Human Origins: Multiple?

[Vexer]

Sorry to burden you with this, and feel free to label me a Creationist (I'm not), start a hate thread, and issue me warnings every time I post for next the five years, but, I have a science question regardless:

 

I’ve always been mystified with theories about multiple “human” origins.

 

There’s been a tension between the single genesis idea and the multiple origins idea. I understand the single, out-of-Africa, is back ‘in’. Which I can understand. Indeed have studied.

 

But I never understood what was meant by “several human races” existing at one time. I’ve heard this, many times. Talk of several species emerging around the world, all being ‘human’?

 

When they say human, what do they mean?

 

Isn’t your DNA the definition of human?

 

Are they making a relative call and saying these other species are ‘near enough’? Based on?

 

Genuine question, Try not to burn me. (This time)

[Oracle]

Very good topic, I'm keen to hear some good replies.

[zule]

Firstly, there are not wild animal races. I have never heart about lion races or wolf races. There are dog races, cat races, cow races, pig races… when we refer to these races, we are talking about a set of features that have been artificially selected for the man. Humans have crossed between themselves animals with certain desirable features to increase these ones.

So, what we call “human races” doesn’t have anything to do with the remainder of races. Luckily, Hitler didn’t success on his goal. Besides, we also use the term “human race” to mean “all the humans”.

 

On the other hand, the so called "human races" are some similar between them that I don't find any reason to be separated in races. I’m pretty sure that if an ET arrived at Earth without previously known anything about them, he wouldn’t relate a Chihuahua to a Saint Bernard, not even a German sheepdog to a greyhound. However, he will easily relate all the “human races” between them. I think that the diference between "human races" is ore psychological and/or cultural than real.

 

And finally, the main issue: How would you explain that two “races” that have independently aroused, can reproduce between them? That wouldn’t be a coincidence. That would be a miracle.

[Daecon]

If you're talking about things like Neanderthal or Australopithecus, they're different branches descending from the same common ancestor who was recognizably "Human" as opposed to a hominid of the Great Apes.

[CDarwin]

Sorry to burden you with this, and feel free to label me a Creationist (I'm not), start a hate thread, and issue me warnings every time I post for next the five years, but, I have a science question regardless:

 

I’ve always been mystified with theories about multiple “human” origins.

 

There’s been a tension between the single genesis idea and the multiple origins idea. I understand the single, out-of-Africa, is back ‘in’. Which I can understand. Indeed have studied.

 

But I never understood what was meant by “several human races” existing at one time. I’ve heard this, many times. Talk of several species emerging around the world, all being ‘human’?

 

When they say human, what do they mean?

 

Isn’t your DNA the definition of human?

 

Are they making a relative call and saying these other species are ‘near enough’? Based on?

 

Genuine question, Try not to burn me. (This time)

 

What you're actually talking about is Multiregionalism vs. Out of Africa. These are two models for the emergence of anatomically modern humans, i.e. Homo sapiens, our species proper. Out-of-Africans propose that H. sapiens evolved exclusively in Africa and then spread out across the world replacing the other 'human' (hominid) species already on the continents of Europe (Neanderthals) and Asia (H. erectus) respectively.

 

Multiregionalism proposes that modern humans involved in situ from populations of H. erectus in Africa, Asia, and Europe (sometimes including the Neanderthals, sometimes not) that interbred along the way. It cites as evidence similarities between modern Asians and Asian Homo erectus mostly.

 

The weight of the genetic evidence supports of Out of Africa, but it's not infallible. Considering, however, the great antiquity of H. sapiens that have been found in Africa, the overly complex nature of Multiregionalism, and its basis in anatomical traits that have other explanations I and most anthropologists tend to reject it.

 

It's fairly popular in China though for nationalistic reasons.