Is this defenitive proof against OOA II theory?

[MG1962a]

If anatomically modern Homo Sapiens really did have a non matching chromosome set as has been the prevailing view (right?), then we are left with the conclusion that the hybrids who passed on the gene were all females, right?

And if that is the case, then the modern humans almost had to have raised these children to have the genes present so widely in West Asians and Europeans?

So, the level of social responsibility in the 40 000s BCE was (thankfully) much greater than that of the present day booty call?

I don't think (short of a time machine) we will ever fully understand that dynamic. But given humans almost magnetic attraction to the exotic.....I can see why Neanderthals might have done well pulling the chicks.

 

[specul8]

I thought that the most recent view was ;

The old dates for OOA theory for humans first leaving Africa are now considered as the dates for major or mass migrations with smaller ones happening earlier.

 

[Naomasa298]

I am kind of more inclined toward some kind of simultaneous multiple origins kind of theory.

What, the species that became homo sapiens simultaneously speciated into homo sapiens in multiple places at once?

 

[Dan Howard]

I am kind of more inclined toward some kind of simultaneous multiple origins kind of theory.

Me too but it is hard to push that idea without being accused of being "anti-African".

 

[Dan Howard]

What, the species that became homo sapiens simultaneously speciated into homo sapiens in multiple places at once?

"Simultaneously" from an evolutionary perspective. The actual events may have been thousands of years apart. If the same environmental influences were evident all over the world during a particular point in time, it is reasonable to expect similar evolutionary changes in similar but unrelated species.

 

[Naomasa298]

"Simultaneously" from an evolutionary perspective. The actual events may have been thousands of years apart.

But multiple speciations into the same species?

 

[Dan Howard]

But multiple speciations into the same species?

They are not the same. Experts keep broadening the definition of "homo sapiens" as more samples turn up. There are a lot of differences between individual examples. It seems that any skull that has a distinctive rounded back to it is classed as "homo sapiens" regardless of its other features.

 

[Naomasa298]

They are not the same. Experts keep broadening the definition of "homo sapiens" as more samples turn up. There are a lot of differences between individual examples.

Nonetheless, it implies multiple, largely identical, random mutations.

 

[Dan Howard]

None of them are identical. The only feature that is similar in all of them is a rounded back of the skull and even that is just an arbitrary classification. They could have created a typology based on brow shape or skull thickness instead. They chose the rounded back of the skull because it is one of the features that is shared with us today.

 

[JM1906]

Actually I got it wrong, because I tought the oldest Sapiens remains known were from east africa +-200K ago, but there were some remains from +-300K from Morocco.

Still the geography of the remains and the dates are pretty interesting.