Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Out of Africa" needs to be re-written?

• Article any opinions? 86.153.42.156 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is briefly covered in the 'Movement out of Africa' section which could perhaps be expanded. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this information has already been brought to the fore in the beginning of the 'Movement out of Africa' section. Indeed it is "just incredibly exciting", as the paleolithic archaeologist Jeffrey Rose said in the cbsnews.com article, as it bears some significant insight on different waves of migration out of Africa, rather than one migration. Concerning an expansion of the mentioned section, perhaps 'different waves of migration' may explain why the Lake Mungo 3 (LM3) skeleton tends to be dated at an age older than the conventionally accepted date (at least 40,000 BP) of the first human occupation of Australia (see article from LiveScience.com, which is linked in the cbsnews.com article). Though current consensus estimates LM3 to be 40,000 years old, I think it should be mentioned of how this estimate remains controversial among academics; example, Thorne et al. (1999) and GrüN et al. (2000) vs. Bowler & Magee (2000). -Ano-User (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you mean totally changed, no. If you mean add this information to the article then yes. It deserves a sentence or two but not undue weight. Not yet. Jobberone (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Out of Africa" needs to be re-thought?

Article any opinions? 84.222.239.177 (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting - Chris Stringer like Spencer Wells is without question an expert and very well respected in this field. Will have to see what he come up with in his next paper/book - thus far hes just saying " At the moment, I'm looking again at the whole question of a recent African origin for modern humans" and that "Our evolutionary story is mostly, but not absolutely, a Recent African Origin." Dame just read "The Origin of Our Species " not that long ago and already new date leading us down a more detailed path for our origins ...this field moves forward so fast.Moxy (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Christopher Stringer is certainly one of the most respectable and honest paleoanthropologists of the 21st century; one that I myself, as an Anthropology major, look up to. He was hosted in 2002 on The Real Eve television documentary, supporting a strict Out-of-Africa (OOA) origin hypothesis. Ten years later, he is now rethinking such a strict view of the theory, while acknowledging that an African origin for Homo sapiens (modern humans) is "still a sound concept". Dr. Stringer highlights some of these issues in his most recent (2012) book, Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth. The book challenges both the Multi-regional hypothesis, and Stringer's former strict OOA hypothesis, and replaces it with a theory of more complex relationships between ancestral species of Homo inside, as well as outside of Africa. His book, and perhaps the Edge.com's synopsis, should be cited as a source for an updated Out-of-Africa theory. This graphic representation of Stringer's current thinking tells it all in a nutshell. -Ano-User (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

reading this digital copy now ...Chris Stringer (13 March 2012). Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth. Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4299-7344-1.

'Moxy (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

New study about haplogroup A00

This new study suggests that haplogroup A00 is more than 300,000 years old and is non-homo-sapiens http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713000736

this is my sourc please read it than we cna slowly make changes Nottruelosa (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the additions again as seen here - Can we get a few more eyes on this. Not sure the interpretation of the data is correct as its wording in the article could use some help - lost a weight given to this if its mentioned in ever paragraph. Shall we all look at this and see the best way to add the info. Pls refrain for adding the info back till there is more people involved.Moxy (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I will refrain from editing that article within the next 48 hours unless someone else suggests I should edit. However when the 48 hours is up if the only people who reply are you and me, than we are responsible for the article and therefore need to make the changes with the new data. If no one responds on the talk page, within 48 hours Iwill change the article, cause that's the right thing to do. If you want to help me change it fine. IN other words I need a discussion within 48 hours or I will edit the article, hopefully it involves more than 2 people but we cant rely on thatNottruelosa (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Its not a threat all I was saying is that if no one else helps us out within 48 hours we need to be creative and come up with a solution ourselves Nottruelosa (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC). If other people have a problem with that they can help us change it. If no one does we are entirely responsible for its content as it has been abandoned but all but 2 people Thank you Nottruelosa (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC).

I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology about this - Also we should talk about if there's any update on the info presented at Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans/Archive 3#"Out of Africa" needs to be re-thought?-- Moxy (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The AA00 article is very cautious about interpretation, referring only to the "possibility of archaic introgression", and it is not even the final version of the article - a note states that the text may be changed before final publication. I think that at the least we need to wait to see how the article is received by other researchers before making any changes to Wikipedia. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel qualified to comment but thought this press coverage (ScienceDaily Mar 4, 2013) may be useful. HelenOnline (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is another article published by NewScientist Mar 6, 2013. HelenOnline (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

See also post by NBCNews.com's science editor. HelenOnline (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

See also MailOnline article, March 7, 2013. HelenOnline (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Within 48 hours or not, this should be presented as new research still waiting for comments from other experts. I'd love to hear what Svante Pääbo, for example, is going to add to it. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added a current related template to alert readers and editors to possible imminent changes. Feel free to change it if there is a more suitable template. HelenOnline (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The event is listed under Current events for March 6, 2013 as follows:

"Science and technology: A newly discovered Y-chromosome haplogroup is thought to push back the time of Y-chromosomal Adam to 338,000 years ago. (New Scientist)" HelenOnline (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There is also some activity at the Y-chromosomal Adam page, I suggest all those doing the editing talk to each other in one place, see Talk:Y-chromosomal Adam#Article needs to be rewritten: Adam is now 340.2C000 years ago. HelenOnline (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, the paper is very cautious about interpretation. We shouldn't be doing any interpretation of our own here, as this would be WP:Original Research. The paper does mention out-of-Africa breifly, but says nothing definitive --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Competing hypotheses, regarding

The section on 'Competing hypotheses' has perhaps a misinformation or two. The Denisovans has nothing to do with the origin and dispersal of modern humans, Homo sapiens (of course a litlle bit of shagging with the ancestors of Melanesians), in terms of the the recent out-of-Africa theory - in support or objection. The fact is, the Denisovans split from Homo lineage ~1 million years ago, (Kraus et al. Nature 2010) and were more closely related to the Neanderthals (Reich et al. Nature 2010). Even with the refined estimate of divergence of about 700,000-800,000 years ago (Meyer et al. Science 2012), their involvement in recent orgin of modern human (<200,000) is way off the mark. The next paragraph with Homo erectus is also out of context. I suggest that the two paras are removed unless a technical explantion is given. These perhaps stem from misunderstanding the misinterpretations in popular media, especially when it comes to human evolution. Chhandama (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have ultimately sloughed off the chunk I have mentioned above, but I'll keep it below less someone would like to discuss about it before it vanishes entirely. If no one justifies it is better to permanently remove.

The strong form of the theory has been further challenged by recent genetic discoveries regarding the non-Homo sapiens Denisova hominin, known from only one location in Siberia. Denisovan DNA was found to share 4–6% genetic affinities with modern Melanesians, but not with other extant groups, making hybridisation in Africa very unlikely in this case. Others have argued that even Denisova admixture strongly supports a single dispersal of modern humans from Africa, but a dispersal followed by two archaic admixture events: one with Neanderthals outside Africa and a second admixture event with Denisovans which has only been evidenced in New Guinea.

Other hypotheses see the emergence of Homo erectus outside Africa (in Eurasia) and then returning to colonize that continent from which the ancestors of H. erectus originated.

