The New Multiregional Theory for the Origin of Anatomically Modern Humans Lacks congruence

Yuan et al (2017) has resurrected the multiregional theory for the origin of amh. They wrote that,“While the autosomes in our model are largely consistent with the multiregional hypothesis, the mtDNA and Y have a single origin in East Asia. We also identified Negritos and Aboriginal Australians as direct descendants of Neanderthals/Denisovans who were African migrants with Eurasian admixtures Yuan et al, 2017). “

As you can see, these researchers argued that anatomically modern humans (amh) probably originated in East Asia and spread from there into South Asia, Europe and Africa (Yuan et al,2017). The call their multiregional theory for the origin of man in East Asia the maximum genetic distance or diversity (MGD) hypothesis. 

Yuan et al (2017) claim that Heidelbergensis , Neanderthals and Denisovans were archaic Africans, and that the Andamanese were of African pygmy origin. Yuan et al (2017 wrote that “Denisovan was closer to Africans than Neanderthals were (Figure 4A). The high coverage genomes of Altai and Denisovan allowed their African affinity, especially Denisovan, apparent on a principle component analysis (PCA) plot (Figure 4B-C). In contrast to the 5 Neanderthals studied here who were mostly found in Europe and yet who were no closer to Europeans or the related Indians than other groups, their contemporary AMH Ust’-Ishim from Western Siberia was closest to SAS followed by EUR (Figure 4). These results suggest that Neanderthals and Denisovans were Africans who migrated into Eurasia and admixed with local non-Africans.”

Below is the ancestor of Neanderthals

,



.
Here is a picture of Neanderthal man



.
Yuan et al added that the “The Andamanese and the African pygmies seem obviously related in multiple aspects, including traits, Y relationship with the African megahaplogroup ABDE, and mtDNA haplotype M being closely related to African L. However, previous studies have found Andamanese to be even more genetically distant to Africans than other Eurasians (Mondal et al., 2016). Using the published genomes of 10 individuals from the Jarawa (JAR) and Onge (ONG) populations in the Andaman Islands (Mondal et al., 2016), we found that Andamanese are relatively closer to Africans or have lower AFR/SAS(-BEB) distance ratio than other nearby populations such as BEB, with ONG more so than JAR, consistent with the known less admixture in ONG relative to JAR (Figure 5A). PC analysis also showed Andamanese closer to Africans than all five populations of SAS (Figure 5B). Relative to the distance to SAS, ONG showed smaller distance to Mbuti than to San or other Africans examined except LWK (Figure 5C). The Mbuti group here consists of 4 published genomes from the Simons project (Mallick et al., 2016) and the San group consists of 2 published genomes (Schuster et al., 2010). Given that Andamanese were closer to Africans than other Indians were (Figure 5A) but Mbuti pygmies were not closer to Andamanese than some other Africans were, it can be inferred that Andamanese came from Mbuti rather than the opposite.”
In summary Yuan et al (2017) nnoted that “Our finding of Neanderthals and Denisovans as primarily Africans with Eurasian admixture is well supported by fossil data indicating H. heidelbergensis, present in both Africa and Europe, as ancestors of Neanderthals. The taurodont teeth are common in Neanderthals, Heidelbergensis and certain South African fossils (Shaw, 1928). The occipital bunning of Neanderthals are also common in modern Africans (Liu et al., 2003).”

Finally, Yuan et al (2017) observed that “Among all East Asians examined here, the genomes of Hunan people were found most enriched in Africans. Therefore, our model of modern human origins in East Asia, in particular Hunan Province in China, provides a satisfying account of all relevant data including the human specific trait of creativity and the related inventions.”
The new Multiregional Theory for the origin of man lacks Congruency 

Yuan et al (2017), made a critical error in the interpretation of their data concerning the relationship of East Asians and Africans. Because the Hunan population carry African gnomes, the authors assumed that an ancient Hunan population migrated from East Asia to China. This was a false conclusion because the first inhabitants of East Asia, were Sub-Saharan Africans or Negroes.
Rather than reading the archaeological evidence on their own Yuan et al (2017) based his MGD theory on the fact that the population of Hunan province carry genomes, that are also carried by Africans on the research of Liu et al ( 2003).

