Nuggin,
I brought up the Wiki article on what you are refering to. According to the article, it is known as the '
Toba Catastrophe Theory' According to that article, the theory says:
quote:
[A] massive volcanic eruption severely reduced the human population ... around 70-75,000 years ago [when] the Toba caldera in Indonesia underwent an eruption of category 8 (or "mega-colossal") on the Volcanic Explosivity Index. ... [reducing] the average global temperature by 5 degrees Celsius for several years and [possibly triggering] an ice age.
[Stanly] Ambrose postulates that this massive environmental change created population bottlenecks in the various species that existed at the time; this in turn accelerated differentiation of the isolated human populations, eventually leading to the extinction of all the other human species except for the two branches that became Neanderthals and modern humans.
The article continues with an addressing of the genetic diversity of other species, saying:
quote:
[that] most recent common ancestors traced via large sets of different genes lived anywhere from 2 million to 60,000 years ago. The complete picture of gene lineages does not support the theory of a human population bottleneck.
As the article concludes, there is little liklihood of this theory being correct, since these much older species show no signs of the bottlenecking postulated with this theory. Furthermore, the claim that:
quote:
...humans once again fanned out from Africa after Toba when the climate and other factors permitted.
... doesn't address the dating problems. According to this graphic:
Map of Human Migrations (from
Wikipedia :: Human)
H. sapiens were moving out of Africa at least 130 kya, and had populated Australia by at least 60 kya. This source, as you can tell, is pro-'Out of Africa.' In this case, the Toba Catastrophe Theory and 'Out of Africa' Theory seem to disagree.
The Toba Catastrophe Theory doesn't seem to agree with the genetic evidence, nor is it consistent with either of the competing human evolution models. It is perhaps safe to say that the Catastrophe Theory is unsubstantiated, and even irrelivant”at least in regards to the two theories.
Regards,
Jon
__________________
Note to Creos who might want to quote mine me: the word theory is used loosely here, and in my opinion (and perhaps in the opinions of others) is a misrepresentation of this idea, which is really just an hypothesis.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.