>I'm not moronic >I believe the Out of Africa theory >No, I don't know why Africans suddenly lost the ability to sail around the world, why do you ask?
Reminder Early Humans with A001 had a Neanderthal Mutation on their Y DNA.
Human women are from Africa, which explains a lot about their behaviors, and human males are from Eurasia, specifically Europe, which explains their buckbreaking.
>I'm not moronic >I believe the Out of Africa theory >No, I don't know why Africans suddenly lost the ability to sail around the world, why do you ask?
>No, I don't know why Africans suddenly lost the ability to sail around the world, why do you ask?
you really think this is what it takes for a population to gradually spread out over the continents which were connected by land during the ice age?
You do realize that the multi-regional hypotheses that opposes the OoA still has humans come out of Africa, right? It just changes when this happens. People who support multi-regional typically say humans evolved regionally from homosexual Erectus bands that had spread out from Europe to Indonesia long before homosexual sapiens and neanderthal.
I used to believe in the Out-of-Africa Theory but lately I've been more convinced by the Multiregional hypothesis like explains. It just seems too short of a timespan (a couple hundred thousand years) to me for modern humans to have evolved all the different racial characteristics. But I also don't see how humans could remain a single species if three groups evolved separately from a common ancestor. Fortunately I'm an archaeologist, not a biological anthropologist, god help those poor bastards that don't go into forensics.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Currently an archaeology student and getting into forensic anthropology for grad school myself. You could not be any more right about that. Evolutionary anthropology seems like a shitshow.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>But I also don't see how humans could remain a single species if three groups evolved separately from a common ancestor.
That's because you're thinking about the LCA of homosexual sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans.
That would make the different races different species though you fricking moron and there is no genetic evidence of such so multi regional is nonsense.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Fst distance between blacks and whites is larger than the distance between wolves and coyotes. If aliens landed on earth they would probably classify races as different species.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If [irrelevant third party] landed on earth they would probably set their own arbitrary categories for Earth specimens based on what they observe
Wow so profound, who would've guessed. Not him but actual midwit tier take.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I meant all races you moron as in whites and arabs are two different species.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The Fst distance between blacks and whites is larger than the distance between wolves and coyotes.
yeah because whites are mutts that engaged in bestiality with neanderthals
2 years ago
Anonymous
Wolves and coyotes diverged between 1.8-4.5 million years ago. For contrast, all humans alive last shared a common ancestor around 120,000 years ago, and you in particular last shared one with West and East Africans 70,000 years ago.
Before college, i didn’t, but then i became an anthropologist and there’s a lot of evidence for it. There is a lot of absolute bullshit like accidental sea voyages but it’s definitely true that a primitive hominin group left through africa down the coast of asia and somehow did get to australia. All while evolving. All of that has only been decided for sure like 20 years ago and there’s still so much mystery surrounding it.
>Before college, i didn’t, but then i became an anthropologist and there’s a lot of evidence for it. >gets an education, immediately dispels his crankery
Many such cases.
>Before college, i didn’t, but then i became an anthropologist and there’s a lot of evidence for it. >gets an education, immediately dispels his crankery
Many such cases.
pre-homosexual were outside of Africa already.
There is simply no proof homo-sap sap evolved in africa, their ancestors werent even from africa, the ethiopian monkeys werent even native to ethiopia they moved there from Yemen and prior to that India.
No, they werent, their direct ancestors were found in South Asia.
Why do black people even want to be associated with monkey looking proto-humans? Is racing to the bottom really that important?
it explains a lot
2 years ago
Anonymous
>No, they werent, their direct ancestors were found in South Asia.
Source?
>Why do black people even want to be associated with monkey looking proto-humans?
1.I'm not Black 2.The facts say they are
And I find it unironic considering ya closer to RH monkies and other homids than Africans.
It doesnt have to have an end goal to have observably fitter examples compared to observably less fit ones.
keep coping
OOA implies the innate superiority of Eurasians.
Have a significant portion of Africans ever not been on the bottom of a multiracial society? Like outside of Africa?
You could at least present the alternatives to not offset the discussion towards the normies consensus (derived from privately controlled media and funded research).
