Out of Africa is false obviously

[Insuperable]

[Insuperable]

I don't know for african americans but blacks as a race is recent
carriers of haplogroups a and b do not resemble modern Africans

the theory of the origin of the human race in africa is not debatable

E originated in Eurasia. E is nowadays dominant in Africa because of back migrations and sudden expansions.

[Universe]

We do not descend from today's monkeys.

Did I claim that? I didn't. I claimed we descend from monkeys, not from today's monkey specifically, I meant monkeys from the past.

We share a common ancestor.

If common ancestor of monkeys and humans existed today, it would be classified as a monkey.

You are encouraging creationists now to mock evolutionists, aren't ya? Go far and we descend from reptiles, amphibians and fish anyway.

I could do that, yes. The point remains: intelligence of subsaharans has zero relevance here. If they have low intelligence that does not disprove the theory that humanity originate from there. People from fertile crescent are not the highest IQ people either, so using this logic Englishmen can't descend from them because Englishmen have higher average IQ (you are claiming people from fertile crescent are earliest humans)

I did not say anything against that. Yes, as modern humans dispersed from west asia to africa and Europe we gradually become modern. We were not modern humans in east Africa back 200K years ago. We were anatomically modern in what is now Israel, but more broadly the Fertile crescent (from Egypt to Babylon). Again, NOBODY is saying we didn't come out of Africa! We did, but we were not anatomically modern when we lived in that continent! I will never buy that idea!


So are Papua New Guineans from what I heard. Which is funny because they look exactly the same! It's not that they're "diverse" per se, it's because they live in villages and they never walked a few hundred miles to mix with other villagers! They are extremely homogenous because of their perpetual location and that's what makes them all "genetically diverse" and "unique". If they don't get around, how do you expect their genetic pool to look like?


Not the argument at all. Brand can descend from Murphy in a span of 3 generations anyway if he had mixed heritage.

whatever.

[Universe]

But to answer Universe, the logic of them being genetic diverse doesn't mean we modern humans now arose from east Africa! What's that got to do with anything?

Having high genetic diversity is typical of ancestral populations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...ation_genetics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect

Out of Africa is true. I don't believe that every archeologist, geneticist etc on earth is involved in a conspiracy.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

This thread makes me want to cut my wrists.

[KuakoVoice]

Well, the fertile crescent in general, from Egypt to northeastern Iraq - That's where modern humans came from. Interesting to note that THIS REGION in the world has the most diverse looking peoples - from SSA looking types in southern Egypt to fucking light alpine meds and dinaridised types in northern mesopotamia/turkey region. A transitional zone that gave rise to lighter europeans to the north, darker africans and arabs to the south and asians to the east.

We didn't all come from a guy that looked like nelson mandela in a span of 200,000 yrs! The human forefather looked more like an Egyptian pharoah (maybe a lighter Obama) at best or Russell Brand, not Eddie murphy....

So then where did Sub Saharan Africans get their features from?Why the lack of Neanderthal DNA that is found in everyone else outside of Africa,how does that come into play in this theory?And what about the Khoisan and Pygmies?Why does Africa have the greatest genetic diversity?

[KuakoVoice]

We do not descend from today's monkeys. We share a common ancestor. You are encouraging creationists now to mock evolutionists, aren't ya? Go far and we descend from reptiles, amphibians and fish anyway. You are stretching the argument now. I'm taking about the span of 200K years, not 100 million years +


I did not say anything against that. Yes, as modern humans dispersed from west asia to africa and Europe we gradually become modern. We were not modern humans in east Africa back 200K years ago. We were anatomically modern in what is now Israel, but more broadly the Fertile crescent (from Egypt to Babylon). Again, NOBODY is saying we didn't come out of Africa! We did, but we were not anatomically modern when we lived in that continent! I will never buy that idea!


