Out of Africa theory discussion

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Hello!

Welcome to The Apricity Forums. This is a very fun place to learn about and exchange European culture and art, and discuss anthropology, archaeology, history, prehistoric civilizations and anything that pertains to europe, its people, its colonies, and its culture. This is a free speech forum that lets people with all different views discuss all different subjects so long as they can stop short of calling for genocide on each other, but just remember a lot of it is pure BS. Especially the Out of Africa theory. That's why I greet every new member with this short list of facts that help them decide for themselves in a fair and balanced manner that this theory is a lie originating as part of the plan to disenfranchise europeans from their land and marginalize their political power.

Yet it is fairly easy to debunk, so let's take a look at the facts, shall we?

Check it out:

IDB segments in west africans show they have much greater DNA sharing with bonobo chimps than anyone outside africa. The same has been discovered for many hominid mixtures – they are localized. How is this possible in an out of africa scenario?

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12...t-al-2012.html

The 37k year old hofmeyr skull is completely unlike negroid skulls. It it much like eurasian skulls yet more primitive compared to concurrent skulls in Eurasia. This shows that at the time an out of africa event would supposedly be happening, an into africa migration is what was really happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmeyr_Skull

The first cromag skulls only show up in africa about 30k years ago, much later than in Europe, and again they have smaller braincases than those in europe. This is now recognized as a 'back migration' to africa but tell me why do we have evidence of the back migration and not the initial one? And if all these 'finnish looking' people came from africa, then why don't they exist there today? Genetics also show they do not originate in africa, if you doubt the archaeology.
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wor...pe-and-africa/

Archaeology says there's continuity in asia and europe for a million years or more. Neanderthal and denisova both have perikymata on teeth, africans don't. Europeans and east asians also have it. If anything, this property INCREASES in africa over time from migration INTO africa. This should be impossible if we came out of africa.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...debunked-again

In this thread I take a look at a hilarious paper that claims that modern humans invented everything while surrounded by neanderthals on every side. In spite of the fact there is no evidence these 'modern' humans were not neanderthals, and no actual fossil remains exist in the area except neanderthal ones! Obviously there is some big bias against neanderthals, which I suppose there must be if you believe they are nothing to do with people today; however, over time we find evidence they actually invented everything in the ancient world from thread to makeup to short oceanic voyages.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...hals-disappear


There is also evidence that dozens of hominids contributed to human DNA. All african populations show evidence of migration into africa. Yet no population shows any archaeological or genetic evidence whatsoever of migration out of africa.
"We detect likely West Eurasian gene flow into the ancestors of Yoruba West Africans within the last ten thousand years, which indirectly contributed a small amount of Neandertal ancestry to Yoruba."

"These results mean that we have not identified any sub-Saharan African sample that we are confident has no evidence of back-to-Africa migration. Our best candidate at present is the Dinka but it is possible that with a phased genome or large sample sizes we would detect evidence of non-African ancestry in this population as well."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12...mountains.html

Eventually even the guy who came up with the idea realizes 100k+ years is really the minimum age mixing started with neanderthal to others. However he's looking at people far away from the neanderthals sequenced and the actual data shows a clear slow mixing/diffusion not some absurd single time mixing or even 2-3 times of mixing it was later changed to. The results in modern people would be impossible to replicate in such a manner.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/04...lk-at-nih.html


Oldest mtdna divide for humans has been found - in EUROPE.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12...tdna-from.html


OoA was supposed to happen 30k-50k years ago but we have genetically sequenced very modern east asians in beijing at 40k years ago.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/01...yuan-cave.html
And in siberia one that's even older at 45k years old.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/03...m-siberia.html


Upper Paleolithic fossils go TO african from arabia, not the other way around. The paper's author himself talks in detail about driving around and digging and finding more modern tools towards arabia. That culture probably is influenced/spawned from aurignacian, even further off in europe or iran. That's right, cromag type originates in europe and nowhere else. This is why they stopped using this term in favor of the imaginary "anatomically modern humans" who suddenly show up - though there is absolutely no fossil record of them or any archaeological culture they might have come from!
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12...lithic-in.html

In same vein, nubian complex (often pointed to as african in origin to support out of africa) is obviously exotic to africa and goes into africa. It originates even further away in Eurasia.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07...al-arabia.html

Dogs were domesticated in Europe. By the dates given, by neanderthals. Note that only europids really like dogs, too.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/11...ated-dogs.html


This alone is enough to kill out of africa. Last video shows that pygmies in africa intermixed with an archaic hominid that has no genes outside of africa 100K years ago. This means that rhodiensiensis in south africa is nothing at all to do with human evolution, and it also means that modern humans did not arrive in africa until 100k years ago or so. It also shows that neanderthal are at the root for many cladal gene structures, just not the ones for y-dna and mtdna. This is impossible for any OoA scenario.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/08...gin-of-us.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvoiPUHfOXI


North Africans...came from Iberia.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07...maurusian.html
And some genetic evidence to back it up.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12...h-african.html

Interestingly, data supports san coming TO africa as easily as FROM africa. Which makes perfect sense as they are asiatic in appearance.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/06...ration-to.html

And combined with this which shows lots of intermixing with eurasia, it's confirmed they had eurasian admixture before they got to africa (this is from populations with no exposure outside their little tribes until very recently, who remain pure).
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07...e-san-via.html

Forested Nkongho-Mbo pygmie region source of y-dna A00, so called oldest human y-dna. Which is also a hotspot for r1b admixture from europe. 9/13 A00 were actually found in france in seeming non-africans, but it's been labeled as african anyhow.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07...0-project.html