An alternative or complementary part of human evolution is The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.
Whatever the foundation of human evolution may be the influence of Neanderthal DNA is becoming clearer. It's just 2-4% of most of the modern human genome but then we are only 1% away from being chimpanzees.
Setting aside that it doesn't even disagree with OOA, it only suggests an alternative path of evolution, literally in the first paragraph of the wiki article you link: >The hypothesis is highly controversial, and has been criticized by many as a pseudoscience.[4][5] The hypothesis is thought to be more popular with the lay public than with scientists; in the scientific literature, it is generally ignored by anthropologists.[6][4]
I guess that's just because THEY don't want us to know the truth, huh?
There is no out of Africa theory because Adam's location was in the middle east. This fact refutes any claim that Humans originated in Africa and Noah's Arc landed somewhere in Anatolia after the flood which is pretty much the muttland as well as the center of the old world. The sons of Noah dispersed from there, it makes more sense than some moronic theory about us being apes when the difference between us and animals is clearly divine and unexplained by science.
>some moronic theory about us being apes when the difference between us and animals is clearly divine and unexplained by science
So you're saying whatever divinity you believe in made humans completely unrelated and separate from the rest of nature but somehow left in early human fossils, SIV (where do you think HIV came from?), and a plethora of other evidence?
>ape hybrid
Serious non-bait question: when you see old cars is your automatic thought "Those aren't CARS, they're just 4 wheeled mutts, I bet their momma was a carriage"? Evolution isn't "XY hybridization", if anything its quite the opposite with diversification.
There is zero evidence for the biblical flood myth, Adam/Eve, or a population bottleneck in the single digits (at least twice offhand) as presented in a israeli book of rehashed Mesopotamian myths. You don't even need trees/plants to figure that out.
I didn't say we were unrelated to life on earth, it's impossible since everything was made by the same being. Our intelligence and consciousness is what separates us from the rest of life and no amount of environmental adaptations can lead to this, it's god's gift to us and what allowed us to be the masters of earth.
>difference between us and animals
You're explicitly saying there's a distinction that makes humanity unrelated to the rest of the animal kingdom. Being intelligent isn't a uniquely human trait, there's plenty of other intelligent species. Consciousness isn't distinctly human either, there's plenty of research done into elephants, corvids, cephalopods, etc that show they likewise experience it as we do; hell anybody that's owned a dog can speak from anecdotal experience that they aren't mindless NPCs. >no amount of environmental adaptations can lead to this
How can you know that? What evidence do you have that evolutionary pressures wouldn't lead to some species becoming more intelligent and self aware? Those are both pretty useful adaptations for survival.
2 years ago
Anonymous
None of the intelligent animals you mentioned are comparable to humans and you're just coping if you think otherwise.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>elephants mourn their dead and are completely aware of the concept of themselves dying >midwits think that's not comparable to humans
Its cope to think you're a special snowflake because israelites told you so.
>most of the posters have studied the subject and are giving opinions based on findings and honest research
man if only the rest of IQfy was like this, it's like I fell to a bizarro world IQfy
>all of the oldest bomes across a sequential chain are found in the Balkans ends up supporting out of Europe >haplogroup theory ends up supporting Out of Asia
It’s actually really simple. As we all know, sub-Saharan Africans are the one race that is least related to the rest of humanity. Look at any PCA chart. Eurasians exist on a continuum while Africans exist on a plain that’s entirely their own.
What really happened is that Humans came out of Eurasia, with Some groups traveling to Africa and mixing with lower primates. Giving rise to sub-Saharan Africans.
All sub-Saharan Africans carry basal Eurasian dna. With the reverse not being true. Eurasians do not carry and SSA dna at all. Africans are the humans that fell.
Eurasians are related because they are the result of a population bottleneck involving the first humans that migrated out of Africa. It proves the opposite of what you're thinking. >All sub-Saharan Africans carry basal Eurasian dna
The genetically isolated hunter-gatherers and pastoralists don't. The ones that do carry Eurasian DNA have haplogroup E which is the result of a later back-migration into northwest and northeast SSA, which also spread further into the continent due to the Bantu expansion. >Eurasians do not carry and SSA dna at all
Lol.
