Out of Africa

[Geroth]

What are you're thoughts on the "Out of Africa Theory". Do you believe it or not?

[Osprey]

No.

[Pretan]

No
_Z9NWJrWKRY

[Libertas]

Out of EAST Africa .

[Pallantides]

Mesolithic Europeans show traces of SSA ancestry.

[Corvus]

Yes I believe in it to some degree

[sturmwalkure]

Not at all. It is an insult to even consider we are descended from Niggers.

[Siginulfo]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2009746/Modern-mans-ancestor-Homo-erectus-extinct-108-000-years-earlier-previously-thought.html#ixzz1SmuAiGkF:cool:

[Viljuska]

Out of Africa? Could be, but it doesn't mean anything considering the whole evolution process.

[Sforza]

It is science... it's not a matter of belief, it is matter of evidence.

The question (of) whether one believes in it or not, is irrelevant. For example I may believe as hard as I like that the earth is flat but as long as evidence proves me wrong, my "belief" is irrelevant, same with anyone's belief in this matter.

The out of Africa hypothesis is the best supported one. As long as we are not finding a better theory we have no good reason to theorize otherwise... "Belief" never enters the equation though... OP's question -thus- is meaningless and (like I wrote above) it's answer irrelevant, sorry...

[Stefan]

It is science... it's not a matter of belief, it is matter of evidence.

The question (of) whether one believes in it or not, is irrelevant. For example I may believe as much as I like that the earth is flat but as long as evidence proves me wrong my "belief" is irrelevant, same with anyone's belief in this matter.

The out of Africa hypothesis is the best supported one. As long as we are not finding a better theory we have no good reason to theorize otherwise... "Belief" never enters in the equation though... OP's question -thus- is meaningless, sorry...

In this context, belief is a less accurate approximation for acceptance. In science, you can accept or not accept theories, as long as you have a good reason to refute it. You don't necessarily need a better theory either. You can be perfectly content with not accepting a theory as the full picture, yet still understand it has the most evidence. It happens all the time in science and it is encouraged. The best progress for science, and the basis of the scientific method, is rooted in skepticism.

[RagnarLodbrok666]

No
_Z9NWJrWKRY

I know its such a bogus theory with no basis in natural history nor darwinism whatsoever. Ape-like humaniods discover magic mushrooms or start using utencils to eat with and rock tools in the heart of the congo and all of the sudden their future generations become cro-magnons and migrate all over the world.

Bullshit...its the stuff of fairy tails. Cro-magnons and neantherthals came about on their own after the ape-like creatures died off after millions of years of evolution. Their were different strains and subspecies of both species living across the continents during the ice ages some strains from both species breeding with each other. None of these strains originated in Africa. Only the pigmy strain of cro-magnon that would later become black african people.

[Maestrale]

What are you're thoughts on the "Out of Africa Theory". Do you believe it or not?

Could be, dunno, don't care.

[Sforza]

In this context, belief is a less accurate approximation for acceptance. In science, you can accept or not accept theories, as long as you have a good reason to refute it. You don't necessarily need a better theory either. You can be perfectly content with not accepting a theory as the full picture, yet still understand it has the most evidence. It happens all the time in science and it is encouraged. The best progress for science, and the basis of the scientific method, is rooted in skepticism.

Sure enough but we do not have good reason to do that either. All the rest of the creatures coming from the hominid family are indigenous of Sub-Saharan Africa. It's not a stretch to theorize that the genus Homo also evolved there.

Of course before Homo Sapiens there were Homo Erectus and Neanderthalensis both indigenous outside of Africa but even if you take the view that we're evolved from them (of which genetics say otherwise) you'd *still* end up in Africa if you go back enough in time.

The whole argument -though- is irrelevant from a racialistic point of view as well, since the out of Africa theory states that Homo Sapiens walked out of Africa about 70 *thousand* years ago. That's a long time ago, enough to create considerable evolutionary discrepancies between the races, but not enough for speciation of course...

[Stefan]

There are two ways we can view this, generally. Either, H. Heidelbergensis left Africa and Homo Sapiens convergently evolved through gene-flow. Mitochondrial Eve being the progenitor of all mtDNA due to one of these updates; or, H. Sapiens developed from H. Heidelbergensis in Africa and then separated: some staying in Africa which later developed into Capoids + Negroids others leaving, a sort of Proto-Australoid population. The group that left, then mixed with the convergently evolved Neanderthals. Through a variety of complex back-migrations and possibly different waves of people leaving Africa, we have the populations we've got today.

If it is the first and not the latter, then one must wonder why Caucasians are not as close to Neanderthals as we should be. This could possibly be explained by gene-flow from Africa, but then you just have to wonder, is that really a difference; evolution-wise? One would still be more similar to Negroids/Capoids than Neanderthals.

[Stefan]

Sure enough but we do not have good reason to do that either.

I was arguing semantics and the scientific method, rather than whether or not the theory is sound proof. Don't mind me. ;)

Edit: Basically my point was that we don't need a better theory. We just need to find a flaw in this one, and whether or not we find something to replace it is irrelevant.