Liu et al (2003), argues that , “Our results show that even though some feature seem to characterize African humans, the expression patterns of most cranial features used in present study resemble those of East Asian humans very much, which may suggest the similar trends of the characteristics of modern humans”. This statement is clearly, contradictory. How can the earliest population East Asia have craniometrics features or characteristics of African negroes—and still be mongoloid East Asians. 

This view of Liu et al (2003), is not supported by the archaeology and cranial features of early man in East Asian which found that the earliest human remains were of Africans or negroes. Archaeological and cranial features research makes it clear that Negroids were very common to ancient China. F. Weidenreich ( 1939) noted that the one of the earliest skulls of anatomically modern humans (amh) from north China found in the Upper Cave of Zhoukoudian, were Oceanic or Melanesoid (Negro) skeletons (Chang, 1977; Weidenreich, 1939). The Melanesoid skeletons are dated between 24-27kya (Sanz, 2014). The individual in the Lower Cave was a Homo Erectus hominid (Sinanthropus pekinensis ) .

The archaeological evidence indicates that the cranial features of the Negro or Sub-Saharan African phenotype was the dominant group in South China. Kwang-chih Chang, writing in the 4th edition of Archaeology of ancient China (1986) wrote that:" by the beginning of the Recent (Holocene) period the population in North China and that in the southwest and in Indochina had become sufficiently differentiated to be designated as Mongoloid and OCEANIC NEGROID races respectively…."(p.64). By the Upper Pleistocene the Negroid type was typified by the Liu-chiang skulls from Yunnan (Chang, 1986, p.69). As a result, the mongoloid populations in East Asia only arrive in the region during the recent Holocene , while amh SSA had been in East Asia for over 27,000.

Negroid skeletons dating to the early periods of Southern Chinese history have been found in Shangdong, Jiantung, Sichuan, Yunnan, Pearl River delta and Jiangxi especially at the initial sites of Chingliengang and Mazhiabang phases ( Chang, 1977, p.76) . The Chingliengang culture is often referred to as the Dawenkou culture of North China.

The presence of Negroid skeletal remains at Dawenkou sites make it clear that Negroes were still in the Northern East Asia in addition to South China. The Dawenkou culture predates the Lung-shan culture which is associated with the Xia civilization.

As a result, the genomes of the Hunan people which Yuan et al (2017) claim are enriched in Africans, are in reality African genomes carried by the Negro Holocene population that formerly lived in East Asia before it was settled by the present mongoloid populations. This view is supported by Sanz (2014) and Weidenreich (1939) who have shown that the first anatomically modern humans in East Asia 24kya were Melanoid (i.e., Negroes), not mongoloids .


References:

Chang. K (1986). The archaeology of ancient China. New Haven, Yale University Press .

Chang. K (1977). The archaeology of ancient China. New Haven, Yale University Press .

Liu, W., Mbua, E., Wu, X., and Zhang, Y. (2003). Comparisons of cranial features between Chinese and African holocene humans and their implications. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 22, 89-104. http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/cbw/rlxxb/xbwzxz/201202/P020120221553624499119.pdf

Yuan, Dejian, Xiaoyun Lei, Yuanyuan Gui, Zuobin Zhu, Dapeng Wang, Jun Yu, and Shi Huang. "Modern human origins: multiregional evolution of autosomes and East Asia origin of Y and mtDNA." bioRxiv (2017): 101410.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/01/18/101410 

Sanz, Nuria . (2014). Human origin sites and the World Heritage Convention in Asia. UNESCO.

Weidenreich. F. 1939. On the earliest representative of modern mankind recovered on the soil of East Asia, Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13:161-173.

Winters,C. (2014b). AFRICAN AND DRAVIDIAN ORIGINS OF THE MELANESIANS. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences , 4(3):694-704. http://www.cibtech.org/J-LIFE-SCIENCES/PUBLICATIONS/2014/Vol-4-No-3/JLS-103-JLS-073-JUN-CLYDE-AFRICAN-MELANESIANS.pdf