Can someone explain what all this means in language for the simple-minded?
Well, I’m sure you’re not simple-minded, just not as well-versed in the issues surrounding human evolution as some of us.
For 50 or so years, the argument has gone on between the “multi-regionalists,” that is the folks who believe that regional differences (in Asia and Europe) arose between populations before we became completely human, and those distinct populations bred with more modern humans (who did emerge from Africa) to ultimately give rise to the races.
Others believed that those local populations were wiped out by emerging humans who came ‘out of Africa’ (OAA). The problem was that the OOA folks—while politically correct— did not not have the data to support them; that is, if Africans were alone responsible for humanization, it was a feather in the black man’s hat and very PC; but, if we each became more human in Asia and Europe, it diminished the Africans’ role—very UN-PC.
This study shows that all the combined evidence support a multi-regional hypothesis. But, do not misunderstand: the evidence also supports the fact that modern humans first emerged from Africa, and then became racialized with local populations.