Today, during my reading and study session, I discussed theoretical questions with other comrades. The question we discussed was the title: “Where did humanity originally come from? Is it from Africa or did multiple regions develop simultaneously?” Before I was exposed to Marxism, I had a great interest in biology and had researched related issues. Currently, the mainstream view in society is the African origin theory, with DNA evidence as the main argument. For example, modern Chinese people are derived from Homo sapiens in Africa, and there is reproductive isolation from Beijing Man, which is a post-zygotic barrier. Human maternal mitochondrial DNA and paternal Y chromosomes are inherited, so they can be used as evidence for research; another comrade supports the multiple regions simultaneously origin theory, stating that humans from various ethnic groups and regions worldwide all originate from Africa, denying the possibility of human development in other areas. Why can people in Africa develop, but others cannot? Then we looked into books from the Cultural Revolution period, “The Hundred Thousand Why Human History” and “Humanity Continues and Opens Up.” “Humanity Continues and Opens Up” did not discuss this aspect, while “The Hundred Thousand Why Human History” provided the following explanation: it proposed both the African origin theory and the Asian origin theory but did not reach a definitive conclusion. I hope to study and discuss this issue further with more comrades on the forum.
Regarding the theory of African origin, another comrade stated that DNA evidence is not sufficient proof and that bourgeois positivism should not be adopted.
Regarding this statement, it closely resembles this origin
In 1987, a new hypothesis emerged, proposed by three geneticists, suggesting that modern humans did not evolve from Homo erectus on the Eurasian continent, but rather that about 200,000 years ago, a new human lineage was born in Africa, the earliest modern humans. They approximately left Africa 100,000 to 50,000 years ago, spread across Eurasia, and became the direct ancestors of current Homo sapiens; this diffusion process is believed to have occurred through “complete replacement,” meaning that the indigenous archaic populations living in Eurasia, including Peking Man, either went extinct during evolution or were replaced by early modern humans who spread out, leaving no descendants. This theory later became very popular, and some geneticists in China also held this view, even proposing that the region of China was a blank period for human existence 100,000 to 50,000 years ago. Thus, Peking Man seems to have been excluded from the candidate populations of modern human ancestors.
However, even Zhong Xiu himself said that this view is not universally accepted
Not all scholars support the idea of “the single-origin hypothesis of modern humans in Africa.” Some anthropologists, both Chinese and foreign, still advocate that modern humans evolved gradually from different ancient human populations in different regions, known as the “Multiregional Evolution Theory.” Academician Wu Xinzhì of the Chinese Academy of Sciences proposed, based on the “Multiregional Evolution Theory,” that the evolution model of East Asian humans is “continuous evolution with hybridization,” meaning that during the formation of East Asian modern humans, the local archaic humans represented by Peking Man continuously evolved as the main line, with gene mixing from incoming populations playing a supplementary role; he also believes that populations in the East and West have never truly been isolated or diverged into different species. According to this hypothesis, Peking Man is the ancestor of modern East Asians.
Since 2010, the situation has changed somewhat, and these two viewpoints have become more similar. An important reason is ancient DNA analysis, which revealed that Neanderthals, previously thought to be completely extinct, who lived in Europe, Western Asia, and Siberia, actually did not go extinct entirely; they interbred with the so-called “early modern humans” that spread out from Africa, and some of their genes have been passed down, so modern Europeans and Asians carry some of their genetic information. Additionally, DNA analysis in Siberia discovered a new human species—the “Denisovans”—who also interbred with Neanderthals and early modern humans, and we carry their genes as well. Recently, individuals from the northern Philippines’ Luzon Island, dating back 50,000 to 70,000 years, were found to be small and morphologically distinct, called “Luzon Man,” and some scholars believe they may be descendants of Homo erectus represented by Peking Man. Previously, on Indonesia’s Flores Island, a small dwarf human—Hobbits—was found dating to about 50,000 years ago, believed to be an ancient human population left behind in a closed island environment. Thus, the academic community has realized that the evolution of modern humans is not a dramatic scenario of a new human lineage emerging from Africa and spreading everywhere to become the pure, single ancestors of current populations; some extinct archaic populations also left descendants, and our ancestors were formed by different ancient human groups.
As for DNA evidence, there seems to be no clear proof that Peking Man and modern Chinese are reproductively isolated
Some might say, just sequence the DNA of Peking Man and compare it with ours, and the problem would be solved. Unfortunately, the ancient fossils like Peking Man are so old that they generally do not preserve organic material, making DNA extraction and analysis impossible.
