Talk:Multiregional origin of modern humans

message: The first image illustrating the multiregional model is mislabeled as polygenism. Milford Wolpoff, probably the most prominent proponent of multiregionalism, makes it very clear that he is not a polygenist. The dashed lines in this diagram show the constant genetic exchanges which make multiregional evolution possible and distinguish it from polygenism. This caption should be changed.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Historic Metal (talk • contribs). 
:I believe this has been fixed? Warren Dew (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: caption misstatement

message: - 	
Evaluation of the multiregional theory revolves around the assumption or non-assumption of >>species barriers<< between early hominids. Because of the scarcity of fossils and the discovery of important new finds every few years, researchers disagree about the details and sometimes even basic elements of human evolutionary history. 
While they have revised this history several times over the last decades, researchers currently agree that the oldest named species of the genus Homo, Homo habilis, evolved in Africa around two million years ago, and that members of the genus migrated out of Africa somewhat later, at least 1.5 million years ago. The descendants of these ancient migrants, which probably included Homo erectus, have become known through fossils uncovered far from Africa, such as those of "Peking man" and "Java man". Homo neanderthalensis is also considered a descendant of early migrants.
::The species barrier arising in process of speciation is key element differentiating MHO from RAO. If there will be possible gene flow then it will happen the early human as all other species did do a sex if they get children and the children get children this will be the multiregional. On the other hand if they wont be able to fertilly reproduce the only scientific reason "prohibiting" gene flow is the species barrier. If the species barrier arouse in speciation and prohibited the gene flow it will be replacement - per see without the gene flow. The replacement without any gene flow is the main thesis of recent replacement RAO. The word "replacement" is used to point out the important RAO opposition to the fertile reproduction proposed in MHO.  (Do you think or know that somebody try devise or prove that there was no 'single occasion' for a "romantic date" between the singles of approaching and preexisting human populations during the last 200 thousand years). If and only if there was only one paleo-date pregnant with fertile children it is the gene flow the key thesis of MHO and MHO theory holds up. If it did not happen pregnant with fertile children there was no gene flow - RAO holds up.  
::Could you please eloborate on why do you think the section adds nothing as you revile here.  
::Another important consideration is the likelihood of the speciation in African population at given time frame. The new mutation or recombination may happen any time. The complexity of devising how and why the species barrier should arose is overwhelming and speculative that's why you may not find numerous citation in RAO framework elaborating on the obvious and crucial for ROA thesis evolutionary process. 76.16.176.166 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wolpoff and Caspari's "Race and Human Evolution" indexes "Multiregional evolution: definition of" to page 32, where a description in italics preceded by "In a nutshell, the theory is that" occupies about 60% of the page. It does not specify any lower limit for genetic contribution from archaic Eurasian Homo in order for the theory to be valid. --JWB (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification of hominid species

message: IP user 76.16.1xx.xxx is now registered as Xook1kai Choa6aur. XC has removed all tags about neutrality etc. My opinion is that this article is still a total trainwreck, and is probably worse than us having no article at all on this topic, helped into that state in no small part by XC's constant POV pushing and difficulties in communicating in clear English. It needs totally rewriting, so the tags were entirely appropriate. Fences&Windows 20:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, and I've replaced the tags. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but what is now disputable? Only the one who put the can take it down ?Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I removed the external links tag after removing most of the links in the section.  The remaining two links provide information related to the topic that aren't covered in the article; the Templeton lattice because it's a copyrighted graphic for I can't presently find a free source, and the source with equations regarding migration and mutation because I think the actual equations are beyond what's appropriately covered in the article.  Warren Dew (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag removal

message: This article was attacked as nonnotable and proposed for deletion. You can comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_D._Hawks#John_D._Hawks. --JWB (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD of [[John D. Hawks]]

message: According to the sources given:
first source: there is a near-consensus that DNA and archaeology support "Out of Africa"
second source: that sub-Saharan Africa played an important role.
Neither of these sources support what the article intro said about the consensus for "Out of Africa"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.247.41 (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That information is obsolete anyway due to this year's publications on the sequencing of the neanderthal and denisovan DNA and their contributions to the human DNA pool.  Clearly there was mixing with nonafrican archaic humans, not just replacement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warren Dew (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