References

--Chhandama (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism of article: deletion of "CN"/fact-requests in POV manner (which I'll confirm are VALID "CN" requests b/c this article misstates many dates of humanity's evolution)

In this article's history page, note that on 17-18 June 2009, Decltype then Aunt Entropy tried --but failed-- to correct obvs vandalism from x.x.125.234. 125.234 removed "CN" {{CN}} tags & made the following notes as the "reasons" for his edits, which befit a mentally ill person e.g.: "antisemitic rampage in progress," "can't ship me to concentration camp," and "another racist revert".

Aunt Entropy seems to have missed (failed to revert) the MAJOR edit of this kooky vandal because Decltype reverted only 1 small part of what the kook, x.x.125.234, did.

Some of the things that x.x.125.234 did aren't egregious, or even good, but then we have x.x.125.234 removing these VERY astute CN's/clarification/fact-requests:

"Archaic Homo sapiens originated in Africa about 250,000 years ago (with a note of: "the main article [Archaic Homo sapiens] put 500,000"). The trend in cranial expansion and the acheulean (with a note that: "acheluan start 1.6 million year ago not 400,000 year ago ends Qafzeh) elaboration of stone tool technologies which occurred between 400,000 years ago and the second interglacial period in the Middle Pleistocene (around 250,000 years ago) provide evidence..."

1. First let me focus on the last word of what I just blockquoted: NO CITES WERE GIVEN, so what "evidence" is this that the author of this paragraph is claiming?!?!

2. Here are sources to prove that, yes, someone has manipulated dates in this article -- because the last bit that I blockquoted disagrees with dates given in other WP articles, AS WELL AS the following PEER-REVIEWED sources:

e.g.: the dates for the development of tools during the Acheulean are contradicted by the many of the cite's in the article for Acheulean, including Bar-Yosef/Belfer-Cohen 2001 which states:

"The earliest sortie involved bearers of core-chopper industries sometime around 1.7–1.6 Ma. Early Acheulean producers followed possibly around 1.4 Ma. The third wave occurred sometime around 0.8 Ma, and is represented by Acheulean groups who manufactured numerous flake cleavers.

to confirm the guy who inserted the {{fact}} regarding the Acheulean being WAY off.

e.g.: the 1st {{fact}} request that someone made above ("250,000" years vs "500,000" years) isn't as hardcore a misstatement, but a meta-study[1] notes "archaic H. sapiens" then within 2 sentences thereafter, dates (BP) of "400,000" in Europe and "The primary Chinese archaic H. sapiens fossils are from Dali, Jinniushan, Chaoxian, and Maba, while the Solo fossils from Indonesia can also be included. The ages of these hominin fossils range from about 640,000 years ago (Bodo) to as recently as about 120,000 years ago (Maba)". See also WP articles for Neanderthal and Archaic Human for WAY more equally-credible cite's:

The falsified dates in this article, versus scientifically-accepted dates (or date RANGES), appear an attempt to "fit" these dates and other facts to the RAO Theory (WP:POV of the worst kind: falsifying the facts themselves, then DELETED "CN" {{fact}} fact-requests which would have exposed the issue). POV tag needed? (I dunno b/c the beginning seemed so bad that I didn't read the rest of the article, but at least the beginning hadn't YET resorted to falsifying some facts, then REMOVING requests to substantiate a dozen other dubious "facts"--see below--AND REMOVING another credible ref to PEER REVIEWED info: see next para.) I am not a registered user, so I can't edit this locked) article.

~

The vandalism/POV deceit goes even further; the following ref to a peer-reviewed study was DELETED by x.x.125.234 without explanation; the statement has remained in the article, but WITHOUT the following ref which does substantiate the claim, since 2009: Homo sapiens idaltu, found at site Middle Awash in Ethiopia, lived about 160,000 years ago.

More deletions during x.x.125.234's edit (a diff is below): All other fossils of fully modern humans outside of Africa have been dated to more recent times(80,000–100,000 year ago). ...with a note of: "all other, but, which are fully Modern Human in Africa?" another perfectly valid point by the guy who added these fact-check/CN requests.

"...By this time the ritual burying of the dead is noted. Stone tools show regular patterns that are reproduced or duplicated with more precision. Tools made of bone and antler appear for the first time."

"...According to the hypothesis, all 6.7 billion people" ...I think the guy adding the fact-check ref's is wrong here, & in any case, it IS cited properly by the end of the sentence).

"Shell middens 125,000 years old have been found in Eritrea indicating the diet of early humans included seafood obtained by beachcombing." I'LL ADD (in 2013): This is also potentially {{or}}; without a REF, we can't tell.

"...Homo sapiens for the first time colonizing territory never reached by Homo erectus."

Here is a diff: [2]

Please reinstate the above {{fact}}/CN tags dated 17 June 2009, and/or use the citations that I gave above to change those 2 dates --or better yet, request an EXPERT Wikipedian to review the last several issues that somebody (not me) gave a "CN" tag to-- because there may be even more falsifications (I have NOT read this whole article...) that the were missed by "the guy who added CN tags," (which may justify a full-article {{POV}} tag) and I don't care to fact-check more than the 2 examples I gave above. It's the fact that falsifications (or even half-truths/distortions, such as: "The scientific community estimates a range of 600k to 200k years before present for that event, 200k fits my theory best, so I'll say '200k' and NOT state 'an estimated range from 600k to 200k years ago'") like this can remain in WP articles since 2009 (for past FOUR YEARS!) that constitute WHY I refuse to register for a project in which "the idiots have taken over," i.e. they outnumber those of us who post actual facts into WP, and as we cannot keep up with them--even FOUR YEARS (this is a diff from 2009, FFS!) after they (1.) posted inaccuracies & (2.) they even deleted ref-requests/{{CN}}'s so that others won't fact-check their inaccuracies, and it's why I personally think if Jimmy Wales was responsible he'd take WP offline, but for those of you who still do contribute actual PEER-REVIEWED facts to WP, please do knock yourselves out by getting an expert's eyes on this issue, or re-adding those CN/ tags, and/or add a full-article POV tag. 72.48.252.105 (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent expansion

Removed: "Localities in Turkey around this time are known to contain taxa from across Eurasia and Africa, and even North America."

The cited reference pertains to Miocene apes.

http://anthropology.utoronto.ca/Faculty/Begun/DSA10%20Begun.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryopithecus Kortoso (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

H. erectus???

"Interbreeding with local Homo erectus populations in multiple regions of the globe"??? H sapiens never encountered H erectus. Maybe florensis, and certainly Neanderthal. Kortoso (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The ref disagrees with you: "Roughly 100,000 years ago, the Old World was occupied by a morphologically diverse group of hominids. In Africa and the Middle East there was Homo sapiens; in Asia, Homo erectus; and in Europe, Homo neanderthalensis." ... and: "Out of Africa theory: homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated to other parts of the world to replace other hominid species, including homo erectus." Tobus2 (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is theory, based on genetics. Murray Cox claims H. erectus was still around, circa 30,000 BC. Our most recent H. erectus fossil is much more ancient than this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110629181853.htm

"However, findings by the SoRT Project show that Homo erectus' time in the region ended before modern humans arrived there. The analyses suggest that Homo erectus was gone by at least 143,000 years ago -- and likely by more than 550,000 years ago. This means the demise of Homo erectus occurred long before the arrival of Homo sapiens. 'Thus, Homo erectus probably did not share habitats with modern humans,' said Indriati."

