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.

>>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?