XPost: sci.anthropology, sci.archaeology, soc.history.ancient
XPost: soc.history.medieval
From: jtem01@gmail.com

Quoting the most brilliant JTEM, speaking on the subject of
Multiregionalism... if not straight from the pages of
Wolpoff then close enough...

<Quote>

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/xQhziu3r1kI/m/LPC_BJegCwAJ

Why not two or more populations? Why not having a species
evolve, radiate out and then each group adapting to it's
own unique environment? Why not having all these different
groups bumping into each other, interbreeding, exchanging
genes JUST ENOUGH to moderate all that adaptation?

Understand?

With MANY gene pools instead of just the one, beneficial
traits are more likely to arise, pop up much more often
than with a single gene pool. And those traits could and
would still be passed along to the other populations.

What is also great about this model is that only the
traits which are beneficial to ALL the populations (or
the most populations) are the ones that everyone is
going to retain & compound. So an arboreal adaption
isn't going to last very long in a coastal population,
regardless of how beneficial it is to the forest
dwellers. But, say, a communications or intelligence
gene might not only be retained by the other populations,
but thanks to all their unique environments they may
actually refine it (evolutionary speaking), carry it to
the next level.

So, the "Multi Regional" model, this "Hybridization"
model seems quite effective, while the 19th century
linear model doesn't so much as effectively explain
WHY evolution would take place, much less how.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)