Some argue that Peking Man and modern humans do not belong to the same race and are reproductively isolated, and we cannot be their descendants. However, this view is also incorrect. Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens are classified based on the physical characteristics shown in fossils, and these so-called “races” more likely reflect the concept of “temporal races.” From fossil morphology alone, it is impossible to confirm whether there was reproductive isolation between the different human groups over time. If we say that Peking Man and modern humans cannot produce offspring, it is like saying that a grandfather who has long passed away cannot have children with his still-living great-grandchild—they are from different eras and never had the chance to meet!
As for reproductive isolation, I think even if it exists, it doesn’t necessarily indicate any problem, because Beijingers have been around for 700,000 to 800,000 years. During this process, humans have transformed themselves through labor, and reproductive isolation might not be that strange. Sociality is more important than biological factors.
The following are my results from asking chatGPT (this chatGPT has been extensively trained with materials on the Cultural Revolution articles and association articles)
This is a highly worthwhile theoretical issue for in-depth discussion. — Regarding the scientific debate on human origins (“Out of Africa” theory vs. “Multiregional evolution” theory), if viewed solely from the perspective of natural sciences, it is a disagreement among molecular biology, anthropology, and paleontology; but if we analyze from the standpoint of Marxist historical materialism and dialectical materialism, it must be placed within the overall context of historical development, material movement, and social conditions, rather than isolated conclusions from a single discipline replacing philosophical understanding. Below, I systematically discuss this issue:
- The Marxist perspective on the starting point of “human origins”: Labor creates humans
Engels in “The Role of Labor in the Transition from Ape to Human” already pointed out: “Labor created man himself.”
This statement establishes the fundamental position of historical materialism in studying human origins — the emergence of humans was not a sudden “species mutation,” nor an isolated biological change, but the result of long-term interaction between natural selection and labor practice, from quantitative change to qualitative change.
Therefore, Marxism is concerned not with “where human races come from,” but with when and how apes developed into humans through labor practice. Labor, language, social interaction, and tool-making are the basic conditions for biological evolution — without these practices, there would be no “human.”
In other words:
“Human origins” are not simply a geographical issue, but a natural history issue of socialization;
It is not about asking “where did it happen,” but “how did it happen.”
- Two scientific theories
In the context of natural sciences, “Out of Africa” and “Multiregional hypothesis” are two models.
Out of Africa
Based on comparisons of mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosome, and ancient DNA, modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago, then migrated to Eurasia, replacing archaic humans (such as Neanderthals, Homo erectus).
Representatives: C. Stringer, P. Andrews, etc.
Multiregional hypothesis
It believes that Homo erectus spread to Africa, Europe, and Asia around 2 million years ago, and continued to evolve into modern humans in different regions, with gene flow among regions, thus maintaining as a single species.
Representatives: Chinese scholar Wu Xinzhi, American scholar M. Wolpoff, etc.
Chinese paleoanthropology supports a “continuous evolution + gene exchange” model, believing that Peking Man and Zhoukoudian Homo erectus have certain genetic links with modern East Asians.
In the scientific community, these two models have long been opposed, but in recent years, a comprehensive model has emerged:
Modern humans mainly originated from Africa, but during their expansion, they experienced limited hybridization and gene flow with archaic humans in various regions. For example, about 1%–3% of Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA exists in the modern human genome. In other words: Africa-centered origin with supplementary regional exchange.
- From a materialist historical perspective: these two views are not absolutely opposed
Dialectical materialism tells us:
All biological evolution is not a linear process of “single origin” or “pure diffusion,” but a systemic evolution with multiple centers, multiple stages, and interconnections;
There are relatively concentrated points of origin (because species differentiation requires common ecological conditions), but they are inevitably accompanied by subsequent distribution, differentiation, and fusion.
Therefore, viewing “Out of Africa” and “Multiregional” theories as mutually exclusive is metaphysical. They can be unified dialectically:
The “origin center” in biology can be relatively singular, but the formation of human society and culture is multi-centered and develops in parallel worldwide.
In other words: the biological origin of a species may be concentrated, but the human social origin must be diverse.
After Homo sapiens left Africa, differences in environment, labor methods, and social structures in various regions quickly led to diverse human cultures and physical traits, which is the earliest starting point of “world history.”