Kortoso (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed you are talking about the statement "Interbreeding with local Homo erectus" - this is quoted from the part of the article describing the competing multiregional hypothesis (which postulates a much earlier migration OOA date and hence significant overlap/interbreeding), not the recent OOA theory.

The text I thought you meant (talking about the OOA theory itself) states modern humans "replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus"... it's probably technically correct as "replaced" doesn't necessarily mean they co-existed, but perhaps it could be changed to "other descendants of Homo erectus" referring to florensis, Denisovans, the Red Deer Cave people and potentially other fossils yet to be discovered.

Tobus2 (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 October 2013

The link to reference 5, "An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree", needs to be corrected to http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/publications/articles/2013/Mendez_AJHG13-deepY.pdf (the difference is in the capitalization of "deepY") Jey Kottalam (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Edit request: theory's founder now doubting his own theory

Science-dot-Slashdot news shows that as of 3 months ago, Chris Stringer is being swayed toward multiregional theory.

Also, as per the last 2 topics on this page: I think at the very least a header-template (at top of the article) of {{update}} should be added (but I'm too lazy to join Wikipedia & remember a password for yet another website LOL).

Stringer is not moving towards multiregionalism, which holds that people in each region are descended from the homo erectus people who settled in that region after emigrating out of Africa over a million years ago. He has moved from the strong out of Africa theory which sees a simple replacement of archaic homo with sapiens, to a more complex picture with a minor element of DNA coming from interbreeding with archaic species such as Neanderthal, Denisova and other archaic species. See [3], where he summarises his current view as "So our evolutionary story is mostly, but not absolutely, a Recent African Origin." Dudley Miles (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Multiregional model doesn't quite say that (originally, or after "candelabra" was discarded), but that Eurasian erectus and African erectus evolved "together" with voluminous gene flow in all directions, so while people from Europe and Asia would be descendants of European and Asian hominids, they would also be descendants of African hominids and vice-versa, as they were supposedly interconnected with gene flow. Later it changed to what is arguably more properly called "assimilation model" or "relacement with hybridization model" (Wolpoff calls it "multiregional model" still, Stringer calls it "multiregional model 2"), which posits that modern humans first evolved in Africa but they "absorbed" the small populations of Eurasian hominids as they migrated OOA, and/or (degree distinctions) that the African sapiens alleles largely replaced archaic alleles as they had contact, so the replacement wasn't all like that of an invasive species outcompeting a native of the same niche, but also by means of natural selection over introgressed genes (this is the "multiregional" end of the spectrum, while a "fusion of populations" is the hybridization/assimilation end, I believe). The evidence doesn't support something so strong, and I think that alternative explanations to archaic admixture haven't been ruled out, even though admixture seems more likely. This sort of "update" should be done while having in mind that it's not (contrarily with some WP articles needing correction, and much of the popular press) a matter of black-and-white replacement vs multiregional continuity, there's gradation. From the start, the replacement model didn't exclude the possibility of some admixture, even though "some admixture" is nowadays in the popular press often equated with multiregional model. I've made this point in more detail not long ago in this talk page, now archived. Extremophile (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. I over-simplified to the point where I made multiregionalism sound like candelabra. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 October:

In addition to Extremophile's valid point, the very TITLE of the article in the OP (science.slashdot) is "Out of Africa Theory Called Into Question By Originator". I'm not sure if Dudley understood the full import of that (Dudley was being a bit non-sequitor & Dudley's response shouldn't exclude the inclusion of that slashdot article), because:

This is incredibly significant to the topic, e.g. numerous papers authored by Stringer -- dated 1997-2011, are cited by this article, and thus the article should either:

• add the text and slashdot/other ref's to indicate Prof. Stringer's new position.
• or else be marked "outdated" (as Dudley aalready agreed that at least this much should be done--but I also agree w/Extremophile that RAO left room for the POTENTIAL of species-mixing but isn't oft associated w/species-mixing [and not to the extent that Green et 2010 and subsequent studies observed; that's more in accord with what Extremophile attributes Stringer as calling the "multi-regional 2" theory], and that there is an old (incorrect) MR Theory [which posits ONLY OLD/NON-RECENT African Origins exist], different from new MR Theory [recent African, AND non-African origins, i.e. "multi-regional" meaning "from regions outside of Africa"]);

It also makes me notice that the article doesn't even mention Stringer & origins/history of the RAO theory, at all. How anyone can talk about RAO and not mention Stringer even in 1 sentence (to link to his WP bio page) is beyond me. For RAO Theory's leader, who developed fundamental axioms & is cited a half-dozen times by this article, to cast doubt upon his own work, and for the article to cite Stringer's work but NOT his new position (a full YEAR later--well, 10 months now, and will be 1 thru 3 years by the time WP adds it, or else even discusses it on the Talk Page, if past experience serves me well.), is disgraceful and yet another smear on WP's veracity. For this issue to not generate discussion and result in an update of this article is part of why I automatically deducted 0.2 from the WHOLE semester's GPA of any student each time s/he cited Wikipedia (was in the early years of Wikipedia; I'm long-retired now & it seems kids know not to cite WP anymore), and is why I only edit WP to take the piss out of the project's leaders (too many other examples, besides this little oversight regarding Prof. Stringer, exhibit utter disgrace to the WHOLE methodology of how Wikipedia's top admin's leaders run the project), but I take WP's non-scientific and non-political articles more seriously. Getting back on-topic: It is a MAJOR oversight to omit all mention of Stringer, let alone Stringer's new position:

~

One YEAR later and still no LEGIT criticisms were made against the slashdot article's information (an article which I've seen carried by numerous other sources, too), and yet this crucial piece of info is still lacking in a locked article.

Someone ignored the Talk Page after locking this article (the error isn't necessarily the locking of the article itself, but in ignoring CREDIBLE third-party sources that non-registered users found and posted to the article's Talk Page, despite that "the so-called 'experts' at Wikipedia" (to quote Uncyclopedia's mocking derision here: [4]) still after a YEAR haven't added -- nor found and stated any reason to dismiss, per WP standards on using UP TO DATE scientific citations -- Stringer's new position. Isn't there a process by which anyone who locks an article then becomes responsible to check that article's Talk Page at least each month; where is (the severed head of ;-) ) the person who locked this article? (oh, I'm just half-joking there...) Hell, if scientists were paid like actors and rap stars, and I was Stringer, I'd even consider suing WP (cease-and-desist, then libel ONLY IF not fixed, but I digress) for citing my old studies as if nothing in those studies is out-of-date, but then not publishing the fact that I've now cast doubt upon my own past works. Any registered user who cares about WP's future veracity should fix this via the 2 methods above, or for the reasons we all know, WP will become even more of an irrelevant/untrustworthy source to even more people. 72.48.252.105 (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what exactly do you want changed? The article already pretty much states what Stringer in saying in his "re-evaluation" (see [5], the source of the link you provided)... is there something specific in the article you think is wrong? Tobus2 (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The article states no such thing, and the edge.org link you gave is not present in the article. Heavy WP:DUEWEIGHT is deserved by the current reversal-of-evidence, as more experts besides Stringer are also admitting it now:

Note that those who were cited in the lede as saying RAO is superior to Multiregional hypotheses have reversed that opinion (as I note 5 topics below on this Talk Page), in the latest edition of their The Essence of Anthropology book. The authors of The Essence of Anthropology in the 2012 edition pg. 94 as seen here: [6] are saying that RAO is no longer superior to the latest multiregional hypothesis, and thus this Wikipedia article has misinformed people about RAO being the "mainstream" hypothesis for three years!

