Thirty eight years ago, back in 1988, BBC Radio 3 transmitted a program called "And Then There Was Us" it was hosted by Colin Tudge, who interviewed different scientists who discussed the then new theory of an Out of Africa origin of mankind, in contrast with the multiregional theory that proposed an interconnected evolution of humans from an ancient, archaic, group of hominins. Shahin Rouhani and Mark Stoneking supported the former, and Milford Wolpoff, the latter. You can read the full transcription of the program online: And Then There Was Us Et puis nous sommes apparus by Emma E. Bird, Julia Galway-Witham, Chris Stringer, First published: 15 January 2026 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.70025.
I will share a few snippets with my comments.
Diversity and antiquity
This is the explanation of why diversity meant an "older" population, which in fact is wrong. All humans share an equally ancient genome, from teh Amazonian hunter-gatherer to the Pygmy in Congo. We all have the same age in our genes. Yet Mark Stoneking said the following: "We calculated the actual average number of mutational differences within each population-within the individuals belonging to Africa, within individuals belonging to Asia, and so forth-and then also between populations. What we found was that Africans, on the whole, were by far the most variable of the human populations that we surveyed. They were about twice as variable as the other populations. So, if these mutations are neutral (if they are just accumulating in a more-or-less steady rate over time), then the more variability, the more mutational differences a population possesses and the older it is. The inference is that the African population is the oldest."
But mutations are not neutral, and they accumulate at variable rates, others are lost, others revert, but we are all at an equal distance from our common ancestor. (I have written several posts on the variability of mutation rates). Diversity, as observed by Stoneking can also come from admixture with archaics, within Africa, adding diversity to a population that was initially less diverse.
Admixture with other hominins
At that time, admixture with other lines of hominins was unthinkable, mixing of Neanderthals and Humans was not an option, they were considered different species. But Wolpoff thought differently:
Colin Tudge: In short, the Noah's Ark, or Garden of Eden hypothesis seems to have the issues sewn up. Modern human beings arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago; they spread from there, displacing all pre-existing humans in all the rest of the world, until, by about 35,000 years ago, they were the only humans left on Earth. As they took over the world, they grew apart, at least in outward appearance, to form the present-day races. All very neat.
By contrast, on the face of it, Milford Wolpoff's idea has an unlikely feel. It explains, well enough, why the modern races look so different; after all, he believes they descended from populations of human beings who began to diverge a million years ago. But it apparently fails to explain how the races have remained so similar once you get beneath the surface, and why they are all so obviously capable of interbreeding. All the different groups indeed would have had to evolve along strictly parallel lines, from the time that they were all heavy-boned and small-brained, to the time of universal gracility and braininess. But, such criticism, he feels, is based on misunderstanding.
Milford Wolpoff: The idea of races, or sub-divisions of humanity becoming isolated and separate early in their evolution, isn't really where I'm focused. My contention is that they have become separated, but not isolated. In fact, I believe, that if human populations ever were truly isolated for long periods of time – time in the thousands of years – they would become different species, so there would be a different species in Africa, in Asia, in Europe. They could no longer interbreed with each other, they would evolve in their own directions, and we would never be telling this story because it wouldn't be relevant.
The fact that humanity never speciated, in my mind, shows definitively that there always was a fairly high level of gene flow between populations. Now, gene flow doesn't necessarily mean population movement, although often it does mean exactly that. Gene flow can mean the exchange of wives, mating networks with villages next door to each other, or tribes next door, who regularly exchange mates, so that the genes in one area can spread to another.
However, there is more to it than that. Gene flow alone really would not account for this. The changes that have occurred across human evolution are ones that largely are the consequence of human behaviour. For instance, the decrease in robustness comes as a consequence of the more efficient use of tools, tools for preparing foods, tools for hunting, tools for making your life easier; tyre-jacks to lift the car so you don't have to do it yourself. These tools would spread much more rapidly than genes, we know they did, and human populations then responded to these by changing in similar ways in different places. Brain size is the most important of these because brains almost certainly evolve and respond to the increasing complexity of behaviour. Increasing complexity of behaviour can pass from one society to another as quickly as they talk to each other, and believe me, talk to each other they did.
Colin Tudge: You would have a kind of parallel evolution, wouldn't you? Although it would not be as stark as people would suggest.