Are you defining "SSA DNA" by the genes of the modern Africans? No fricking shit then, neither do Africans have Eurasian DNA if you use modern Eurasians.
If you use Basal populations then Africans do have Basal Eurasian but Eurasians do also have Basal African as does everyone else.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but Eurasians do also have Basal African as does everyone else.
Can you show proof of this for East Asians or even Aboriginals/Negritos/Papuans?
2 years ago
Anonymous
By definition "Basal African" means the very first homosexual Sapiens so everyone has genes from them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but I define it as
and youre wrong
2 years ago
Anonymous
How is he wrong? Are you trolling or moronic?
[...]
pre-homosexual were outside of Africa already.
There is simply no proof homo-sap sap evolved in africa, their ancestors werent even from africa, the ethiopian monkeys werent even native to ethiopia they moved there from Yemen and prior to that India.
>There is simply no proof homo-sap sap evolved in africa
insanely braindead take
>ethiopian monkeys werent even native to ethiopia they moved there from Yemen and prior to that India.
This might be true but you're talking about the neolithic at this point. Are you a creationist?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Neolithic
are you fricking stupid?
2 million years ago ancestors of humans are outside of Africa
1 million years ago they are found within and without africa
800,000 years ago they are outside of Africa
400,000 years ago they are still outside of africa
300,000-120,000 they are inside and outside of africa
OOA is simply refuted
2 years ago
Anonymous
Do you think humans evolved like this?
habilis > erectus > neanderthal > sapiens
That's not how evolution works you actual moron. This board has gone to SHIT
2 years ago
Anonymous
unironically yes that is the current consensus on human Y DNA.
Throw Heidelbergensis before Neanderthal and After Erectus and put Australopithicus before Habilis.
You can pretend what you read from 70s boomers speculating is true, or you can come over to my side and look at empirical data.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Also that is how evolution, the existence of a branch doesnt negate the existence of a trunk.
Opposition to it seems derived foremost from >I don't wanna be a stinky Black person
You could get some people to swear off certain foodstuff by going >That's a food that originates in Africa >If you eat it then you'll become a Black
you are neurotic
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Can you show proof of this for East Asians or even Aboriginals/Negritos/Papuans?
All mtDNA haplogroups found exclusively outside of Africa are descended from the L3 clade, which is one of the branches of the African L* supergroup.
All the Y-DNA haplogroups found exclusively outside Africa are descended from CT, which is descended from the African A and parallel to the African B clade.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's not Basal African, that's fricking human.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're so close to figuring it out.
Keep in mind though that "Basal African" refers to a population designation based on geography, just incase you misunderstand and think it has something to do with modern Africans exclusively.
>The genetically isolated hunter-gatherers and pastoralists don't.
Khoisan pastoralists seem to have some minor possibly Cushitic ancestry which brought some light skin genes they selected for.
Yes, mtDNA and Y-DNA alone make a good case for it in isolation, let alone the fossil evidence.
The fact that most male Eurasians descend patrilineally for just 3 men that lived around 50k years ago is profound, but the same also applies for many African lineages.
The idea of "African diversity" is 90% propaganda and 10% truth, said diversity exists only because a minority of the African population.
No, because I believe the biblical account of early human history. See
Humans as we know them started in the middle east, probably near the Caucasus mountains where Noah's Ark most likely ran aground. Africa was populated mostly be descendants of Ham, who forsook their ancestor's engineering prowess, forsook God in favor of idols, and regressed to a backward and primitive society. It's really sad, actually. All those tribesmen living and dying without God and going to hell because they suffer for the consequences of their ancestor's choices. I like to think God comes to everyone at least once in their lives, gives everyone at least one chance, whether it be from a vague feeling idol worship is not right, or perhaps even a deathbed revelation of His power in the last perceived moments of a man's death.
Opposition to it seems derived foremost from >I don't wanna be a stinky Black person
You could get some people to swear off certain foodstuff by going >That's a food that originates in Africa >If you eat it then you'll become a Black
ofc not kek. all proof points out it's absolute bullshit, and arguments such as muh school told me so are legit subhuman, same school is trying to tell your ass that we are the same species as Black folk.