Any disinfo in the lede is a heavy WP:DUEWEIGHT, and deserves to be corrected with equal WP:DUEWEIGHT. If you had any expertise in anthropology, or even common sense, you'd have fathomed how horribly this article is misinforming people about even the basics of human evolution such as which hypothesis is still dominant or not, when you reviewed and edited it just a few months ago! Any error in the first paragraph is bad enough and deserves to be corrected with equal WP:DUEWEIGHT (if the error is in the lede, put the shitting correction in the lede too, i.e. note in the lede that the authors of The Essence of Anthropology have revised their position. And if you cite a scientist like Stringer five times, then he begins to doubt his former results, either delete all five citations of Stringer or else note Stringer has revised his position by citing the slashdot or edge.org link right before or right after you cite each and every study = WP:DUEWEIGHT), but to also say falsely in the first paragraph that it still represents the scientific consensus three years after it no longer did is an egregious shortcoming because you've gotten even the basics (if it's in the first sentence of a Wikipedia article, suffice to say it's the most basic info: the type of simple and easy (false) "facts" that a parent or a teacher might teach to even the youngest of kids after they "learn" (the wrong) info from Wikipedia), basic info such as whether the hypothesis is even so strongly accepted, and thus again needs to be corrected with WP:DUEWEIGHT, because it is misinforming god-knows-how-many students of K-12 teachers and parents who often are indeed still reading Wikipedia, taking it as gospel, especially since a "[1]" is there despite that the source cited in "[1]" is outdated per the experts who wrote the book that is cited in "[1]" themselves, and because when those teachers and parents were younger, many of them grew up being taught (wrongly) that RAO can be taken as gospel, and then they teach Wikipedia's outdated misinfo to their students, thus you are misinforming yet another generation regarding even this basic issue of RAO's fall from grace. Capiche?! (Do you comprehend finally?!)

They were cited as having given not only their own personal expert-opinions, but rather as having said RAO is the scientific consensus amongst all their peers, anthropologists (i.e. the "mainstream" opinion to quote them exactly), and now they say it's no longer the "mainstream" opinion of anthropologists;

So it's a huge disservice to keep that in the lede, as well as to keep Stringer's "half dozen" research studies whose results Stringer himself now refutes, unless someone adds either slashdot or edge.org as a citation; it says nowhere in the article, but should say, with that link, that Stringer has revised his own opinion to be quite less pro-RAO than he previously was. Is that really so difficult for you to understand, Tobus2? What are your credentials? (To be honest: Did you even graduate high school, or has your IQ been tested?" is what I'm really wondering, or maybe you're just an "RAO diehard" as some people do take science as a religion or dogma (see scientism), but his initial complaint regarding Stringer, and the locking of this article, seems simple common sense to me. ...but I signed up for Wikipedia, and I guess I need to wait, or make 10, 20, or ??? edits, before I can edit this or other locked articles.)

It appears nobody follows this Talk page who has the expertise in anthropology (nor even the common sense) to comprehend that Stringer is an expert source whose viewpoint regarding the new research should be added to this article, as no valid challenges have been brought forth that would exclude Stringer's latest opinion from Wikipedia articles and this, despite the very long period given to Wikipedians to challenge it. On many other points, it is now a badly-outdated article, and thus:

I concur that this article should be unlocked. It is obvious that no Wikipedians with expertise in anthropology have editing-rights to this locked article and are being responsible enough to maintain this article since approximately 2010, not even responsible enough to add simple {update} and {POV dispute} types of tags.

So, who locked this article? And why is it still locked for years when the person who locked it doesn't have either the due diligence and care, or else the expertise in anthropology, to maintain the page as being up-to-date within even three years, yet they took the responsibility for locking it and no "elder Wikipedians" have addressed the issue? Where can "elder Wikipedians" be found or contacted, to ask them to review the need to unlock this article and/or the abilities of the fool who locked it to not be allowed to lock articles then wander off and ignore, for years, perfectly valid requests ~~ "valid" scientifically speaking, as well as regarding Wikipedia's standards for veracity of expert sources ~~ to update this horribly out-of-date article? 209.97.203.60 (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to weigh in with the writer above: this article is seriously outdated and in need of revision. Recent research shows RAO not to be a satisfactory model. I will point specifically to this paper:

www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

In this paper, the reasons for the suggestion of RAO are briefly discussed and shown to be wanting (i.e. they do not support the RAO conclusion); furthermore, a critical analysis of haplotypes shows that there is no common descent between Africans and non-Africans, but that both African and non-African populations descend from a group whose point of origin is unlikely to be Africa. Will this information be included in a re-write of the article? The article desperately needs a re-write as it is. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.192.217 (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The paper you cite is published in a "pay-to-publish" journal and 8 out of the 10 references it uses are by the same authors. The primary author Anatole A. Klyosov is known for previous controversial (ie fringe) theories on human origins. Given that it's representing a minority position and is not published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal I don't think this lone paper should be given much (if any) weight in this article. Tobus (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Competing theory subsection? Why?

Why does one scientist's (M. H. Wolpoff's) pet theory get it's own subsection here? Why not list creationism while we're at it? It's inclusion and description as a "competing" theory overstates it's acceptance. Saberus (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not just Wolpoff but a vocal minority of paleontologists. That is quite different from creationism which is not a scientific theory. However I agree that the section fails to make clear that it is very much a minority view, and it also does not describe multiregionalism correctly. It needs revising not deleting Dudley Miles (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is no longer a "competing theory" because its thesis of a single interbreeding human species covering multiple regions was substantiated and is now accepted by all. This section is now inaccurate and if anything should be replaced by description of the current synthesis and how it has rapidly developed since the 2011 revolution. --JWB (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

need update to 1st source, in lede

That src now says Multiregional took away RAO's formerly "mainstream" status, in the book's 2012 edition. Also: reasons to support a long ignored proposal to unlock the article.

A new edition of The Essence of Anthropology (by McBride B, Haviland WE, Prins HEL, Walrath D) is available, dated 2012. This article is still citing the 2009 edition of the same book.

Note that the new, 2012 edition says [7] on pg. 94:

"Until 2010, the recent African origins hypothesis was the mainstream position. But when researchers from the Max Planck Institute released a study comparing the Neanderthal genome...the genetic evidence shifted to supporting the multiregional hypothesis.[19]"

This article's statement of RAO being "the most widely accepted model..." was relying on the outdated 2009 edition of this book having said, on pg. 90 of the 2009 edition, that RAO "is" the "mainstream" position; the sentence involving what is "mainstream" was revised in the 2012 edition, to say that the evidence now "supports" the multiregional hypothesis.

This article's first sentence should therefore read (edits are in italics): "...dubbed the "Out of Africa" theory, was the most widely accepted model describing the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans, until the Multiregional hypothesis gained favour."

