[bee_rider]

What’s the most significant difference between the theories? The Wikipedia article says:

> “The primary competing scientific hypothesis is currently recent African origin of modern humans, which proposes that modern humans arose as a new species in Africa around 100-200,000 years ago, moving out of Africa around 50-60,000 years ago to replace existing human species such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals without interbreeding.[5][6][7][8] This differs from the multiregional hypothesis in that the multiregional model predicts interbreeding with preexisting local human populations in any such migration.”

But it is a somewhat weird quote in the Wikipedia article. They’ve got the whole thing in quotes with multiple citations (so it isn’t clear which citation the quote comes from), it isn’t attributed to anybody in particular, and it doesn’t seem to be a very accurate description of what I though the consensus was, at least. (It is widely believed that humans interbred with other hominids, right?)

[miniwark]

With recent genetics proofs than early human, did have interbreed with at last Neanderthals and Denisovans, this is now indeed more "true" than the "Only from Africa" hypothesis.

Thad said:

- as the time of the emergence of both theories there where no genetics evidences yet in one way or another

- the interbreeding with this two other species is still very small, (less than 5% of the actual genes). There is still no evidences for other important species like Homo erectus (or hedelbergensis, or florensis, etc.)

The truth maybe in between: a major pool of gene from Africa, but with small local parts from all over the ancient world.

The big remaining question is:

- Did sapiens and erectus had babies? And if yes, then, what was the results (Denisova or something else ?).