The oldest paternal and maternal haplogroups are all in Africa, the oldest homosexual sapiens remains are in East, Southern, and North Africa respectively, so yeah.
Literally all the closest relatives to human beings genetically, e.g the great apes and other mammals, live in central-Africa and nowhere else on the planet. This alone hints that it's likely true.
I don't have an opinion on it
If the experts say it's true then I'll believe it, if experts decide that maybe it was simplistic and they have a new better theory then i'll believe that theory
I don't really care either way
Yes
Reminder Early Humans with A001 had a Neanderthal Mutation on their Y DNA.
Human women are from Africa, which explains a lot about their behaviors, and human males are from Eurasia, specifically Europe, which explains their buckbreaking.
Yes because I'm not moronic.
>I'm not moronic
>I believe the Out of Africa theory
>No, I don't know why Africans suddenly lost the ability to sail around the world, why do you ask?
>No, I don't know why Africans suddenly lost the ability to sail around the world, why do you ask?
you really think this is what it takes for a population to gradually spread out over the continents which were connected by land during the ice age?
You do realize that the multi-regional hypotheses that opposes the OoA still has humans come out of Africa, right? It just changes when this happens. People who support multi-regional typically say humans evolved regionally from homosexual Erectus bands that had spread out from Europe to Indonesia long before homosexual sapiens and neanderthal.
I used to believe in the Out-of-Africa Theory but lately I've been more convinced by the Multiregional hypothesis like explains. It just seems too short of a timespan (a couple hundred thousand years) to me for modern humans to have evolved all the different racial characteristics. But I also don't see how humans could remain a single species if three groups evolved separately from a common ancestor. Fortunately I'm an archaeologist, not a biological anthropologist, god help those poor bastards that don't go into forensics.
Currently an archaeology student and getting into forensic anthropology for grad school myself. You could not be any more right about that. Evolutionary anthropology seems like a shitshow.
>But I also don't see how humans could remain a single species if three groups evolved separately from a common ancestor.
That's because you're thinking about the LCA of homosexual sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans.
That would make the different races different species though you fricking moron and there is no genetic evidence of such so multi regional is nonsense.
The Fst distance between blacks and whites is larger than the distance between wolves and coyotes. If aliens landed on earth they would probably classify races as different species.
>If [irrelevant third party] landed on earth they would probably set their own arbitrary categories for Earth specimens based on what they observe
Wow so profound, who would've guessed. Not him but actual midwit tier take.
I meant all races you moron as in whites and arabs are two different species.
>The Fst distance between blacks and whites is larger than the distance between wolves and coyotes.
yeah because whites are mutts that engaged in bestiality with neanderthals
Wolves and coyotes diverged between 1.8-4.5 million years ago. For contrast, all humans alive last shared a common ancestor around 120,000 years ago, and you in particular last shared one with West and East Africans 70,000 years ago.
>No, I don't know why Africans suddenly lost the ability to sail around the world, why do you ask?
All the smart ones left
homosexual Sapien dispersal was by land.
technically it was both, but mainly land. There's signs that even homosexual erectus may have used primitive boats to island-hop short distances.
they didn't lose it though
>africans had to sail around the world
>literal land bridges to every continent humans inhabited
Okay.
Frick you for making me laugh at such a stupid joke.
How's that a joke?
Yes
Yes, of course. It's a shame that the people who stayed in Africa never evolved past homosexual Erectus.
They were actually lot of African Kingdoms (don't forget the based kingdom of aksum)
Erectus went extinct in Africa around 800-1mya
No I think it was da joos.
i believe in the in africa theory we are all currently in africa
More evidence pouring in every year is actually pointing in that direction.
The real implication of OOA is that Eurasians descend from some archaic ubermensch that manifested destiny across the world.
spongebob agrees we came from africa
Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D86BXZkzHkpY&usg=AOvVaw1uzZFRoV4oLgV72yMDpDot
frick that link didnt work goddammit
here this one works my bad
Before college, i didn’t, but then i became an anthropologist and there’s a lot of evidence for it. There is a lot of absolute bullshit like accidental sea voyages but it’s definitely true that a primitive hominin group left through africa down the coast of asia and somehow did get to australia. All while evolving. All of that has only been decided for sure like 20 years ago and there’s still so much mystery surrounding it.