- - -

Also, who has kept the article locked for years and what is their reason for why it is still locked? Are the sources for each of these competing hypotheses so dubious and disputed?

And did the pro-RAO vandal himself lock this article, and then quit WP, or has had his account suspended, or what? Why else is there no response to complaints about this article being locked for such a long-term, but that the one who locked it has long ignored this article and cannot be trusted to lock articles (if he is even still a WP member)? Per the fact-based accusations that were raised in the above topics in this Talk page, it should be unlocked in order to add the discoveries (I'd say "recent discoveries," except that 2010 isn't recent, which again exhibits that nobody holding a WP account is responsible enough to be trusted with the locking of this article, especially not an anthropologist or even anthro student, because if this article had even one expert editor, he should recognise immediately that the above edit requests are from veracious sources and are the reasons for the requests are explained explicitly enough that anyone worth their salt should comprehend what's being requested).

Others posing this question about why this article is locked have been unanswered for roughly a year, so who locked this article, then ignored this badly neglected, scientifically outdated article, for so long? And ironically, the people who want it unlocked are desiring to update this article with recent facts, i.e. discoveries, that refute RAO, so obviously none of us are the pro-RAO vandal, but this article was locked for years (literally) even before that complaint of a list of edits by a pro-RAO vandal was raised on the Talk page, again raising my question: Did the pro-RAO vandal make his edits to corrupt the veracity of this article, and then skip town, so to speak? 209.97.203.60 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It is currently only semi-protected, so anyone with a user account more than four days and ten edits old can edit the article. It has been semi-protected since 2009 based on problems with a particular anonymous editor, which does seem excessive for such an out of the way article (it's hardly Barack Obama). I'm tempted to unprotect it unless someone can present a pressing reason to leave it semi-protected.

But for future reference, it's not particularly civil to accuse another user of abusing admin tools without supporting evidence. Assume good faith is one of our central tenets here, and it certainly helps reduce conflict to start from the assumption that we all want to improve the encyclopedia. I understand this can be hard when you don't already know all the jargon or where to find logs and such, but if you'd like to edit the article, you can create an account and find ten helpful edits to make over the next four days. Or we can wait to see if anyone objects to unprotecting it. Laura Scudder | talk 05:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the Haviland reference to the 2012 version and modified the lede sentence accordingly, adding a wikilink to the article Archaic human admixture with modern Homo sapiens started after the 2010 discovery.

209.97.203.60 posted to my user talk on Jan 26 asking me to look at this, probably after seeing I edited the article in 2005-8. --JWB (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• The RAO it is false to say that the MRM won favor. The kind of multireginal scenario that is now mainstream has almost nothing to do with the traditional multiregional Homo erectus/Homo sapiens continuity model of Wolpoff, and is fully compatible with the traditional RAO approach (because Homo sapiens did leave Africa recently and subsequently meet members of Archaic Homo sapiens who had left Africa a little earlier with whom they interbred). The DNA findings havent changed anything about the dates of African Exodus, the only thing it shos is that African Homo sapiens and the earlier European Archaic Homo were not genetically isolated populations. If anything the correct thing to say is that both of the earlier models fo RAO and MRM have been superceded by genetic data that establishes a mixed scenario.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It is compatible with the multiregionalists' model; it is simply a fairly low percentage of admixture or survival. The 2011 results certainly did falsify the 100% version of RAO previously dogmatically maintained by many including editors of this page in the previous years.

The key multiregionalist concept was that there has long been a single human species, meaning continued interbreeding and gene flow, over the last 2 million years or so. The 2011 Neanderthal admixture discovery substantiated this and Stringer immediately started de-emphasizing the word "species" for the AMH expansion, and instead started saying he had never insisted on 100% replacement.

John Hawks, the most insightful writer today on human origins, for example, was Wolpoff's student. Multiregional origin was not only proven but is now being discussed in terms of specific percentages, dates, and locations. It is only the word "multiregional" that has not been popularized.

The "Competing hypotheses" section predates 2011 and needs to be repurposed as there is no longer a RAO-multiregional disagreement. Text here and elsewhere in the article describes Neanderthal admixture as just a hypothesis, which is now as accurate as the same statement about evolution. Origin of modern humans also has a now inaccurate statement that "there are two competing views". --JWB (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hawks is not the most insightful writer on human evolution, he is just the one that happens to have a popular blog. And no, the 2011 results did not "falsify" the RAO and I dont know of anyone who thinks it did. I agree that the RAO multiregional disagreement no longer exists. It is however NOT the case that the multiregional model came out on top. What we have now is a very well supported model which is essentially a synthesis of most of the RAO with some minor features of the multiregional model (NOT Wolpoffs) that shows a recent migration out of africa with subsequent admixture events in the Levant and Asia (species that left Africa slightly earlier than Homo sapiens but still much later than Wolpoffs model of H. erectus continuity would suggest). The current consensus is as opposed to Wolpoffs homo erectus continuity model as it has ever been.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed semi-protection. I am kinda surprised that it was in place for so long. Indefinite semi-protection really should be a rare occurrence when there's a persistent problem that can't be addressed by blocks and doesn't stop with temporary protection. Laura Scudder | talk 02:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Change "theory" to "hypothesis" throughout

None of this falls under the scientific definition of theory. Can the word be changed to "hypothesis"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.49.217.148 (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

who were RAO proponents

I collected from current version of RAO article all people names which are: Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, James Cowles Prichard, Louis Agassiz, Josiah C. Nott, Carleton Coon, Charles Darwin. Milford Wolpoff, Allan Wilson, Rebecca L. Cann, Mark Stoneking, W. James Peacock . (?add)

The task is to check, if they works/publication supported RAO, and if so, do they still support RAO. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• if some names were omited add it to the list > (?add)

no. is not

[8] if is show how. 70.195.68.238 (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I already replied to you here and here. I reiterate: "Unless you have proof that the scientific consensus has changed, we stick with what the sources state...with WP:Due weight." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As seen with this edit, I've asked for help at Talk:Human. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok i accept that you yourself do not have the ability to dispute the thesis. Lets wait for your help. But do you asking in right forum? The subject is evolution.paleoantropology why Human/people/whoiswho?70.195.68.238 (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you find majority scientist uphold Copernican principles? No, just natural disaperence of heliocentic is deduced by fact nobody seriusly use it. One contradiction in theory is enought to disqualify given theory. 70.195.68.238 (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC) that was eralier colision reply but may be over(to much to think)

Superseded scientific theories die when scientific supresor are dead. As are Ashley Montagu Leonard Lieberman. 70.195.68.238 (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I asked at a talk page that has a number of watchers familiar, or slightly familiar, with this topic. But since none of them have yet to weigh in, it would be good to take this matter to some other form of WP:Dispute resolution. You were also reverted by Donner60 at the Archaic humans article for adding "undue weight to specific instance in an otherwise general introduction." And after I reverted you there, Drbogdan thanked me via WP:Echo. So maybe they have something to state on this article matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to dispute that year 2006 was 10 year ago? If you agree that publication from year 2006 can not prognose consensus of scientific majoruty in future there we agree. If we agree then my edit is ok, and your argumentation against it is wrong. If i misundestad your point. Could you repharese what is your argument against my edit? 70.194.103.11 (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Compromise wording. If not why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.103.11 (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No; this is not compromise wording. Unless there is proof that the scientific consensus has changed, we should not be challenging it. The WP:Due weight policy is clear; read it. I am done entertaining you on this. I'm taking the matter to WP:Third opinion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

And your "10 years ago" argument is silly. We don't need an update on the scientific consensus just because it's ten years later, in the same way we don't need an update on the scientific consensus that the world is round, or for a variety of other scientific things. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

nobody contradict ~spherical earth.

