the NGP and scientific community still wait for the very interesting results. The fact that in 2008 NGP was not yet completed is relevant .. as argument to what? PR 76.16.176.166 (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)thumb|right|150px|Cover of the January 11, 1988 edition of Newsweek

"treat it as a jock". Do you mean a joke? Any more "jokes" and you'll be risking a block for vandalism; joke edits are not OK. I'm "flogging a dead horse" with Neanderthal DNA, am I? There are of course caveats with ancient DNA, but more than one Neanderthal mtDNA sample has been sequenced, and there's still support for the analyses in reliable sources. I'm sure if the DNA evidence pointed the other way you'd not be so critical of it. Piling on all the criticisms of mtDNA evidence you can think of isn't neutral. Your comment about mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam being in love is a silly straw man argument. This isn't a debating forum, we're here to try to write a balanced, neutrally presented entry on this hypothesis. Stick to using sources rather than trying to bait me, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and nor is it a battleground. If all you want to do is argue the case for the multiregional hypothesis and against Out of Africa, do it on a blog. Fences and windows (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

F:I'm sure if the DNA evidence pointed the other way you'd not be so critical of it.

7: I'm not so sure.

F:Y-chromosome Adam being in love is a silly straw man argument

do we talking about mess media PR campaign ? see the pix/

F:Piling on all the criticisms of mtDNA evidence you can think of isn't neutral.

Do you think that so old mounted content is base for the 'neutrality' in face of new new discoveries. Lets hypothesize: **1 There is theory A. 2 One unquestionable discovery falsify theory A. 3 Will be it neutral to hold A theory true?** (Do you agree Q.3 ?) I think it wont be OK. Do you think that valid inconsistencies in particular theory have to be 'neutralized' for sake wiki:neutrality? Please read (if you want to be prepared to debate) point 2c; it point to one potential and serious inconsistency.

76.16.176.166 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Using that cover of Newsweek in your argument is definitely a straw man. What does that have to do with anything? Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam are valid concepts even if the multiregional hypothesis is true; they're the most recent common ancestor of all extant mitochondrial haplotypes and Y-chromosome haplotypes respectively.

Of course criticism of the mitochondrial evidence is valid, but it is all you're doing, and you're doing it without reference to published sources. There's a scientific debate, but all you are doing is presenting one side. That's not neutral. I read your comment on that other talk page, but you're making arguments without reference to sources again, and I'm not interested in discussing your own original research. Fences and windows (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

F: "you're making arguments without reference to sources'

• the basic math A - B = 21 hardly support your accusation. What is your answer to Q3 yes no ? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Pointing to the whole reference list is hardly constructive. I'm not going to be badgered into responding to your questions, especially as your point 2 is irrelevant; no fact has falsified Out of Africa. You need to:

1. Stop this hostile approach to other editors and learn to edit collaboratively.
2. Reach consensus on talk pages rather than edit warring, and to explain your view clearly and concisely, without rhetoric or ranting.
3. Write in clear English and to follow the manual of style.
4. Use neutral language and avoid pushing a single point-of-view, e.g. not cherry-picking facts and articles.
5. Reference edits fully and correctly, using citation templates.
6. Use edit summaries correctly, to accurately represent your edits without sarcasm or misrepresentation.
7. Avoid pointy or joke edits.
8. Avoid point scoring and personal attacks on talk pages.

If you can't do this you're going to end up getting blocked. Editors who are disruptive and are only here to push an agenda are not welcome. Fences and windows (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Gibberish

These paragraphs are too incoherent to be taken seriously.