They made it throughout polynesia, melanesia, and even to the americas too
>Before college, i didn’t, but then i became an anthropologist and there’s a lot of evidence for it.
>gets an education, immediately dispels his crankery
Many such cases.
pre-homosexual were outside of Africa already.
There is simply no proof homo-sap sap evolved in africa, their ancestors werent even from africa, the ethiopian monkeys werent even native to ethiopia they moved there from Yemen and prior to that India.
Bullshit, they were always native there, just cause they got West Asianed doesn't change their origin Mtdna wise.
No, they werent, their direct ancestors were found in South Asia.
Why do black people even want to be associated with monkey looking proto-humans? Is racing to the bottom really that important?
it explains a lot
>No, they werent, their direct ancestors were found in South Asia.
Source?
>Why do black people even want to be associated with monkey looking proto-humans?
1.I'm not Black 2.The facts say they are
And I find it unironic considering ya closer to RH monkies and other homids than Africans.
>pre-homosexual were outside of Africa already.
Again, nobody cares about monkeys or non-Sapien Homos. That's not what OoA is about.
there are multiple OOA theories, some of them deal with pre-sapiens hominids going further back than erectus and are probably btfo at this point
Well you're just attacking a strawman.
no, that was my first post ITT
>Egyptian OOA went on to become civilization builders
>Horner OOA went on to become Abbos
Why yes, I do believe that blacks are primitive humans and that whites and asians are an evolved version of blacks, as this theory implies
The concept of 'more evolved' is meaningless. Evolution doesn't have an end goal.
It doesnt have to have an end goal to have observably fitter examples compared to observably less fit ones.
keep coping
OOA implies the innate superiority of Eurasians.
Have a significant portion of Africans ever not been on the bottom of a multiracial society? Like outside of Africa?
You could at least present the alternatives to not offset the discussion towards the normies consensus (derived from privately controlled media and funded research).
An alternative or complementary part of human evolution is The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.
Whatever the foundation of human evolution may be the influence of Neanderthal DNA is becoming clearer. It's just 2-4% of most of the modern human genome but then we are only 1% away from being chimpanzees.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis
Setting aside that it doesn't even disagree with OOA, it only suggests an alternative path of evolution, literally in the first paragraph of the wiki article you link:
>The hypothesis is highly controversial, and has been criticized by many as a pseudoscience.[4][5] The hypothesis is thought to be more popular with the lay public than with scientists; in the scientific literature, it is generally ignored by anthropologists.[6][4]
I guess that's just because THEY don't want us to know the truth, huh?
Come on, man. Don't be like this.
the aquatic ape hypothesis is hamplanet cope and its really sad you fell for it
Neanderthals were 3-7% homosexual sapiens, and they still died out.
the oldest modern human bones are somewhere in north africa i think so yeah.
There is no out of Africa theory because Adam's location was in the middle east. This fact refutes any claim that Humans originated in Africa and Noah's Arc landed somewhere in Anatolia after the flood which is pretty much the muttland as well as the center of the old world. The sons of Noah dispersed from there, it makes more sense than some moronic theory about us being apes when the difference between us and animals is clearly divine and unexplained by science.
>some moronic theory about us being apes when the difference between us and animals is clearly divine and unexplained by science
So you're saying whatever divinity you believe in made humans completely unrelated and separate from the rest of nature but somehow left in early human fossils, SIV (where do you think HIV came from?), and a plethora of other evidence?
find me human fossils that old, its always some ape hybrid bullshit
also, old trees and plants don't refute the timeline of the bible
>ape hybrid
Serious non-bait question: when you see old cars is your automatic thought "Those aren't CARS, they're just 4 wheeled mutts, I bet their momma was a carriage"? Evolution isn't "XY hybridization", if anything its quite the opposite with diversification.