I've listed the matter at WP:Third opinion. Now we should wait for that other opinion. And as for proof on my part, this Google Books search shows that the "Recent African origin of modern humans" view is still reported as the predominant scientific view in the literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

So update the references. But please use sources with at least one citataion in the comunity the 'predominant view' relate to. Is it honest criterium? In other words newer sources wich claim 'predominat view' and are used in citation in other scientific publication by the scientific comunity. Some of the books your search pop are science fiction novels not what mean more fiction than science.

Moreover you ma not pay atention to the results you produce forth one read:

• For much of the 20th century, the predominant view of human evolutionary history was
• in 2010 hovewer ... gene flow... this unxpected finding < gene flow contradict RAO p258 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is the source for all to see Am J Phys Anthropol. 2012;149 Suppl 55:24-39. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.22159. Epub 2012 Nov 2.

There is no need to update the references. We don't need a newer reference to report on what is still the majority viewpoint. And I am aware that the sources in the Google Books search range in quality; this is the case for any Google Books search. Same goes for Google Scholar. Nothing stated in this section so far can challenge the fact that I am correct on this matter, and that the WP:In-text attribution violation will subsequently be reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you think that aleged 'majority viewpoint' (RAO) is contradicted by new discovery? (as just above your source spel out) Do you undrstand what it mean? 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You aren't making a bit of sense. You don't even know what that source states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That aboive ip perhaps cut obvious "is possible" on position [4:]. Do it now make sense to you? 99.90.196.227 (talk)

And this edit was either made by you (which, in case, the IP-hopping aspect of WP:Socking applies), or it was made by one of my stalkers. Either way, it will be reverted since it is calling into question the majority viewpoint. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

In other words, it is a clear WP:In-text attribution violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

what this add to your argument if that is the same brain or the other half of it ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your WP:Personal attacks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

So why you saying "You don't even know what that source states". [[User:Flyer22 .< I see ip abstracting mainline from the source. U got the link and page #. It seem you do it while being not interested. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Should just close the section - just need to look at what is taught in the most modern textbook we use...explains the problems and gives a conclusion on the current data ..perhaps best to add a new source like...Mark Jobling; Edward Hollox; Matthew Hurles; Toomas Kivisild,; Chris Tyler-Smith (2013). Human Evolutionary Genetics, Second Edition. Garland Science. pp. 313–314. ISBN 978-1-317-95226-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) -- Moxy (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The only "change" is further confirmation through genomic analyses. There is no controversy happening nor "updates needed" to the theory. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Moxy, this textbook do not use term Recent African Origin but predominantly African origin. Predominantly African origin is a multiregional evolution thesis - it support the opposing theory. This is stated in the source in the middle of the page. Exactly where your only link point to. Can you confirm you can see it? Also there is as i quote: low level gene flows . This obviously contradict following main premises of RAO (i quote from this wp article)

• 'evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa' < because evolution take place not solely in Africa. What mean word solely?
• 'these humans replaced other populations of the genus Homo such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus' < because sexual reproduction and following inheritance take place from other genetic pools. So not replaced but mixed.
• ' recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa is the predominant position held within the scientific community' < it suggest most of members of scientific community are fools insensitive to obvious textbook stated contradiction. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to look at what the 2 theories cover...out of Africa does not exclude any hybridization....just the amount of it. Interbreeding has been found to be relatively low and many many reports attributed this to shared ancestral ....this is the current debate that is ongoing....not that there was larger scale interbreeding all over the world.-- Moxy (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this intrebreded hybridization a kind of starwars monkey uking or an alien DNA engeniering. How the Recant African Origin intrebreded hybridization diffeer form our baby making, how it diffeer form beatiful love in one single human species? 70.194.78.106 (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• The scientific consensus following the acceptance of Neanderthal admixture: Humans originated in Africa, they migrated out in waves, the latest wave which represent Homo sapiens sapiens, admixed with earlier Homo varieties including Denisovan and Neanderthal. This is not multiregional which refers specifically to the Homo erectus -> Homo sapiens continuity scenario. The IP does not seem to actually understand the sources they are referring to.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Who is the original author of this RAO? It seem strange any other theory do have someone who did create it in the first place. Was it Charles Darwin ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No! No Darwin. I did dig the history to the first here edit in 2002‎.9.23. We have to check the eventuality the whole RAO theory was assembled by wiki editors. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Really think insulting those that have in goof faith and on their free time have regurgitate what mainstream scientist say will win anyone over. Great rebuttal!! Best to cite sources over telling us we are wrong. --Moxy (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't be so emotional. You started editing it late. Better find out who are the proponents of RAO hypothesis.99.90.196.227 (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. I see at least two registered editors and multiple unregistered editors, some coming from different address blocks and so probably more than one human. I am closing the third opinion request because it involves more than two editors. I will also comment that the discussion here has not been concise, and so I would have difficulty in addressing it even if there were only two editors. I suggest either moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard or a neutral concisely worded Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, at the time that I made the third opinion request, this link shows what the section looked like. Thank you for your time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, Robert McClenon, the IP is the same person using different IPs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I came here because i saw the request .....been off my watchlist since last time people did not understand the articles POV-- Moxy (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, it is very likely the IP is a creationist trying to "teach the controversy". I would ignore his disruptions from now on. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL you talking of me? Im scientist. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Creation science is not science. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL it was quite intelligent creative design call the crap 'creation science'. Now folks thinking (who 'have experience' in this crap 'creation science') is blocked by antisemantic words usage. Of course 'creation science' crap is not a science. And i have no idea what part of my here discussion prompting you to your above conclusions. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the predominant view in the scientific community today is the RAO. There are plenty of sources that support that.1234 I did a quick search among academic papers and ratio of papers on MO to those on RAO is about 0.008, with the important fact that most of the papers written on MO are not supportive. 147.129.145.3 (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Pre- or post-Toba

Human migrations: Eastern odyssey, Nature. Looks like the Wiki-article reflects recent debates, while missing some of the questions and context underlying these debates. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article Toba catastrophe theory. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

First the Levant, then the rest

Hugo Reyes-Centeno (2016), Out of Africa and into Asia: Fossil and genetic evidence on modern human origins and dispersals, ScienceDirect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Further reading: articles

Do we really need a long list of articles, which are inaccessible for most Wiki-readers, while we already have 100+ sources? I think we should mention here a strict selection of the most relevant scholarly articles, like Macaulay (2005) and Posth (2016). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with it. Five articles is hardly long, and it will provide a useful starting point for some readers for further research. I do think there is a case for deleting the external links as they are mostly either out of date or not specific to the subject of this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd already shortened the list :) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I would of course agree that the relevant papers should be listed in the bibliography, but please try to avoid WP:BOMBARD situations where a single statement is "referenced" with four or five footnotes in a row. This is not useful, you are basically telling the reader to read five papers and then second-guess how these five papers can conceivably be combined into the statement being referenced. Ideally, each reference should be as explicit as possible, as in, what exactly is being referenced based on which specific source. --dab (𒁳) 07:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article for WP:RS now. Most of the journalistic sources were superfluous, but I have left some of them in alongside the actual citations. I think the only journalistic source left on its own now is the discussion of the historical (1980s) contributions of Wilson et al.; I would say this is defensible.