text: No, it is not clear that there was mixing - that is merely an interpretation, and not the only one discussed by the scientists who published the work. Common ancestry within Africa is also possible. Davidiank (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed neanderthal admixture in Eurasians and Oceanians, along the lines of the early reports, actually pretty much rules out classic multiregional evolution/continuity (with a neanderthal phase/grade that actually includes the "classic neanderthals"), as the gene flow back to Africa since the neanderthal admixture would have been quite limited, discarding the possibility of a very strong selective pressure against neanderthal genes within Africa. I think that the only ways to save the multirregional hypothesis would be to posit that sapiens evolved multirregionally, followed by de facto OOA2 migrations, after that pan-continental gene flow virtually ceased, and only then some archaic admixture happened, but this is not even part of the picture anymore, but an independent phenomenon. Either that or just cheat the definition of multiregional continuity into a synonym of post-sapiens admixture, or, even worse, go into crackpot ideas that SS-Africans haven't reached the Homo sapiens grade yet, so their near absence of neanderthal admixture is not a problem; "it just happens that only Europeans are fully sapiens, the remaining Eurasians are almost there with whatever reservations regarding few peoples one might want to consider less evolved, and SS Africans still have a longer way to go until they have the present-day European gene pool. North Europeans don't have as much neanderthal admixture but that's not a problem for their sapien-ess gradation, just because. In fact, the neanderthal genes they lack perhaps just add to their sapien-ness". --Extremophile (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "near consensus" bit 

message: I removed the following paragraph because I couldn't figure out how it fitted in with the article:
* Genome polymorphism: Inversion polymorphism: known 5-million-base pair (Mbp) 8p23.1, 1-Mbp on 17q21.3 and novel 1.2-Mbp on 15q24, 2.1-Mbp 15q13, 1.7-Mbp 17q12  . In the sample of 8 gnomes from worldwide sample including Yuruba Kidd&al group found 4 million SNPs and 796,273 small indels (1−100 bp in size); 15 large regions of excess nucleotide variation 500 kbp to 3 Mbp. Two of variable sites are described detailed above.
The only thing I could find that might be relevant is the statement that overall African SNP diversity was 13% greater than nonafrican diversity, compared to 40% on the X chromosome.  However, it seems to me that relating that to the multiregional hypothesis would be original research.
If someone thinks that material is relevant, please discuss it here and we'll see if we can figure out how to work it in.  Warren Dew (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph on general medium scale genetic diversity 

message: The end of the Mitochondrial DNA section says that nuclear genome studies showed results that were "very different" from mtDNA studies.  What were those results?  Is the article referring to the Neanderthal study that was recently published?
SilentWings (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitochrondial DNA 

message: This is the information i have collected which clearly supports the multiregional. Can some of the information from these links go on the article? Liveintheforests (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Think it's best to read over WP:SOURCES  As the popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific articles.  A book search would be better and/or  a scholar search. Moxy (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Moxy you are acting like a charlatan there are scientific journals mentioned there. look at the list. other opinions. please needed. 212.219.116.229 (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pls take the time to read the following   - msnbc.msn.com,  viewzone, guardian.co, azcentral.com, huffingtonpost.com, heritage-key.com/blogs, abc.net  are not good sources.Moxy (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence for multiregional

message: The following sentence: The combination of regional continuity inside and outside of Africa and lateral gene transfer between various regions around the world supports the multiregional hypothesis neeeds at least some references and clarifications. What does it means "regional continuity inside and outside of Africa"? The genetic analysis up today di not shows indication of lateral gene transfer  for  the genus Homo,  at least as this term is used today in genetic.--Bramfab (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What is meant here is Introgression, while lateral gene transfer is a redirect to Horizontal gene transfer which (at least according to that article) refers to transfer outside of normal sexual reproduction. --JWB (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification and citation request

message: This seems like potentially misleading phrasing - it could be read as saying the Denisovan shared no genome with other living groups. The actual statement from the original paper is "the fivefold coverage Papuan individual shares 4.0 +- 0.7% more alleles with the Denisova individual than does the French individual, and we observed a similar skew in all 10 comparisons of Melanesian and other non-African populations (Table 1)" which is a comparison and not a statement about absolute percentage of genome. --JWB (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the statement to better reflect the source.  Warren Dew (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  was found to share 4-6% of its genome with living Melanesian humans and with no other living group 

message: An intro paragraph was basically half-right, but the definition of mitochondrial eve was off, etc. My rewrote was a big change, so I'll post the new paragraph here for comment.
Genetic evidence from the late 1980s on the mitochondrial genome indicated that all living women can trace their maternal line of descent to a single female living in Africa about 200,000 years ago, the so-called Mitochondrial Eve. This led to a hypothesis that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa, with a small founder population of humans leaving Africa and eventually replacing all archaic humans then living elsewhere without interbreeding.[citation needed] Recent analyses of DNA taken directly from Neanderthal specimens, however, indicates that they contributed to the genome of all humans outside of Africa. The Homo sapiens who populated the world outside Africa all have Neanderthals among their descendents. Denisova hominins also contributed to the DNA of Milanesians and Australians.
Leadwind (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrote paragraph 