There is zero evidence for the biblical flood myth, Adam/Eve, or a population bottleneck in the single digits (at least twice offhand) as presented in a israeli book of rehashed Mesopotamian myths. You don't even need trees/plants to figure that out.
I didn't say we were unrelated to life on earth, it's impossible since everything was made by the same being. Our intelligence and consciousness is what separates us from the rest of life and no amount of environmental adaptations can lead to this, it's god's gift to us and what allowed us to be the masters of earth.
>difference between us and animals
You're explicitly saying there's a distinction that makes humanity unrelated to the rest of the animal kingdom. Being intelligent isn't a uniquely human trait, there's plenty of other intelligent species. Consciousness isn't distinctly human either, there's plenty of research done into elephants, corvids, cephalopods, etc that show they likewise experience it as we do; hell anybody that's owned a dog can speak from anecdotal experience that they aren't mindless NPCs.
>no amount of environmental adaptations can lead to this
How can you know that? What evidence do you have that evolutionary pressures wouldn't lead to some species becoming more intelligent and self aware? Those are both pretty useful adaptations for survival.
None of the intelligent animals you mentioned are comparable to humans and you're just coping if you think otherwise.
>elephants mourn their dead and are completely aware of the concept of themselves dying
>midwits think that's not comparable to humans
Its cope to think you're a special snowflake because israelites told you so.
Shoo, fundies get out, the grown-ups are trying to talk.
>most of the posters have studied the subject and are giving opinions based on findings and honest research
man if only the rest of IQfy was like this, it's like I fell to a bizarro world IQfy
Genetics point to yes.
Imagine the moronation the world would suffer if most people came from a single couple
...
come to think about it, religious people might actually come from a single couple.
>Imagine the moronation the world would suffer if most people came from an asexual reproductive organism
there fixed for you
Each race has their own divine creation myth.
Whites were blessed by god.
Blacks were cursed by god.
It doesn't make much sense.
>all of the oldest bomes across a sequential chain are found in the Balkans ends up supporting out of Europe
>haplogroup theory ends up supporting Out of Asia
>>all of the oldest bomes across a sequential chain are found in the Balkans ends up supporting out of Europe
>he still thinks the monkey bones matter
theory ends up supporting Out of Asia
Where is Haplogroup A more common today?
>>all of the oldest bomes across a sequential chain are found in the Balkans ends up supporting out of Europe
For hominins (including chinps), not homosexual sapiens. Unless you're willing to call this (mind you we don't even have a skull) human.
I mean, the libs would want us to call it human. Then chop its dick off and feed it hormones.
I don't know about you, but my lineage is 100% hyperborean European Aryan.
>I mean, the libs would want us to call it human
Maybe the libs in your mind
It’s actually really simple. As we all know, sub-Saharan Africans are the one race that is least related to the rest of humanity. Look at any PCA chart. Eurasians exist on a continuum while Africans exist on a plain that’s entirely their own.
What really happened is that Humans came out of Eurasia, with Some groups traveling to Africa and mixing with lower primates. Giving rise to sub-Saharan Africans.
All sub-Saharan Africans carry basal Eurasian dna. With the reverse not being true. Eurasians do not carry and SSA dna at all. Africans are the humans that fell.
meds
Eurasians are related because they are the result of a population bottleneck involving the first humans that migrated out of Africa. It proves the opposite of what you're thinking.
>All sub-Saharan Africans carry basal Eurasian dna
The genetically isolated hunter-gatherers and pastoralists don't. The ones that do carry Eurasian DNA have haplogroup E which is the result of a later back-migration into northwest and northeast SSA, which also spread further into the continent due to the Bantu expansion.
>Eurasians do not carry and SSA dna at all
Lol.
SSA dna for Northern European and eastern Asians populations is literally 0%
Are you defining "SSA DNA" by the genes of the modern Africans? No fricking shit then, neither do Africans have Eurasian DNA if you use modern Eurasians.
If you use Basal populations then Africans do have Basal Eurasian but Eurasians do also have Basal African as does everyone else.
>but Eurasians do also have Basal African as does everyone else.
Can you show proof of this for East Asians or even Aboriginals/Negritos/Papuans?
