I would be in favour of a more complex interaction between different humans in the past. The out of africa thing for me has too many holes. It's too pat and a tad too "fashion" driven for me. Genetics is a helluva tool and has told us much, but I think science at the moment is too reliant on it for a source of origins and timescales. Especially given the dearth of fossil remains and viable DNA that can be extracted from same.
Now I do
believe humans as a species originated in africa. But I believe that this was in successive waves and later hominids interacted with and reproduced with earlier hominids that they came across in their travels. Specifically Erectus and in the case of Europe Neandertals. I dont favour the pure multiregional hypotheses, where its all about the local. I would think of it broadly as Erectus leaves africa. Moves all over the globe(except the new world). Evolution of hominids continues in Africa, but it also continues in the rest of the world where erectus exists. It seems strange to me that such evolution should be very fast paced in Africa, yet we're to believe that Erectus was pickled in aspic elsewhere even with local adaptation pressures? I don't buy it. Plus as Neandertals in Europe prove erectus did
evolve into later forms. Whose to say there's not a similar erectus evolution in asia say. One we've not seen yet. Flores man(another erectus) shows how fluid and local this can be.
Then early not quite sapiens evolves in africa and like an aussie back packer decides to go walkabout. They move into area where erectus and it's descendants live. They get jiggy with it and the populations mix and the earlier gets brought into the later. Other cultural pressures do in the rest of the erectus/neandertals(and some of the moderns too). That makes far more practical sense to me than the current idea, which is erectus stays largely the same for a million years. We come along and completely
replace them in those areas with no interaction or gene mix. It just doesn't fit for me.
Even the genetic evidence as outlined in that wiki entry suggests some local continuity of genes, not found in other locales that are significantly older than the 200,000 yr old migration of (nearly) modern humans. That makes no
sense if we all stem from that population. We didn't lick those markers off a stone.
Plus in the example I gave on the other thread, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...7&postcount=10
DNA can leave big holes in our understanding of whats going on.
OK I'm of european stock. Lets say I marry an african lassie and we have two sons. One of them marries a japanese woman and the other marries a south american woman from the high andes. If we look at their kids mitichondrian DNA it'll show that they're either Japanese or Andean indian. No trace of African or European. If you look at their Y chromosome DNA they'll look like Europeans. In both cases No trace of African DNA at all, yet they would share the genetic heritage of the oldest people on the planet. That's just over 3 generations, yet we're supposed to believe that over 100's of 1000's generations we're not missing out some huge chunks of what is going on? I dont buy it.