Milford Wolpoff: You know the thing about parallel evolution is that parallel evolution really only clearly works between species where there is no gene interchange. The definition of parallelism is when a feature in two descendant species evolves from a single different feature in a common ancestor. It would be as though the canines of a common ancestor were large and two descendant species both independently develop small canines. That is parallelism. It works as a definition because there is no possibility that there is gene exchange between these two species. Once there is gene exchange, then it is not clear that the two features of the two descendants work independent of each other. Consequently, I don't think that parallelism really applies.
Colin Tudge: No one can doubt Milford Wolpoff's suggestion that ancient human beings might have exchanged genes, which in practice may mean exchanging wives. The question that bothers Shahin Rouhani is whether there could have been enough exchange to have kept all the different groups on the same evolutionary course.
Shahin Rouhani: If you work out how much gene flow you would require for such a thing to take place-that is you have a constant amount of gene flow throughout a grade of tribes extending from South Africa to southeast Asia-then you come up with some problems. One of the things you come up against is that, supposing an advantageous mutant appears in South Africa, how long will it take before this mutant spreads all the way to southeast Asia? Well, if you put in a reasonable set of parameters, you get numbers like 100,000 years, or 400,000 years, for such a spread to take place. This means that if one has something like a million years only to wait for archaic Man to change into modern Man, then you can only accumulate two, three, or at most ten, advantageous mutants. The morphological differences, which we do observe in the fossil record, are so immense. Much larger brain capacity and lack of brow-ridges would require quite a few genes, and they cannot simply be changed by a handful of genes.
Colin Tudge: But Milford Wolpoff isn't one to stay on the defensive. The Noah's Ark model demands that the emerging group of modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, simply replaced all the peoples who were inhabiting the various niches of Europe and Asia. In particular – I say ‘in particular’ only because it's the most famous example – the sapiens sapiens people known as ‘Cro-Magnons’ are supposed to have simply swept aside the Neanderthals, who were so well entrenched in western Europe. That, says Professor Wolpoff, really is implausible.
Milford Wolpoff: It seems to me that the idea that an invading population would not incorporate females as they overcame an indigenous population is behaviour that is not even un-human, it's un-animal. No vertebrate really acts like that. I like to use Tasmania – the poor Tasmanians – as an example of replacement because I think it's a good example. When Europeans came to Tasmania and replaced the Tasmanians, who were said to be extinct, in fact they mixed with them. So, the Tasmanians are said to be extinct only because there are no pure-bred Tasmanians left, but many inhabitants of that island can trace their ancestry one, two, or even three grandparents to Tasmanian natives, and not to Europeans. The real replacement here was one with a massive amount of admixture, and people living on Tasmania will always show the influence of genes from the people who were presumably replaced by the Europeans. If Tasmania is a model, it means that the Neanderthals had a significant genetic input to modern populations – if there were invading populations to begin with. If Tasmania isn't a model, then I don't see what possibly could be.
Colin Tudge: If it's the case that the Cro-Magnons interbred with the Neanderthals, then of course the Neanderthal genes are still around and there ought to be people around with Neanderthal features. Who are they and where are they?
Milford Wolpoff: Well there are some right here in this room, I am afraid to say...
...
Colin Tudge: However, the notion that Neanderthals and modern humans interbred assumes that [these] the two, though different, belong to the same species; that they were both merely versions of Homo sapiens. This indeed is the common assumption, that all Homo sapiens who have lived in the past 300,000 or so years, in all their variety, have been of just one species. Indeed, that Homo erectus, who prevailed for a million years before, was also just one species. It's a nice thought, but actually it's an idea whose roots are religious rather than scientific, fitting in as it does with the human conceit that the line of evolution that led to us was without major diversion, that our unfolding was somehow inevitable. But, in modern science there is no room for such conceit. Chris Stringer sees evidence of deep divisions and indeed diversions among the humans of the past."
Ninth of July Trivia
Today is Argentina's Independence Day, we became an independent nation on July 9th, 1816, while still fighting against our Colonial Metropolis, Spain, and the Royalists in other parts of South America. Brazil, the US, UK, Portugal, and the then independent Kingdom of Hawaii all recognized our independence by 1823, but Spain would take until 1857 to acknowledge it.
You will find a street or avenue named 9 de julio (9th of July) in every town, city, and village in Argentina. The one in Buenos Aires, with its obelisk celebrating the city's 400th anniversary is shown below (it is one city block wide, a strip 3.8 km (2.4 mi) long by 100 m (330 ft) wide was razed to make way for it, between 1936 and 1986.
Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall ©