• ASAH1 two lineages V adn M have TMRCA 2-2.8 My <. TMRCA of the V lineage is estimated as 200 ± 50-340 ± 80 KY and M 320 ± 70 KY from the Genetree analysis and 680 ± 180 KY from the nucleotide diversity. The hgher V frequency is explained by positive Darwinian selection operating on V lineage. ASHA1 is higly related to neutronal control, growth rates and differentiation. Deficiency is responsible for Farber lipogranulomatosis.
• MAPT (microtubule associated protein tau) H2 clade in European population inherited from Neanderthals chromosome locus 17q21.3. Zody &al analysis favors the H2 configuration and sequence haplotype as the likely great ape and human ancestral state. The H2/H1 lineage split may be older than 7My because Pan troglodytes carry H1 like inversion while Pan paniscus H2. There are conntradictory reports which one clade H1 or H2 is risk factor. In Italy country with roman era high influx of egzoeuropean population haplotype H2 is considered risk factor In England othervise The MAPT H1c haplotype is a risk factor for the PSP and AD We did not observe an association of frontotemporal dementia and H2 MAPT haplotype. Our data provide strong evidence that the H1 clade, which contains MAPT and several other genes, is a risk factor for PD. Mixing H2 into deep genetic lineage H1 is not healthy. In Guam after WW2 'Parkinson’s dementia complex of Guam' reached epidemic proportions and was a major genetic cause of death on the island for postwar generation.The H2 clade is predominant in ancestral Old Europe population exclusively of Caucasian origin. For Asian origin Hungarian Gyspy sample H1 haplotype was significantly more frequent.

Something needs to be done to stop the disruptive inclusion of such text. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We need to keep an eye on a new IP, User:24.15.125.234. Their edits and edit summaries look distinctly unhelpful. Fences&Windows 21:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection

In view of the current edit war, I have fully protected this page for three days for the parties to discuss it here. In view of the Arbitration Committee's previously expressed views on "Fringe Science" and disputed topics, I prefer to take this course before imposing more stringent sanctions on editors, although I do see that some might already qualify. I make no comment on content, since it's not my field of expertise, nor do I wish to get involved in that. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 23:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu you protracted mid way. Thank you anyway, the good point is that you baned 76.16.176.166 from adding more pseudoscience gibberish of fringe hypotheses heretic to all reasonable scriptures.

I think this needs a reply on WP principles, so I have restored this version to comment thereon. For the time being, until consensus is reached, the article is protected, and I did not do this solely directed at any editor. I am not convinced that rhetoric of the form of "pseudoscience gibberish of fringe hypotheses heretic to all reasonable scriptures", is helpful, because that comment in itself does not reveal a neutral approach to this discussion. I resile from commenting on the validity of "scriptures" per se, but suffice it to say that in a scientific debate such as this article describes, I would prefer that such references were avoided, because I don't think they add anything. But that's enough on content from me; I am more concerned with WP:RS here. Rodhullandemu 01:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(undo)

There is no (undo)

1. Who, (mostly why) have objection to version dif?
2. I removed {Refimprove|date=May 2009} - which one reference is not reliable ?
3. Why formated to {cite doi| bot} standard references were reverted to unmaintainable mix 'free style/no style' ?
4. Why the odd emphasis of PNAS near paper by Trinkaus (2007) was reinserted ?

76.16.176.166 (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no "undo" because the page has been protected (thank you Rodhullandemu!) so we can do what is normal for a science topic: gain consensus before making substantial changes, provide useful edit summaries, and calmly review differences of opinion with other editors.

It is entirely possible that some of the edits you mention were good, but after the many disruptive edits recently, the changes you were making were just too substantial to reasonably check. I suggest that the references be left until after the article is in a reasonably stable state because they make it too hard to check differences. Also, if you were to make a major change to the way references are formatted, you should make no other changes at the same time.

At this stage, we need to pick just a couple of issues about the substance of the article, and work out what to do. So, you might like to outline what change you would now like to make (to the current article). Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it c the 'major change' you may have in mind ? The following discussion followed, I asked another person (also no answer) so i reinserted my sourced addition. Disregarding history of communication; is it anything questionable in that addition? If so then what, why? Nobody get all knowledge so factual input or factual questions may be quite helpful to find out if there is (if is) or why there is an objection.

questionable addition ?

below are the so called 'major' changes in Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans#Genetic_evidence: (above is 'stable' text)

• ASAH1 two V and M deep genetic lineages have TMRCA 2-2.8 My
• MAPT locus 17q21.3 split into deep genetic lineages H1 and H2 . H2 lineage in European population sugest inheritance from Neanderthals .
• genes: DMD44, APXL, AMELX, TNFSF5

(here is 'stable' text)

Some present day lineages has potential to bring more genetic evidence to multiregional evolution but the complexity of problem need more research.

