Out of Africa or multiregional

Which hypothesis is correct, leaving aside that the majority of academia chooses the first one for unknown reasons? The limited fossil record seem to match both.

Genetic evidence points pretty strongly to a common African ancestor. Also, archaeological evidence suggests that humans did not evolve separately from various hominids and then interbreed.  Rather, homo sapiens evolved in Africa, and proceeded to force these competing species into extinction as homo sapiens migrated into Europe and Asia.

>>2
Actually, some species like homo erectus and Neanderthals (perhaps not a species, but still went extinct for some reason) migrated into India and Europe, respectively, before they were out-competed by homo sapiens. Homo erectus, I believe, have already reached to the Arabian penninsula before homo sapiens started to appear.

>>3
Right, that goes along with what I was saying.  The multi-regional theory basically says that those various species of humans, like Erectus, branched off into different groups as they moved out of Africa. Eventually each group evolved into the various sub-groups of homo-sapiens we have today.

Out of Africa, on the other hand, says that homo sapiens didn't evolve from these species.  It theorizes modern humans evolved only in Africa, and replaced other groups as they spread across Europe and Asia.

Then again, it's very possible that I'm not quite clear on what the multi-regional theory is saying (discovery channel specials hosted by a Baldwin, and wikipedia only do so much to teach human evolution).

>>4
You are wrong, there are no sub-groups of homo sapiens, because there is only one species, homo sapiens, which came from homo erectus when it was spread across Africa and the Arabian penninsula. The other groups, the homo erectus and Neantherals, also went out of Africa, but were eventually replaced by the Cro Magnonn

>>5
You are wrong, there are no sub-groups of homo sapiens, because there is only one species, homo sapiens
Homo sapiens sapiens, Homo sapiens idaltu, Homo sapiens archaic, Homo sapiens steinheimensis.

In any case, sapiens, idaltu, archaic, etc. are all one species if the exist (I'm not sure, since I have never heard of them) and so could only have come from one species, not multiple.

>>7
Good thing you weren't claiming they were separate species, then. You were claiming there were no subgroups of Homo sapiens, which would be bullshit even if there weren't any subspecies.

And even a layperson with a very casual interest in human evolution should have heard of Homo sapiens idaltu, at least. You've just lost all credibility on the subject.

>>5
By sub groups, I meant races.  I'm no biologist, so I have no idea what the proper term for that would be.  From what I gather multiregional theorists believe Homo erectus essentially evolved into modern humans in 4 or 5 different ways, which is the reason for the different 'types' of humans we see on each continent.

Obviously that's dumbing it down a good deal, but that's the gist it seems.

>>8
Sir, I know only what I have from a high-school biology course and a TV documentary. Of course I am not going to know much, but clearly they came from Africa and the Arabian Penninsula, from a single species. And the races clearly developed later, due to regional climate (sunlight etc.)

>>9
You know races are a subdivision of subspecies, right?

>>1
I'm an agnostic on both, but you are right, the fossil record fits both almost the same (though it might favour multiregional slightly). Despite that, I still generally favour OOA.
>>2
Genetic evidence points pretty strongly to a common African ancestor.
You are parroting the mainstream version. Genetic evidence does not prove OOA, unless you assume a priori that OOA is correct. For one example, M and N as offshoots of L is an assumption based a priori on the OOA. We know that L is older, but again, claiming that M and N are offshoots of L is simply analogous to reading tea leaves. (I am, of course, talking about haplogroups.)
Anyway read the Neanderthal genome debates with the two camps claiming it fits their model best.
Also, archaeological evidence suggests that humans did not evolve separately from various hominids and then interbreed.
The archaeological evidence we have slightly favours MR, but it might just be a false positive. Though, for the sake of fairness, we have to assume that it fits both the same.
That, even assuming OOA, homo sapiens and neanderthals could interbreed is pretty much an yes. Assuming a gene flow should not be so outrageous, but people seem to go "Eek, neanderthal cooties!" ...
Rather, homo sapiens evolved in Africa, and proceeded to force these competing species into extinction as homo sapiens migrated into Europe and Asia.
Maybe so.
tl;dr: We don't know yet. Stop claiming that we do.
>>4
The best short version I know of to explain the differences is this piece written by John Hawks (he's also one of the authors of the excellent recent paper of accelerated evolution):
http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/modern_human_origins/multiregional_vs_out_of_africa.w
You'll have to read peer reviewed articles for a longer explanation, there are some online.
>>5-11
This subspecies/races thing is semantics, not biology. Both exist.

Actually, I have never heard of this, but given the low knowledge I have on this, I have heard that homo sapiens first appears when homo erectus was alread on the Arabaian Penninsula, and gradually replaced homo erectus, who seperately colonized India, and eventually homo sapiens drove homo erectus extinct. That's what I have heard in a TV documentary, at least.