Pardon if the formatting sucks out loud but this is obviously
new to me.

And here I do quote (me), but only because reasons...

I love the map!

{insert standard Out-of-Africa migration route map}

It conflicts with most everything I ever learned though, with the
Horn of Africa the crossing point -- both back & forth.

The push inland & adaptation to inland food sources started almost
immediately.
There are many models falling under the Aquatic Ape label, just as the
African
origins claim has many different versions -- such as savanna or forest -- but
not
one of the Aquatic Ape models denies that Homo or even pre Homo found it's
way inland.

This is where the good Doctor's ideas on Chimps offer some insights.

If the Horn of Africa is the crossing point then we should find lots of early
Homo
and pre Homo there, and we do but, the further we get from the Horn, and into
Africa, the further from the Aquatic Ape population..the less evolution is
moderated.

There. Great model for turning an upright walker with hands close to our own
into
a Chimp.

But this very same model, applied elsewhere, explains MultiRegionalism.

Instead of constantly following the coast, many pushed inland, settled and
adapted. Regional variants. Multiregionalism.

We don't just have Neanderthals and Denisovans, for example, we have
populations of Denisovans, supposedly, which were as different from each
other as they are from Neanderthals...

How do we explain ANY of this with Out of Africa purity?

"Replacement?"

The good Doctor doesn't like my "Interpretation" of his model but, you've
got to admit, it does fit.

....why we say "Out of Africa" today really comes down to things like
Toba, and by that I mean primarily Toba. Sundaland, "The Usual Suspect"
in the Out of Asia model, was Ground Zero in an event that released a
conservatively estimated 250,000 nuclear weapons worth of energy. So
that wasn't nice. Catastrophic events like Toba are global. Initially. But
the equator is the best place to be, and the southern hemisphere does
better than the northern by a solid margin.

Sundaland would have been great but, again, it was Ground Zero.

This left Africa.

There. No mystery. Africa was were Homo was going to bounce back
first. And the winner was in all probability a sexually selected population.

Why? Because Africa was about as diverse as Eurasia so there wasn't
"an" African population, there were populations. Plural. Make one a
sexually selected population and they get the advantage. They get to
rebound and start filling the vacuum left by all the dying.

That's it. That's why we see "Out of Africa" today. But even so it couldn't
have been that dramatic. We know it was a breeding out -- swamping
the DNA of one group through interbreeding with another -- because we
all carry DNA from more archaic ancestors. So we know it wasn't
extinction, per se, but all do to SUCCESSFUL reproduction..just with
the wrong crowd.

There doesn't seem to be any trace of one ancestral population right
were Out of Asia says that they lived, EXCEPT for the Chromosome
11/LM3 insert from an extinct mtDNA line that was significantly older
than any "Mitochondrial Eve" in the Out of Africa story.

And it's Eurasian. Well, it's either Eurasian or not one single origins
and distribution model for modern humans is right, because if you
apply the same rules to this Chromosome 11 insert as you use to
interpret everything else, it's 100% absolutely positively Eurasian.

But there isn't a trace of this Eurasian population EXCEPT for the
lucky mutation carried by billions of people. Skip that one mutation
gluing some mtDNA to the Chromosome 11 and we wouldn't even
know that such a population once existed.

But it did exist. And it's *Way* older than any Mitochondrial Eve.
And the good Doctor's model can be used to explain it, and more,
while Out of Africa purity can't even explain why or who they could
leave Africa in the first place.