• HLA polymorphism has possible genealogy from 0.5 to 10 My and may reflect gene history before Homo lineage diverged from Pan. Many MHC HLA alleles are quite ancient: often an allele from a particular human HLA gene is more closely related to an allele found in chimpanzees than it is to another human allele from the same gene. The coevolutionary complexity is at least cubical. Anthropogenesis may be traced to multiple pathogenesis and again to genetic history of multiple hosts.

(end of section genetic evidence)

What I think may be changed ?

• perhaps number of references to MAPT may be reduced.
• genes: DMD44, APXL, AMELX, TNFSF5 (and following ref) < may be temporary removed since i collecting papers on those genes to describe in details. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

General question

Sorry that I didn't myself clearer, but I don't think that posting details from an article edit is very helpful at the moment. What would be good would be to reach some understanding of what we each think of the current state of the article (ok, but could be improved? misleading, so must be improved? etc), and sketch an outline of how the article should be improved. Are any points in the article incorrect? (Significant errors; minor matters can come later.) Is it written in an NPOV manner? Are any major points missing?

You have made 64 edits since 29 May 2009 (averaging just over 3 edits per day for nearly three weeks). Would it be possible to focus on one or two major sections and outline what needs to be done with them? Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

J Question: is current state of the article:

1. ok ? A: no
2. could be improved? A: yes
3. misleading? A :yes
4. must be improved? A: no (nothing 'must be' in free society, but it will be good to improve it)
5. Is it written in an NPOV manner? A: no (since A:3 is no, otherwise: misleading can't be NPOV)
6. Are any points in the article incorrect? A: yes (most incorrect is genetic evidence section)
7. Would it be possible to focus...? A: yes (it will be pragmatic, see proposal)
8. Are any major points missing? ---This is quantum/future question. Since we can not count on help (rather(?)) of extraterrestrial intelligence - lets skip it.

My proposal is above 76.16.176.166 (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

All I can infer from the above is that you think my questions are stupid. I was attempting to have you describe in general terms what you think should happen. You have mentioned specific details, but what then? Will you be making frequent changes thereafter? More specifically, what if a change is reverted – will you discuss the merits of the change here? Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

DNFTT

WP:DNFTT

Never feed the trolls.

Wapondaponda (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert

I am reverting the recent edits by the IP user. There are just too many mistakes (grammar etc) for me to begin to fix. The current version is just too confusing and reads like a bad translation. I realize that English is not their first language so perhaps they could post their changes before incorporating them into the article.--Woland (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You say: so perhaps they could post their changes before incorporating them into the article

Did you read the proposal above? It was posted long ago. So what do you consider a mistake ? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I did read it (and no offense) but I still can't understand what exactly you are proposing. All that I can tell you is that they do not read like English. I appreciate the fact that you are trying to make some constructive edits but as of now they make the article unreadable. --Woland (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What is beter compact short esencial data or wordy expansion of terms. For example:

• SNMs or by words 'single nucleotide polymorphism' ?
• What about Mya Ma or n000,000 years or n000,000 years ago?
• Do you prefer each gene in separate line or all in one string? I gona add more words now, but i think its unnecessary at least I prefer compact essential text wikilinked to terms. But i realize that other editors like full words.

What about to make for each gene separate section? This should be easy easy to read and edit! 76.16.176.166 (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

English phrase ?