The article is still plagued by some off-topic tangents, especially the paragraph dedicated to Coop et al. 2009, which is not about OOA at all.[9] The study is about the entirely different kettle of fish discussed under Human genetic variation. --dab (𒁳) 08:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism and Alternatives views

Scientific Criticism and Alternatives views are what's missing in the article. --41.150.232.76 (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternative views are mentioned, and perhaps too much as there is now a consensus in favour of the theory. Much of the article is dated, especially about the timing and route of the dispersal, and interbreeding with archaic humans, but the picture keeps changing so quickly that it is difficult to keep up. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It is too easy to say "the theory" has a consensus. There is, in fact, a basic consensus, but the article as it stood failed to point out what exactly the consensus is. The consensus is limited to the view that the main movement of extant populations outside of Africa is largely due to a migration taking place around 50 kya. The consensus ends there. The "North Africa, 110 kya" result is too recent to be part of the overall consensus. It is presumably the best currently available estimate, but it doesn't form part of the basic "OOA" consensus. Similarly, citations claiming "consensus" that predate 2010 are useless, as the discovery of archaic admixture in the 2010s has significantly altered the picture. Yes, the overall consensus of predominantly "recent single origin" still stands, but this is now modified by plausible evidence of archaic admixture of the order of a few percent. This was simply not known prior to 2010, and while there remain some doubts on how reliable these results are, they are certainly seen as plausible. They in no way "overturn" the general "OOA" scenario, but they certainly modify it with a certain "multiregional" component of OOA I origin.

This is not so much a question of presenting "alternative views", but of distinguishing the basic overall consensus from the various details that are still open to revision. --dab (𒁳) 07:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

dab, I think we need to make sure not to give undue weight to new information. WP:Recentism can be an issue for just about any topic, not just for the news media topics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this is exactly what I have been saying. "'recent' as in 50-100kya" is the consensus. "North Africa 130–115kya" is notable, but not part of the established consensus. Archaic admixture has been considered likely for more than five years now, so while it isn't "certain", it is surely by now part of the general picture of what we mean by "recent origin". What is a "recentism" is relative to the pace of progress. In, say, Indo-European studies, anything later than 1980 is a "recentism". In the case of genetic phylogeny, anything before 2010 is dated, and anything before, say, 2005 is mostly of historical interest. --dab (𒁳) 15:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

the main offending edit appears to have been this one, with the highly descriptive summary "refs". --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dbachmann: the Washington Post has an interesting article, which refers to three recent publications, including one co-authored by David Reich: Carl Zimmer (sept. 21, 2016), A Single Migration From Africa Populated the World, Studies Find, Washington Post. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Page move proposal

Given the emphasis on two movements out of Africa, the title of this article does not seem to be apt anymore. Wouldn't it be better to skip the term "Recent" from the title, and stick to "African origin and dispersals of modern humans"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, per WP:Common name, it would be best to stick with the most common name for the title of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Single Wave Migration

@Joshua Jonathan: Single wave migrations seems most likely now, like Reich & co, Posth et al has proposed. I noticed mtDNA M and Y-dna C are seen as taking southern route section of this page or "Great Coastal migration" page but it does not seem to be the case anymore.

They have found 4 mtDNA M in Paleolithic archaeological sites in Europe.

*Gravettian, Italy - mtDNA M - 27,810-27,430 cal BP - Posth et al 2016 and Fu et al 2016
*Gravettian, France - mtDNA M - 27,780-27,400 cal BP - Posth et al 2016 and Fu et al 2016
*Aurignacian, Belgium - 2 mtDNA M - 33,940-33,140 cal BP - Posth et al 2016 and Fu et al 2016

They have found 6 Y-DNA C and CT in Paleolithic sites in Europe

* Russia, (Kostenki 14) - Y-DNA C1b - 38,680-36,260 cal BP - Fu 2013; Krause 2010; Fu 2016
* Aurignacian,	Belgium -  Y-DNA C1a - 35,160-34,430 cal BP - Posth et al 2016 and Fu et al 2016
* Romania - Y-DNA CT - 33,090-31,780 cal BP - Posth et al 2016 and Fu et al 2016
* Russia, (Kostenki 12) - Y-DNA CT - 32,990-31,840 cal BP - Fu et al 2016
* Gravettian, Czech Republic - Y-DNA CT - 31,070-30,670 cal BP - Fu et al 2016
* Gravettian, Czech Republic - Y-DNA C1a2 - 30,710-29,310 cal BP - Fu et al 2016

Two Y-DNA C in Mesolithic sites

* Russia, Kitoi culture - Y-DNA C3-M217 - 6125–4885 BC	- Moussa 2016
* Spain, La Braña - Y-DNA C1a2 - 5990-5740 BCE - Mathieson 2015, Fu 2016

• Genetic population above are early Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG).
• WHG, ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) and ENA ('Eastern Non-Africans' ex: ASI, AAA, East Eurasians) share more alleles/related with eachother than they do with 'Basal Eurasian'.
• Diversification of 'Non-Africans' into (WHG, ANE,ENA) took place after 'Basal Eurasian' split from 'Non-Africans'.

Ilber8000 (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ilber8000: single wave migrations? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Single Migration - that is what they seem to be calling it, southern route and coastal migration page needs to be updated.

"All non-Africans descend from a single migration of early humans from Africa. The estimates from the studies point to an exodus somewhere between 80,000 and 50,000 years."

"The three teams sequenced the genomes of 787 people, obtaining highly detailed scans of each. The genomes were drawn from people in hundreds of indigenous populations: Basques, African pygmies, Mayans, Bedouins, Sherpas and Cree Indians, to name just a few."

"The vast majority of their ancestry — if not all of it — is coming from the same out-of-Africa wave as Europeans and Asians,” said Dr. Willerslev.

• Possible early migration before single-wave. Metspalu et al

“We find a small footprint--at least two per cent--of a previous migration in the genomes of people from Papua New Guinea,” says one of the co-authors Mait Metspalu.

"This suggests that people from Papua New Guinea and the Negritos from the Philippines have an earlier split time than other non-African groups."

“If everyone alive today came out of Africa at the same time, then we should all have the same split-time,” says Metspalu.

"The two per cent comes from an older population of humans who probably lived around 120,000 years ago."

While, two or three other studies claim there was single-wave instead, taking place between 80,000 and 50,000 years.

Ilber8000 (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Bu then, that's two waves, isn't it? Or is that just semantics? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Basics on Eurasians from Fu et al 2014 and Lazaridis et al 2016

This below quote is about Ust'Ishim having separated before the diversification of of 'Other Non-Africans' into West Eurasians, North Eurasians and East Eurasians. Ust-Ishim and other Non-Africans (ENA, ANE, WHG) did not carry 'Basal Eurasian' ancestry.

