[otabdeveloper4]

> OOA (with minor admixture) is the consensus position for a lot of excellent reasons

It isn't really. Serious historians and geneticists take great issue with it.

It's only really the pop-anthropologists (the non-rigorous social science ones) who think OOA is a settled issue.

[AlotOfReading]

You're going to have to explain this one. The only thing I can figure is that you're making a distinction about "traditional" RAO vs modern hybridization models, but my comment already mentions those (albeit indirectly, given that I'm writing to an audience).

But if you're genuinely trying to say that the broad strokes out of africa model isn't consensus, I have no idea what you're talking about. Just to make sure I haven't missed some momentous event since the last time I was doing fieldwork, I even checked some unpublished books, review papers, and actual research. They all talk about OOA as completely settled or instead simply assume it.

Is this like a CAS thing? Truly baffled.

[otabdeveloper4]

OOA is extremely problematic. Lots of hoops are needed to make it work - a double exodus from Africa and a population bottleneck, etc. None of these hoops are needed if we just let go and assume a Middle Eastern origin for homo sapiens.

Basically the only reason a Kuhnian paradigm shift isn't happening is because of American politics; OOA is needed to debunk some stupid 19th century American racial theories. (Theories that the rest of the world doesn't even know or care about.)

[AlotOfReading]

A middle eastern origin presents obvious problems explaining the genetic diversity data and the serial founder effects we observe globally. These naturally fall out of African origin, whereas a middle eastern origin needs a back to Africa that somehow avoids founder effects.

Which stupid racial theories do you think African origin is trying to debunk and why would the many European researchers working on human origins care?

[selimthegrim]

But where’s the evidence? I haven’t heard Reich or Paäbo go about this.