Modern humans have been in china have been dated to around 100k years ago, making any recent out of africa hypothesis implausible.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07...rn-humans.html

Here is typical a OoA enthusiast. Accuses someone of racism and falsifying data, and then is caught falsifying data himself. Is not a real scientist at all, just an idiot with a political agenda.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/m...ewis-2011.html
This fraud is the one who came up with this particularly laughable bit of pseudoscience which supposedly justifies out of africa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

As well as having much bigger brains than people today, neanderthals could talk.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12...ould-talk.html

Here's another one that, all on its own, debunks out of africa. As early as 12k years ago, fossils in sub saharan africa show no signs of modernity, and are much less modern than much older fossils in east africa and outside of africa. The "failed out of africa" skulls from middle east 90k years ago also show striking similarity to upper paleolithic european skulls (and metrically are a hybrid between neanderthal and modern europeans). So the further from africa you get the more like modern humans the skulls look, in all time periods! Not to mention the brain volumes are consistently lower. If they came out of africa, this is impossible.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09...-features.html

30-40k BC neanderthal-modern hybrid found, genetically sequenced. Since we have actually found one, obviously it happened all the time and wasn't a one time thing. This also happened in italy, destroying the silly theories that it was some one time event in levant during a mythical out of africa mass migration.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/first...ug=sciencemain

the study of modern populations has revealed evidence for both archaic African, and -more recently and surprisingly- even a little archaic Eurasian ancestry in virtually all Sub-Saharan Africans. Populations from one of the presumed cradles of H. sapiens (Eastern Africa) are now conclusively known to be recent mixtures of West Eurasians, and even the Bushmen of southern Africa, the subject of so many TV documentaries as an exemplum of the ur-Humans did not escape this admixture. That's right, archaic european DNA made it to africa while archaic african DNA never made it out at all.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/01...year-2014.html

The only ape fossil ever found to have a human finger-to-thumbpad grip is in EUROPE. Feet were also very humanlike. Many supposed upright walkers from africa are very doubtful. Yet we never hear about finds like this in the news.
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...uman-like.html

Missing link found...in Germany, 50 million years ago. This is the ONLY missing link that contains ALL the features in common between humans, gorillas and chimps.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ink-found.html


Did europeans evolve directly from neanderthals? Were neanderthals really the foundation of the first cultures we consider to belong to 'modern' humans?
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...hals-disappear


links to some relavent threads:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...79#post2160679

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...an-populations

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...nate-in-africa

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...e-most-diverse

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...hals-disappear

[Loki]

Post moved from a welcome thread, to create a new discussion.

@ Melonhead: the Out of Africa theory is the most widely accepted theory of our ancestors' origins:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent..._modern_humans

[Loki]

We know that all australopithecus skulls have been found in Africa. They evolved in eastern and southern Africa. And australopithecus is most widely believed to be the ancestor of hominids.

[Dombra]

@ Melonhead: the Out of Africa theory is the most widely accepted theory of our ancestors' origins:

Beating women is widely accepted in many countries

[Loki]

Beating women is widely accepted in many countries

Good argument. You left me speechless!

Now, let's have a serious debate please without trolling.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

We know that all australopithecus skulls have been found in Africa. They evolved in eastern and southern Africa. And australopithecus is most widely believed to be the ancestor of hominids.

That's not a hominid, it's a hominaint.

There's many reasons for this.

1. Its skull size is too small. There's oodles of random unrelated skulls that don't form a lineage. Most hominids are probably bogus, but it's impossible to tell which are and which aren't. There's nothing about the brain that puts it even into chimp range let alone higher.

2. Its hands are not formed right. Yet there are fossils MILLIONS OF YEARS OLDER with much more human hands. European fossils 20 million years old show a perfectly human hand as well, on an arboreal ape of some kind.

3. Probably a knuckledragger. Shows many signs of this. Later supposed hominids are also obvious knuckledraggers. For some reason this is considered kosher, but should not be. This should disqualify them for consideration completely. Each major evolution point like that seems to evolve just one time. We have some fossils of probably presplit ape ancestors that show characteristics of all three types of ambulators. This would imply that human ancestors evolved into knuckledraggers, then into upright walkers, while at THE SAME TIME BUT SEPARATELY upright walkers evolved separately. Probably a chimp ancestor, if anything.



However, out of africa claims that humans came out of africa very recently (30k years ago lol) and everyone alive today has a common origin. It's possible early evolution was in africa, though I doubt that heavily as well. Obviously even a 7 million year age of split between humans and other apes is too young. Otherwise that means that new world monkeys all migrated to the americas after the continents split up which is a laughable assertion.

[Loki]

That's not a hominid, it's a hominaint.

I said australopithecus is the ancestor of hominids.

1. Australopithecus
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus
4. Archaic Homo sapiens
5. Homo sapiens sapiens

Something like that.

[Taiga Lake]

Non-Africans have Neanderthal blood (and Asians also have Denisova) and these genes are what makes all the different races in world with different skin colors, eye shapes etc. So part of our ancestors do come from Africa, but we aren't just some depigmented negroes.

[Loki]

Non-Africans have Neanderthal blood (and Asians also have Denisova) and these genes are what makes all the different races in world with different skin colors, eye shapes etc. So part of our ancestors do come from Africa, so we aren't just some depigmented negroes.

Our (I mean Eurasians') ancestors who went out from Africa were not negroes.

[Taiga Lake]

Our (I mean Eurasians') ancestors who went out from Africa were not negroes.

What do you mean? I mean i don't "want" to be partly descended from blacks but i care about facts and truth, so if the sapiens who left Africa weren't negroes so what were they?