So are Papua New Guineans from what I heard. Which is funny because they look exactly the same! It's not that they're "diverse" per se, it's because they live in villages and they never walked a few hundred miles to mix with other villagers! They are extremely homogenous because of their perpetual location and that's what makes them all "genetically diverse" and "unique". If they don't get around, how do you expect their genetic pool to look like?


Not the argument at all. Brand can descend from Murphy in a span of 3 generations anyway if he had mixed heritage.

Papua New Guineans don't look "exactly" like Sub Saharan Africans.We ourselves can tell the difference 90 percent of the time.

[KuakoVoice]

Papua new guineans dont look as diverse as sub saharans tbh. Papua new guineans look more similar to each other than africans would to each other I find.

You are comparing a small half-island country to a Continent that's why lol.And Papua New Guinea is the most *linguistically* diverse Nation on Earth,not genetically.

[rothaer]

The main part of what science says about Out-of-Africa is very plausible.

What are open questions to me are what possible pre-stages lived where. And depending on what exactly you refer to you can achieve different answers. For instance the oldest three finds of what is considered modern man are:

- Djebel Irhoud, Morocco, 300.000 yo, re-interpreted in 2017
- Apidima 1, Greece, 210.000 yo, found in 2019
- Misliya cave, Israel, abt. 180.000 yo, found in 2018

So if this is the first modern human than we find it on three continents, around the southern and eastern Mediterranean.

Earlier forebears are considered to have been in Africa but if you go back as far as 11 million years there is a pre-human-like monkey find in Bavaria that is considered to have walked upright and that could be a forebear of humans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danuvius_guggenmosi

So I think in this discussion first of all we have to make clear what exactly we mean with OoA and what part of that exactly we maybe disagree with.

[Odelia]

Did I claim that? I didn't. I claimed we descend from monkeys, not from today's monkey specifically, I meant monkeys from the past.

Um then specify it?

If common ancestor of monkeys and humans existed today, it would be classified as a monkey.

Agreed, but doesn't add anything to this debate. Next.

I could do that, yes. The point remains: intelligence of subsaharans has zero relevance here. If they have low intelligence that does not disprove the theory that humanity originate from there. People from fertile crescent are not the highest IQ people either, so using this logic Englishmen can't descend from them because Englishmen have higher average IQ (you are claiming people from fertile crescent are earliest humans)

Um, great civilizations started there. That was when the fertile crescent had iron, bronze, fortified buildings like castles, writing systems, etc whilst Hungary and most Europe above Italy were living in tents and huts near campfires. Heard of cradle of civilization and why it's always affiliated with the near east and Med europe? People don't make up these things. Makes sense why intelligent people would have come from there and why we have developed minds of many European nations - They all stem from west asia.

Eastern meds only haver lower IQ now because of political instability and fundamental islam subjugating people. Other than that, they are capable of being the smartest people on earth! This is why fucking Jews are smart asf and have high IQs. When they have capability of learning and not being governed by corrupted people, they can be very intelligent!

And I said people from the fertile crescent are the earliest MODERN HUMANS! More archaic humans with protruding mouths, receding chins and huge brows were in east Africa. We lost those features once we reached Egypt-Israeli border and became anatomically modern!

whatever.

Cool. So you lost the argument here.

Out of Africa is true. I don't believe that every archeologist, geneticist etc on earth is involved in a conspiracy.

Out of africa is partially true. Two things can be right at the same time - We can be anatomically modern humans that arose from west asia/fertile crescent (including Egypt) and we can come out of africa - I did say that the Great apes are truly African in origin!

My point is, for the millionth time: We became anatomically modern in West Asia and/or Egypt! When we were in east Africa, in the SSA, we were not anatomically modern! Not sure why that's so hard to understand?

And no, nobody is saying it's a conspiracy theory! Just an honest mistake that will be corrected one day! Evolutionists alter and revise things when they learn new information ..... This has always happened! Wait a few decades and the OOA will change - I won't be surprised! If not modern Palestine/levant, then I'll bet my money on the fringes of northern Africa like Egypt or even Morocco!