Angelica Fearonce

Anthropology
Research Paper

There are two theories of modern human origins that seem to be dominant in the debate about
human origins. These are a Regional Continuity Theory and the Replacement Model (Jurmain,
Kilgore, & Trevathan, 2013). Both have scientific relevance but may not be the only theories
that researchers should be looking at.
The replacement model holds that all modern humans evolved in Africa and moved to
other parts of the world later. When they moved, they replaced the hominids that were living in
those regions, taking it over. Of this theory, there are two versions of how it may have occurred,
one being a complete replacement and the other being partial replacement. The complete
replacement model states that the modern populations started in Africa. From there, they moved
to Europe but instead of growing with the European population, they completely replaced them.
This theory requires that modern humans came from a speciation event, meaning, some event
changed them into the modern human form which would make prior human forms actually
biologically different. This takes away genetic changes that would have otherwise been cause by
interbreeding between the two populations. The partial replacement theory is similar to complete
replacement but allows for more interbreeding between populations. Researchers believe about
one top four percent of interbreeding occurred. This is how they explain certain DNA mixtures
found in early hominids. Research suggests that interbreeding occurred after modern humans
migrated out of Africa because humans before them had no Neanderthal DNA, and Neanderthals
did not live near Africa (Jurmain, Kilgore, & Trevathan, 2013).

The regional theory suggests that populations of premodern humans in Europe, Asia, and
Africa continued, on their own, the development into the modern human form. The question that
this theory brings up, though, is how these groups of geographically separated humans,
developed so similarly over a similar time period. Researchers answer this question by showing
that the early homo sapiens did not just originate in Africa and that gene flow between these
populations was likely. Between this and natural selection, populations would have developed in
different areas but very similarly. This avoids the speciation event and classifies all humans at
this time as homo sapiens, getting rid of other classifications.
There is a newer model that is showing up that is more of a middle ground, that is one
that states that there were multiple migrations out of Africa, and some migrations back into
Africa (Gibbons, 1997). This study found a genetic haplotype that was very common in the
Asian population. They found this haplotype was found in some African groups which, to them,
indicated that this genetic combination moved from the Asian countries to Africa since it was
originally found in Asian populations. The go on to say that much of the African diversity that
was seen actually comes from Asia. Comparing all of these models and different genetic factors
with them, I think this last, modified, example makes most sense to me. If early humans moved
out of Africa, it is not hard to see how the mobility back would be possible. Showing that
genetic information moved from Asia back to Africa helps show that the mobility of people was
not just out of Africa, but that they went back as well. If people are migrating, it makes sense for
the migration to continue, it does not make sense to me that early humans would leave Africa and
then stop migrating. This model doesn't need to come up with other rules, like a speciation, to
make it work. instead, they followed the genes and showed that mobility continued both in and
out of Africa.

About 3 million years ago, early hominids became efficient at bipedal locomotion. There
were many factors leading to this, many of which happen to do with bone structure. In order to
see this happening, researchers found that orly hominid bones began to look more like modern
bones. The pelvis, for instance, shortened and became more bowl shaped as opposed to the
longer pelvis of chimpanzees. This allowed the pelvis to evenly support more weight while
standing upright. Changes were also seen in leg and hip bones that made them similar to
humans. ONeil (2012) believes that bipedalism may have been caused by environmental factors.
one factor that is states is that living in woodland and grassland habitats, early hominids needed
to be able to see over obstacles for long distances. This required them to stand higher, eventually
creating a bipedal species. There is also research showing that bipedal animals expend less
energy walking long distances and can regulate body temperature more effectively. Overtime,
bipedal feet became longer and had a more pronounced arch. Hands and arms evolved to be
able to carry more weight and less able to climb through trees like chimpanzees (ONeil, 2012).
Brain size followed along after bipedalism. Bipedalism allowed for a different
experience of the world with he onset of carrying items, the ability to use tools, and moving in a
different manner. Because of this, the brain is used differently, creating different connections,
causing the brain to grow in size. This us seen in the changes in skull sizes of chimpanzees,
early hominids, and modern human forms (ONeil, 2012).
Race means many things to many different people. When asked, it could be defined by
physical characteristics or it can be defined by certain social characteristics. Biological races
have elements of physical traits, geographic distribution, and hereditary influences all combined.
This idea comes from the fact that our genes morph with environmental inputs to show a certain
characteristic. These characteristics are subtle generally because the changes that an

environment can cause to a gene, that are visible, are generally mild. Graves (2010) states that
biological race is evident when animals, that show no or very little structural differences
between each other, are clearly biologically different. That being said, race is also used to
discuss entire populations, such as the human race.
This is a term that is used in many places, and is often used incorrectly. This is where the
social aspect of race comes into play. Social racial constructs do not match up with the idea of
biological race. Social race arbitrarily uses physical characteristics (such as skin color) to assign
people to a certain category. This categorization is often used in research to assign certain results
to a population, even though biologically the results may not fit (Graves, 2010).
Assigning people a race, and categorizing a population by that creates many ethical
dilemmas. One its that out could lead to a repeat of oppression issues that have been seen in the
past because certain characteristics could be assigned to a group of people simply based on a
particular category. Another issue is assigning certain results, like medical research results, to a
race that isnt based on any biological factors. Not taking into account an individuals biology
when looking at certain research outcomes is an issue because it does not accurately assign the
trait to an individual, at least not based on any scientific means.

References
Gibbons, A (1997). Ideas on Human Origins Evolve at Anthropology Gathering. Science. 276(5312).
535-536.
Graves, J. (2010). Biological V. Social Definitions of Race: Implications for Modern Biomedical
Research. Review Of Black Political Economy, 37(1), 43-60. doi:10.1007/s12114-009-9053-3
O'Neil, D. (2012). Early Hominin Evolution: Analysis of Early Hominids. Retrieved December 07, 2016,
from http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_2.htm