This finding is consistent with Ust’-Ishim having separated from other Eurasians around the time of the ancient divergence of West and North Eurasian hunter-gatherers (represented by La Braña and MA1), and east Eurasians (represented by Onge, Karitiana and Han). The absence of evidence for shared genetic drift with any of these groups suggests that Ust Ishim is likely to be close to the ancestor of most Eurasians, and is consistent with the old radiocarbon date. 

The finding of “Basal Eurasian” ancestry in West Eurasians is consistent with the report of Lazaridis et al where the finding of Basal Eurasian ancestry in present-day West Eurasians was hypothesized to reflect ancient Near Eastern populations having a component of their ancestry from a group that was not part of the early dispersal of modern humans to Europe and northern and eastern Asia. The results with Ust’-Ishim are consistent with this idea and suggest that Ust’-Ishim may not have carried any Basal Eurasian ancestry. 

Here is two new Lazaridis et al 2016 charts, they explain the above quotes. Fig 1 (shows Basal Eurasian split) and Fig 2 (populations who did not carry Basal Eurasian) Fig 2 also proposes unknown X ancestor for Ancient South Eurasian (also known as Eastern Non-Africans/East-Eurasians) and an unknown X ancestor for Ancient North Eurasians and West Eurasians.

'Basal Eurasian' ancestry today peaks in Arabian peninsula. Basal Eurasians contributed to genetic ancestry of Europeans and South Asians during Holocene period but they did not contribute to genetic ancestry of East Asians, Southeast Asians, Native Americans & Australians. Ilber8000 (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sasquatches?

Probably don't want to add a section about Sasquatches until they man (sasquatch?) up and allow themselves to be contacted, infrared vision and all. 2605:A601:46D:B01:CABC:C8FF:FEA5:82F4 (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

African and Chinese Ancestry

There was a theory that suggests a separate ancestry for all non Indo Europeans. These include Africans and Asians. Anyone has a reliable source for this? Apparently a theory publicized in National Geographic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.192.234 (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Issues in recent edits

User PLawrence99cx has recently made a lot of additions to this article. I'm seeing some things that don't look right:

1. Homo (humans) and the Pan (chimpanzees) genera of Hominini diverged between 4 and 13 million years ago, in Africa.

Unreferenced. Too broad a range?

2. According to this model, modern humans evolved in East Africa between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago.

Where did 400,000 come from? I thought the consensus was "before 200,000" with some sources saying "200,000-300,000."

3. An archaic view of hominid evolution is Polygenism, holds that different human peoples had differing origins. Many religious texts refer to this concept.

Unreferenced. As our own article on the subject points out, Polygenism is primarily a religious viewpoint. It's the idea that different human populations have separate origins, as in the gods creating your own tribe separtely from other tribes. This is apparently intended as a criticism of the Multiregional hypothesis. Equating the two is WP:OR.

4. The San people of Southern Africa and the Sandawe people of East Africa branched off between 260,000 and 350,000 years ago and have remained relatively genetically isolated since then. [17]

The 350,000 date is based on a single research paper, and does not reflect any sort of consensus within within the scientific community. It was just published in Science a week ago and hasn't been cited by anyone.

Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

What is BP?

Could someone please clarify what is BP. The first mention of this acronym is in the section Early northern Africa dispersal. "The date most commonly attributed to the remains is 67,000 BP"

Is another acronym in this article really necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.223.126 (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Before present - I've wikilinked the first occurrence in the text. Tobus (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

cultural marxism

even this map is upside down [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

To see how this RAO paleoholocaust was constructed is informative to dig this page early history.

Seeing "article evolution" is obvious the multi-regional theory is true. The worldwide human populations mixed. The here "vituperated interspecies hybrids" were in in fact families who married by love raised many children and happily lived ever after.

• see http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6368/eaai9067 recent review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Petraglia (2017)

See Review article on the origin of modern humans: the multiple-dispersal model and Late Pleistocene Asia, on Petraglia et al. (2017), On the origin of modern humans: Asian perspectives. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

From Africa to Asia, back into Africa, and again out into Asia

Cabrera et al. (2017):

a model proposing an out-of-Africa of early anatomically modern humans around 125 kya. A return to Africa of Eurasian fully modern humans around 70 kya, and a second Eurasian global expansion by 60 kya.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Nominate for In the news

Hoping to nominate this page or a similar one for In the News with mention of the recent discoveries in Israel and India. Anyone interested in helping out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcMyWords (talk • contribs) 19:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

New book: Who We Are and How We Got Here

Razib Khan writes in review "Genes Reveal Its Tangled History" of David Reich's Who We Are and How We Got Here:

Who We Are and How We Got Here buries the classic “Out of Africa” theory that had emerged out of the notion of “mitochondrial Eve.” In this framework, humanity was born 50,000 years ago in East Africa, fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus, and went on to conquer the rest of the continent and the world while leaving our cousins to be footnotes in prehistory. Both the fossil evidence and human genomics no longer support that idea. Our species does have roots in the African continent that go back hundreds of thousands of years — but other populations that contributed to our ancestry, at a minimum including the Neanderthals and the Denisovans, were already present when modern humans were expanding out of Africa 50,000 years ago. The ancestors of these groups had left Africa over half a million years ago. And modern humans were present within Africa for hundreds of thousands of years before one small branch fatefully migrated out of that continent 50,000 years ago. Rather than being created in an instant, modern humans were evolving, changing, and interacting within Africa as distinct populations for hundreds of thousands of years before a few left. So an “Out of Africa” thesis still holds, but it’s hard to pack into a few concise sentences. Reality, it turns out, is more complex and interesting than scientists ever imagined.

Does anybody has read the book and related papers? Is there any implications of new studies on this article (need updates?)? --Nizil (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have ordered the book but I am not sure that I would have if I had read the review above, as it sounds as if the book is attacking straw men. The classic out of Africa theory was buried years ago, and our article reflects that, although it is almost certainly out of date as it is nearly impossible to keep up with such a fast moving field. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It's Razib tilting at windmills. The book itself basically says what you have, and is already in the article.

What is good about the book is it's a solid secondary source on human paleogenetics. Most of articles about human evolution and population genetics rely way too much on primary sources (although this one isn't too bad), so it would be good to start replacing some of them. We shouldn't even be trying to keep up with the latest results in the field. Our job is to summarise matters of settled scientific consensus, even if that does mean we lag a few years behind. – Joe (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There are some responses to Reich's recent op-ed that may be word reading together with the book [11][12][13]. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Maunus. As for other commentary above, I'm not sure that I'd classify the field as fast-moving. But either way, Joe Roe is right that it's not our job to try to keep up. Wikipedia lags behind until the literature catches up. And by "literature," we don't mean just a few sources, as we try to avoid WP:Undue weight or material that would be considered WP:Fringe; "fringe" is defined broadly at the WP:Fringe page. Just remember that there is no deadline for Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, we briefly discussed scientific consensus in 2016: Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans/Archive 3#Criticism and Alternatives views. We shouldn't be trying to decide what the scientific consensus is ourselves. We should be going either by what the preponderance of the literature states or sources that specifically make clear what the scientific consensus is. This is what the article looked like back in 2016 at the time of that discussion. This is what it looks like now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)