- The misconception of “why Africa can develop while other places cannot”
That comrade raised the question “Why can Africa originate, but other regions cannot,” which actually confuses biological adaptation in evolution with “innate differences.”
The biological “center of origin” is not a “center of superiority,” but a result of specific natural conditions. For example:
The tropical regions of Africa had the most suitable climate and resources for primate survival during the early Pleistocene;
Fossil distribution of Homo erectus and early humans was earliest and most concentrated here;
It is not that “Africans are smarter,” but that the local environment first provided the ecological stage for the development of labor and language.
Later, with the use of tools and fire, Homo sapiens groups left Africa, adapted to new environments, and independently evolved their own traits in Asia and Europe.
This shows that human development is not “monopoly of Africa,” but the result of the unity of natural-social historical movement.
- From the perspective of intellectual history: the ideological issue of “Out of Africa” theory
Your discussion is very thoughtful — indeed, in contemporary “mainstream discourse,” the Out of Africa theory is sometimes imbued with political correctness and misused as an argument for “human common origin, no differences”; meanwhile, “Multiregional evolution” is sometimes exploited by nationalists to promote “local superiority.”
Marxist historical materialism must avoid these two extremes:
On one hand, oppose using “scientific discoveries” as symbols of national pride — science must be based on facts, not political posturing;
On the other hand, prevent conflating biological “origin” with social-historical “starting point” — the subject of social history is not genes, but labor and relations of production.
Marxism cares not about the biological source of races, but about how human society transitions from natural history to history.
- Using dialectical materialism to unify the two
We can summarize as follows:
The emergence of humans is a unity of single origin and multi-regional development.
Biologically, modern Homo sapiens indeed mainly originate from Africa;
Sociologically and historically, after leaving Africa, humans independently developed labor forms, social organizations, and cultural systems in different regions, which is the historical fact of “multi-center development.”
Therefore, scientifically, “Out of Africa” and “Multiregional evolution” are not mutually exclusive but are different levels of description:
The former describes biological origin (natural history);
The latter describes social formation (human history).
- Conclusion
From the standpoint of Marxist historical materialism, we should understand:
The fundamental difference between humans and animals is not in geographical origin, but in labor, language, and social production;
All peoples and regions are different historical branches of the same species formed through collective labor;
Therefore, discussing “Africa or multiple regions” is not about seeking “who is earlier, who is higher,” but about revealing the dialectical unity of natural evolution and social practice.
As Engels said:
“Labor created man, and the history of labor is the true history of humanity.”
Why not believe it now that DNA sequencing is so advanced, especially since during Mao Zedong’s era there was no molecular anthropology?
Are you saying that the socialist Chinese scientists who wrote works such as “Humanity’s Continuity and Innovation” and “Biological Life Continues Unceasingly,” especially those studying evolution, are inferior in biology to imperialist bourgeois scholars who judge whether humans evolved from monkeys, claim that people of different skin colors are not the same species, and use evolution to wildly promote Social Darwinism and racial theories? Isn’t that a bit too absurd? Those who even support the idea that humans evolved from monkeys are labeled heretics—where can they go to study human evolution?
It’s not little brother, this is science. Just watch a few popular science videos on Bilibili and you’ll see. Science has nothing to do with political stance.
Among all sciences, Marxism is the most fundamental science. It is unscientific to believe that humans are created solely by labor and that humans are determined entirely by DNA. Moreover, even within the scope of biological movement, DNA does not completely determine everything; DNA is also influenced by the environment, which can cause changes.
Marxism is also a correct science; the idea that labor creates humans was proposed by Engels, isn’t that science? Science and political stance are also related. The ape lawsuit case was not created by extremely reactionary Catholics; isn’t that a direct relationship?
2+2=4没有阶级，但科学家都是有阶级的。在阶级社会，一切事物都被打上阶级的烙印。他们提出的理论，也是服务于他们的阶级的。资产阶级科学家不可能提出损害资产阶级利益的理论学说，就像居里夫人的同事，他就因为开了镭厂，而在明知镭辐射危害的情况下让女工接触镭。资产阶级生物学的权威、诺贝尔奖得主沃尔森在访谈中信誓旦旦地称：黑人是未完全进化的人种，他们没有晚期智人的基因突变片段“所以他们天生智力低下、只知滥交、好逸恶劳、野蛮落后”。这话难道没有阶级立场吗
The idea that scientific and political positions are unrelated is also quite laughable. Isn’t it true that the origin of species was initially opposed by Catholics? Doesn’t that clearly show that science and political stances are connected? Just look at how Darwin’s theory of evolution was banned everywhere. If the historical records are so detailed, why not believe them?