message: See Neanderthal where the quote is not[more] contextualized. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  * inline 

message: This current diagram is poor and incorrect (to give just one example, it includes Australian H.erectus which were non-existant) even by its own admission. 
There is a much better image here. The original publication to cite is: .  
This image is actually an extract from a critically relevant scientific paper. It sounds as though the image is not wholly "original" but is instead based on the earlier Weidenreich graphic (but nonetheless would be more appropriate to us here than the Weidenreich graphic would, because this source is updated to represent the most current scientific knowledge). 
It's only a short extract from a long paper (less than 5% or than one page, and its derived nature minimises the extent to which it could be argued to encapsulate the entire paper). It has already been taken and used in a number of other places (some more are:  & ). I think there is a strong case here for "fair use" of the image. It is clearly needed in order to convey the topic correctly. Also, since the author identifies to a US university, and the work was paid for by a particular NIH grant, it seems the US public at least have a moral (and possibly legal) entitlement to it. Is anyone here familiar with the upload proceedures? Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that would be a much better image if you can justify including in wikimedia commons.  This will guide you through the process:  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload Warren Dew (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  better Trellis image 

message: Nottruelosa (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  haplogroup A00 is stong support and needs to be added 

message: In order to remove tophat on article. --J. D. Redding 21:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A combined scenario is a form of MR. 180.10.135.53 (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also a form of ROOA (and a lot closer to Stringers theory than to Wolpoffs). And in anycase the article doesnt make any mention of this scenario which is now pretty well established and have outcompeted both the traditional MR and ROOA scenarios.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  article has multiple issues? discuss these issues 

message: please bullet list.--J. D. Redding 21:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A combined scenario is a form of MR. 180.10.135.53 (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also a form of ROOA (and a lot closer to Stringers theory than to Wolpoffs). And in anycase the article doesnt make any mention of this scenario which is now pretty well established and have outcompeted both the traditional MR and ROOA scenarios.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: factual accuracy :out-of-date information 

message: please bullet list.--J. D. Redding 21:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: examples and perspective : significant viewpoints 

message: This needs to be edited, so I thought I would discuss here first some errors. Note that I have now added Xinzhi Wu. 
Anyway, the Multiregional hypothesis was founded in 1984 by Wolpoff, Wu and Thorne. They put their first paper out that year, although Thorne had published a paper touching upon the model as early as 1981. In their 1984 paper, they credit the anti-racist Franz Weidenreich and his "polycentric" model as their main influence, not racist Carleton Coon. Wolpoff emphasizes this in most his works to distance himself from racialized interpretations. The content on the page about Ruggles R. Gates, Klaatch etc is all false. Multiregionalism has nothing to do with these. Gates was a racist polygenist who thought races were not only seperate lines of descent, but also species. Again, Wolpoff writes a lot about how Multiregionalism should not be confused with polygenism. All these people should be removed, and only Wu, Thorne and Wolpoff mentioned, possibly with how they were influenced by Weidenreich.FossilMad (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: I've updated the page with new sources, and added new sections especially on fossils. There's not much more I can add, perhaps other than a section on archaeology that is absent. It was mainly Geoffrey Pope leading this area in Multiregionalism during the early 90s in China. FossilMad (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page updated 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Multiregional origin of modern humans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5uQpdJwWR?url=http://artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/ to http://artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Modern human origins: multiregional evolution of autosomes and East Asia origin of Y and mtDNA Cold Spring Harbor Laboratoryhttps://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/01/101410
I think this should be included and mentioned. I will maybe myself edit, but I have not much time at the moment. I am new in wikipedia and already created my first article. Maybe i have time tomorrow, but for now I have to quit. Thank you Kang Sung-Tae (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but this should not be included as it is a preprint which has not been peer reviewed. Also, what it the connection with Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory? The authors are all at Chinese universities and appear to be supporting the old Chinese special origin claim. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello, a new asian study 2018 

message: Not that I believe in the "Western" narrative, but according to this article are Semites, Iranians, Caucasians and Russians considered "Asian" or "European"?
What about Australoids and Austronesians? Barbar03 (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the "modern asians" and "modern europeans" in the chart 

message: The title of this article seems to be misleading, if I understand it's about the theory proposed by Wolpoff et al. that is cited in the lead. The reference to Wolpoff 2000 is titled "Multiregional, Not Multiple Origins" and the abstract clarifies what it isn't
"… Multiregional" does not mean independent multiple origins, ancient divergence of modern populations, simultaneous appearance of adaptive characters in different regions, or parallel evolution.
I say 'seems' because I found this article linked from Gigantopithecus, where the classification section discusses an earlier taxonomic theory. ~ cygnis insignis 07:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  article's title