You're not seeing the big picture. We all find it hard to understand your talk page comments and your article edits do not result in fluent English. This is a problem with your editing, not with other users. You need to take more care in communicating your ideas clearly. Fences&Windows 18:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"The DNA sequence fit very good to the projection", "The multiregional evolution is...". Please make at least some effort not to write in pidgen English. Fences&Windows 21:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• F: It seem to me that you question the sense or asking what it mean: "The DNA sequence fit very good to the projection"

• "the DNA sequence" = the data (each sequence fit very good or group of sequences fit is predictable)
• "fit to the projection" = see google to see the phrase usage.

the sentence you quoted out as "pidgen English" is frequent English phrase (Gh>10^6). (Good starting point for further study of 'how to' project the data by multidimensional Ryenolds regression is |here)

• For the second phrase you highlighted Google show some examples too. Please see: [35]. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Seriously, defending the grammar of these two phrases highlights your language difficulties. "The DNA sequences fit very well to the projection" would be grammatical, but still not very clear. "The multiregional evolution is" appears twice in Google - you meant "Multiregional evolution is" or "The multiregional hypothesis is". Fences&Windows 00:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation formatting

I have just reverted another change because it's simply too hard to determine what has happened. There really are problems understanding what 76 is saying, and what intentions 76 has for the article. Given that, I think it is very unhelpful to completely change the citation method at the moment because it makes checking differences very difficult. There are no rules saying one should not do massive format changes and significant text changes at the same time, but there are no rules against reverting it as unhelpful either. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Look at the diffs A B C The "{cite journal |" bot format is appreciated but you wrote "it's simply too hard". I think you do not like it somehow. Why? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

When the article is changed, other editors like to review the changes. Particularly given the recent disagreements, it would be better to keep non-substantive changes to a minimum while issues regarding the direction of the article are worked through. However, as you clearly know, you do not have to pay any attention to my thoughts. Nevertheless, I persist in suggesting that changes to formatting (such as citation method) should not be mixed in with changes to the text. That is, if you insist on format changes, do them all but nothing else. Then pause (24 hours would be good) before making other changes. It seems redundant but I'll say it again: do not make format changes and text changes at the same time because it makes the resulting diff unnecessarily hard to follow. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is always option to compare older version. (click [history], mark two little circles, and click [compare]) Next time you dare revert please do not rave standardized formatting. Is it to hard to click edit and eventually change what not suit your tastes? Anyway i sustained your wish and hope for future more factual observations. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, it's very simple. Don't make formatting and content changes at the same time, when your content changes are controversial. Don't patronise us by telling us how to compare versions. You're still editing in a problematic, confrontational way. Fences&Windows 00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at the diffs A B C it clearly show i did it before. So, please 76.16.176.166 (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing comments by other users

An edit on this talk page changed a comment I made in the just-prior edit. While I appreciate that the change was minor, and the source of the change was annotated, I do not think such a change is warranted. If anyone agrees and would like to revert the above edit, please do so. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Struck out above because it has been dealt with. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The edit referred to above was by 76.16.176.166. As I mentioned below, 71.201.243.137 changed a signature in one of my edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

More reckless editings by user 76.16.176.166

I am late to this party apparently. I just reverted reckless changes by user 76.16.176.166 to Mitochondrial Eve. Looking at the user contributions, I notices quite a few changes added by this user to articles in my watch list recently. Many were swiftly reverted by other editors (especially when added to well written and keenly monitored articles such as Most recent common ancestor), but some survive undetected for now. Sigh. Fred Hsu (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

no personal attacks, ESA:) Smartly you've to try/say "i du no" or "who know", "half-backed half hacked", "nonsense", "can't grab sense" e.t.c. Smart way: do not put "I", instead put "we" or "all" and don't be so specific it give him chance for quote source if he wish to answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.176.166 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 1 July 2009

It is very difficult to deal with this editor, who is persistently making unhelpful edits in a number of articles. Furthermore, when unhelpful edits are reverted, this editor tends to come back and restore them, and shows no willingness at all to consider others' opinions, to accept consensus, or to enter into discussion with a view to achieving consensus. For anyone who has no experience of this editor, the above comment really says it all: English which is frequently clumsy, and sometimes (as here) so incoherent as to be partly or even completely incomprehensible; where it is comprehensible it is often completely off the mark (e.g. here there are no "personal attacks"). It seems to be quite impossible to get through to this editor that their edits are frequently not in proper English, apart from the questionable content of many of the edits, and the failure to cooperate. At least one article has been semi-protected because of disruption from this editor: is there a case for doing so to all the articles on which this editor is active? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Better to deal with the editor. A complaint, with diffs, at ANI?

