3bb3d553   
   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...   
      
      
      
   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)