Are you not allowed to freely discuss scientific issues? Also, this post doesn’t completely deny the research findings of modern science, so why do you always speak so aggressively? Can’t we communicate normally?
I don’t have a high level of education and I don’t understand either. Now humans have already achieved gene editing. I think it might take a few decades of development to reach the point where human practice can directly decide DNA, and of course, it will also cause the rich and the poor to become different from each other in terms of species 
That indicates that Black people indeed don’t have fragments of late Homo sapiens. I think we shouldn’t deny all the knowledge discovered just because of the conclusion he mentioned, right? But it’s true that what he said is very typical of an old white man.
I’m not being aggressive when I speak; I wasn’t even angry. To be honest, this is the first time I’ve received so many replies, and I’m quite happy.
I’m sorry to tell you that social movements dominate biological movements; even if the exploiting class transforms itself into superhumans, parasitism every day will lead to degeneration.
It’s not that you are not allowed to speak, but discussing science should be done with a serious and earnest attitude, rather than showing off with hearsay and things you don’t understand. This makes people feel very unrefined.
First of all, your words are promoting a conspiracy theory of black catastrophe. Black people themselves do not lack fragments of late Homo sapiens; Watson deliberately distorts facts in interviews to attack and slander black people. Historically, people of all ethnic groups, including blacks, have created brilliant cultures and made significant contributions to the development of human civilization (such as ancient Egypt and the Nubians), which more than convincingly proves the absurdity of the so-called black catastrophe theory. Secondly, I have never said that reaching this conclusion means denying the discovery of DNA; my above point is that bourgeois scientists distort facts for their class interests, and there is no such thing as “science that has nothing to do with political stance” beyond class. Finally, the term “old white man” is also class-insensitive; Watson is a bourgeois scientist, so he naturally supports the black catastrophe theory that benefits imperialist countries’ invasion of Black Africa. The phrase “old white man” is like suggesting that white men naturally engage in racial discrimination.
“Rich and poor are no longer the same species,” this kind of statement is incorrect. Your logic is: now that gene editing technology has developed, it indicates that humans can edit genes in the future, which will lead to rich and poor not being the same species. However, biological movement and social movement cannot be equated. Chairman Mao said, “Man’s understanding of matter is the understanding of the movement form of matter, because apart from the moving matter, there is nothing in the world, and the movement of matter must take certain forms.” The various material movements in the universe can be summarized into five basic forms: mechanical, physical, chemical, biological, and social. Biological movement and social movement cannot be confused. If we use biological movement to explain society, we cannot understand why the proletariat would, for revolutionary ideals, disregard biological self-interest, fear torture and death; this would also rationalize the oppression in capitalist society, and consider sexual assault as not gender oppression, not something that developed from entering a private property society, but as something as enduring as natural phenomena. Secondly, human gene editing technology is not yet so advanced. Currently, the most commonly used gene editing technology in laboratories is CRISPR-Cas9. It first recognizes a specific DNA sequence, then uses nucleases to cut the double strand, and the cell inserts, deletes, or replaces certain gene fragments through “non-homologous end joining” or “homologous recombination.” It is evident that it can only replace a very small amount of DNA. Humans have over 20,000 genes, and off-target effects can cause unknown mutations and diseases. It is fundamentally impossible to create a new species through DNA editing. Perhaps you’ve watched too many sci-fi movies about the bourgeoisie. The reason humans are different from animals is not in DNA. Biological movement is extremely slow, taking millions of years. Moreover, bourgeois scientists currently cannot conduct correct scientific research; they are just seeking funding under the guise of scientific research. Even if the experimental and control groups’ data are completely identical, they will alter the data to publish papers and make money. True science will not develop when capitalism is about to perish; at that time, the bourgeoisie’s only concern is how to suppress the people’s revolution and maintain their rule, just like today’s “Zhongxiu” (a term referring to revisionist or reformist forces). Even if the bourgeoisie edits genes, it is just a more developed version of “the rich have their tuberculosis, and the poor have theirs.” Even after editing genes, the bourgeoisie remains oppressors and exploiters. Can capitalist society still exist for decades? The proletarian revolution is increasingly developing, and the old society is about to be overthrown. It is uncertain whether it can exist for another ten years.