"Out of Africa" Theory Called Into Question By Originator

Amiga Trombone writes "Christopher Stringer is one of the world's foremost paleoanthropologists. He is a founder and most powerful advocate of the leading theory concerning our evolution: Recent African Origin or 'Out of Africa.' He now calls the theory into question: 'I'm thinking a lot about species concepts as applied to humans, about the "Out of Africa" model, and also looking back into Africa itself. I think the idea that modern humans originated in Africa is still a sound concept. Behaviorally and physically, we began our story there, but I've come around to thinking that it wasn't a simple origin. Twenty years ago, I would have argued that our species evolved in one place, maybe in East Africa or South Africa. There was a period of time in just one place where a small population of humans became modern, physically and behaviourally. Isolated and perhaps stressed by climate change, this drove a rapid and punctuational origin for our species. Now I don't think it was that simple, either within or outside of Africa.'"

Comments

Sounds like a true scientist

[excelsior_gr]

From TFA:

But we're having to re-evaluate [the Out-of-Africa model] now because genetic data suggest that the modern humans who came out of Africa about 60,000 years ago probably interbred with Neanderthals, first of all, and then some of them later on interbred with another group of people called the Denisovans, over in south eastern Asia.

Nice to see some theory re-evaluation in practice. It is the only way to reach the truth.

Re:Sounds like a true scientist

[pr0t0]

This is why science is awesome. The very same guy that advocated the "Out of Africa" theory, circled back in the face of more evidence and is re-evaluating. He's not so prideful to say he was possibly wrong, or partially wrong, or mostly right but needing a few tweaks. He has no reason to feel shame, as generally no scientist should as long as they are doing good work. I applaud Mr. Stringer.

There was a line in the movie "Chain Reaction" where the lead scientist says, "We learned something very important today. We learned another way this doesn't work." or something to that effect. That is also what makes science awesome. Learning what doesn't work is almost as important as learning what does.

Every time I see something like this, I get that "What am I doing with my life?" feeling and start thinking I need to get out of my particular field of IT and start contributing to the body of human knowledge. Computational Materials Science, here I come!

Power Law in Effect

[Baby Duck]

The problem with pinpointing human origins is we keep digging where 1) human remains are close to the surface, making them easy to dig up, with yearly rains washing away more and more making it even easier, and 2) the conditions for fossilization are highly salient. We very well could have come from environs where fossilization processes are nearly impossible, leaving no trace of our ancestors.

We also like to dig where early humans leave behind stone tools. We don't dig where humans uses wood tools, because they fossilize way less often. It's hard to study what's not left behind! However, it's probable more humans used wood tools earlier and longer.

Respect!

[folderol]

For someone to publicly challenge their own theories takes considerable stature.

Re:Misleading headline

[russotto]

Reality is more complex than humans just appearing in one location in Africa? That doesn't really question ANYTHING about the theory, but instead just suggests a refinement.

There are multiple theories that really are different

1) H. Sapiens evolved in Africa, travelled from there, overtaking and outcompeting (or outright killing) previous hominids who earlier left Africa.

2) A mostly-modern H. Sapiens evolved in Africa, travelled from there, and interbred with/absorbed existing hominid populations (by some definitions these were also H. Sapiens) who had earlier left Africa. This one isn't so different, but it is different.

3) Multiregional. Earlier hominids (not H. Sapiens) leave Africa in multiple expansions. These various groups evolve, run into each other, and interbreed, and continue migrating (including back to Africa). H. Sapiens emerges as a product of this global interbreeding and evolution. This is obviously a very different theory.

Evidence of modern humans having some Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA casts a lot of doubt on the first theory.