[old and tired]

Alright. I read the article. I'm too dumb to get its significance. Does this article make some kind of pro or anti evolution statement? Can someone please explain the significance in layman's terms?

p.s. I'm a Catholic so I don't have a dog in the evolution fight, it just bugs me when I read something and I still don't get it.

[truemiester]

I'm Cahtolic as well, but I think it is saying something taht we've ALL ben taught. The only 'race' is the human race.

[IrishCatholic]

In layman's terms. The theory used to be it's 700,000 years ago and you just emigrated from Africa, it's a Saturday night and there's nothing on cable. So you go out and kill everyone that doesn't look like you just came from Africa.

The new theory is that it's 700,000 years ago and you just emigrated from Africa, it's a Saturday night and there's nothing on cable. So you go out and suddenly see this hot chick that looks exotic. She gives you the eye, you give her the eye, next thing you know you got three kids and the in laws living in your cave.

Nature being nature the second one sounds the most plausible. It still goes on today.

[Varda]

There are no theories in anthropology which aren't evolutionary in nature, so there is no anti-evolutionary position to take.

This article assumes you know that most archeogeneticists believe that modern humanity is the result of a migration out of Africa about 100,000 ya that replaced existing archaic humans (aka Out of Africa). Templeton is a long time proponent of the "Multiregional Hypothesis" (humans are the result of Africans mixing with regional varieties of archaic humans).

What he's done is similar to what was done to gin up support for "Global Warming" i.e. a computer model and limited data. How important this is depends on how well done his computer model is and how representative his data is of populations at large.

What I find odd is the claim at the end. The Multiregional hypothesis has always seemed to be connected to fairly racist ideas and as far as I know had its start with the idea of polygenesis. The Catholic church seems to have a preference for the "Out of Africa" theory since it is seen as advocating that all humans are a single family.

[furball4paws]

Maybe it's because you're old and tired :)

[Stultis]

Does this article make some kind of pro or anti evolution statement?

Neither. It assumes evolution. It's about a longstanding controversy within evolutionary theory: the result of a new study that favors one side of the debate.

Can someone please explain the significance in layman's terms?

You need to understand some background first. The earliest "ape-men" are all found only in the continent of Africa. Following these you have creatures that are classified in our genus, "Homo". One of the first, Homo habilis, is still very ape-like and also found only in Africa. Then, however, you get a form called Homo erectus. It has a smaller brain than modern humans (although not by much) and it's skull, especially the face, still looks pretty "apeish," but it's lower body is very similar to that of modern humans.

Homo erectus does something no previous human ancestor did. It migrates beyond Africa. It's found in Africa, Asia (all the way to China and Southeast Asia) and some parts of Europe.

After Home erectus the next universally recognized species is Homo sapiens (i.e. us, modern humans) although in between you have a variety of "archaic sapients" (including Neanderthals but others as well) as distinguished from "anatomically modern" humans.

Now, here's the thing: The first "anatomically modern" humans appear in Africa. Both sides of the debate we're considering agree on this point. So you have modern humans appearing in Africa, but at the same time you already have those Homo erectus, and various "archaic sapients", spread around the world outside of Africa. This was the situation around 700 thousand years ago.

So the question is how did we arrive at the current state of affairs, with modern humans everywhere and everything else extinct. At the extremes there are two possible answers:

The "Out of Africa" hypothesis says that the modern humans migrated from Africa and simply replaced all the archaic forms (killed them, out-competed them, whatever). It denies that the various "archaic" forms in Asia and elsewhere contributed in any significant way to modern populations. Anatomically modern humans only evolved once, and in one place (Africa).

The other extreme position is the "Regional Development" hypothesis. It claims that populations of Homo erecuts and/or archaic sapients in Asia and other places each evolved independently into modern humans.

The "Regional Development" hypothesis was rather quickly moderated to something that might be called "Regional Development with Gene Flow". This position admitted that the migration of modern humans from Africa was significant, but only because the moderns interbred with local populations and thereby introduced modern traits. It's still the local populations that evolved, albeit with some outside help, into the modern form.

Of course various other intermediate views are possible. Then it becomes a matter of emphasis, whether on migrants replacing or local populations evolving.

When this debate first began -- back in the late 80's or early 90's IIRC -- both sides claimed evidence from the fossil record, but generally speaking the DNA evidence was considered to favor "Out of Africa". Advocates of "Regional Development" initially based their case almost completely on details of morphology which they interpreted to link modern populations with archaic or erectus fossils from the same regions.

"Regional Development" advocates also critiqued the DNA evidence for the "Out of Africa" view in various ways, but the significance of the present study is the claim that DNA evidence now provides positive support for Regional Development (with gene flow).