A now banned sock did take a case to AN/I about two weeks ago, it didn't go anywhere at the time. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive545#76.16.176.166_talk. Fences&Windows 01:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

revert

This revert reintroduced errors:

1. The date is wrong (788,000 a missing)
2. Nobody seen Homo sapiens sapiens (assuming #1 is true) at lower Calabrian.

There are other missconceptualizations.. Since this website seems to be especially watchful, one error should be enough to alert all forces. So what will you do? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To save anyone wasting time checking the above, here are a few facts:

1. The revert referred to does not change or introduce any date.
2. The revert referred to mentions Homo sapiens sapiens but not lower Calabrian, nor does it make any connection between the two.
3. The edit in question was a reversion of an edit by the same anonymous editor who posted the above comment. One of the changes introduced by that anon editor was replacing To differentiate the current theory from earlier hypothesis some researchers prefer the term multiregional evolution with To confuse the current theory with earlier hypothesis some prefer the term multiregional hipothesis.

JamesBWatson (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (the above wiksard c) do you know what you talking about? The first date in article is obviusly wrong. Do somebody with suficient knowledge fix date and add the deleted info ? 71.201.243.137 (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know what I was talking about. Whether the date in the article is wrong is irrelevant, because that is not what I was talking about; I was talking about the fact that the edit referred to did not introduce or alter any date, and so cannot have reintroduced an error in any date. Anyone who clicks on the link given to the edit in question can verify that. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I also notice that 71.201.243.137 has edited my signature to a comment above. I have restored the signature. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

JamesBWatson please do not revert to false data [36]. You can check and confirm the date, the easy way here. I hope you will agree. Do you need a scientific citation following such date ? 71.201.246.107 (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction and apparent bias in the Criticism section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans#Criticism_of_the_multiregional_hypothesis

This part begins with saying that OOA has been the near-consensus since the 90's- which it has- but then goes on to say that near consesus support for OOA ended in the 80's, (so why mention the 90's? and then says that OOA has been largely refuted.

While there does seem to be a good deal of evidence against OOA, and a number of opponents, this section is so unbelievably contradictory and biased in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.192.130 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. User:Xook1kai Choa6aur has systematically wrecked this article over a period of four months, and made quite a bit of damage elsewhere. This page needs completely rewriting from scratch. Fences&Windows 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I could rewrite the article but only from a historical perspective, treating MREH as a viable counter hypothesis to OoA at the moment would be difficult for me to do since more or less, it would represent a conflict of interest(i.e. I work with molecular anthropology). The only way I could fix this article would be if someone who has some attachment with MREH to work with me in balancing those areas which I would not present. I mostly stopped reading pro-MREH molecular genetic articles about 2000 because of the generally low quality of the articles, and would only read the articles if someone personally asked me to critique the work. PB666 ^yap 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, this article could currently be deleted based on WP:FORK, I think it would be a shame to do so, but in its current state it represents exactly that. Why not do a reversion. PB666 ^yap 22:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not try to work with User:Wolpoff? He was around for a bit until someone called conflict of interest. --JWB (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you go ahead and rewrite it, I'll make an effort to 'write for the enemy' to present the evidence for multiregional evolution. Fences&Windows 04:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of Multiregionalism

Multiregional Hypothesis has evolved over the years and there are several versions. The first was polygenism, then the classic theories of Carleton Coon, which posited that homo sapiens evolved from homo erectus not once but five times. Then there was multiregional evolution but with gene flow across the continents. More recently Templeton proposed "Out of Africa again and again". The current argument is "Mostly Out of Africa". Somehow I think we should mention all the different theories. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Even Coon's model did admit gene flow. See page 166 of Wolpoff and Caspari's Race and Human Evolution which discusses Coon including how valid the charges of racism were. --JWB (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)