By definition "Basal African" means the very first homosexual Sapiens so everyone has genes from them.
>but I define it as
and youre wrong
How is he wrong? Are you trolling or moronic?
>There is simply no proof homo-sap sap evolved in africa
insanely braindead take
>ethiopian monkeys werent even native to ethiopia they moved there from Yemen and prior to that India.
This might be true but you're talking about the neolithic at this point. Are you a creationist?
>Neolithic
are you fricking stupid?
2 million years ago ancestors of humans are outside of Africa
1 million years ago they are found within and without africa
800,000 years ago they are outside of Africa
400,000 years ago they are still outside of africa
300,000-120,000 they are inside and outside of africa
OOA is simply refuted
Do you think humans evolved like this?
habilis > erectus > neanderthal > sapiens
That's not how evolution works you actual moron. This board has gone to SHIT
unironically yes that is the current consensus on human Y DNA.
Throw Heidelbergensis before Neanderthal and After Erectus and put Australopithicus before Habilis.
You can pretend what you read from 70s boomers speculating is true, or you can come over to my side and look at empirical data.
Also that is how evolution, the existence of a branch doesnt negate the existence of a trunk.
you are neurotic
>Can you show proof of this for East Asians or even Aboriginals/Negritos/Papuans?
All mtDNA haplogroups found exclusively outside of Africa are descended from the L3 clade, which is one of the branches of the African L* supergroup.
All the Y-DNA haplogroups found exclusively outside Africa are descended from CT, which is descended from the African A and parallel to the African B clade.
That's not Basal African, that's fricking human.
You're so close to figuring it out.
Keep in mind though that "Basal African" refers to a population designation based on geography, just incase you misunderstand and think it has something to do with modern Africans exclusively.
>The genetically isolated hunter-gatherers and pastoralists don't.
Khoisan pastoralists seem to have some minor possibly Cushitic ancestry which brought some light skin genes they selected for.
Source?
No
No, it's a midwit take
Yes, mtDNA and Y-DNA alone make a good case for it in isolation, let alone the fossil evidence.
The fact that most male Eurasians descend patrilineally for just 3 men that lived around 50k years ago is profound, but the same also applies for many African lineages.
The idea of "African diversity" is 90% propaganda and 10% truth, said diversity exists only because a minority of the African population.
No
Ark didn't land in Africa
Tower of Babel wasn't in Africa
No, because I believe the biblical account of early human history. See
Humans as we know them started in the middle east, probably near the Caucasus mountains where Noah's Ark most likely ran aground. Africa was populated mostly be descendants of Ham, who forsook their ancestor's engineering prowess, forsook God in favor of idols, and regressed to a backward and primitive society. It's really sad, actually. All those tribesmen living and dying without God and going to hell because they suffer for the consequences of their ancestor's choices. I like to think God comes to everyone at least once in their lives, gives everyone at least one chance, whether it be from a vague feeling idol worship is not right, or perhaps even a deathbed revelation of His power in the last perceived moments of a man's death.
>>>/x/
Opposition to it seems derived foremost from
>I don't wanna be a stinky Black person
You could get some people to swear off certain foodstuff by going
>That's a food that originates in Africa
>If you eat it then you'll become a Black
savannah replacement hypothesis is dead as a doornail but that wasn't OOA's final form
Not anymore. Because something like pic related shouldnt be possible!
Out of Africa into Africa out of Africa. In that order with the last being 50,000 to 100,000 years ago
ofc not kek. all proof points out it's absolute bullshit, and arguments such as muh school told me so are legit subhuman, same school is trying to tell your ass that we are the same species as Black folk.
>Do you believe the Out of Africa Theory?
The oldest paternal and maternal haplogroups are all in Africa, the oldest homosexual sapiens remains are in East, Southern, and North Africa respectively, so yeah.
Literally all the closest relatives to human beings genetically, e.g the great apes and other mammals, live in central-Africa and nowhere else on the planet. This alone hints that it's likely true.
Mate you're calling blacks monkeys right now
humans are apes yes. It's a tough pill to swallow for some.
I don't have an opinion on it
If the experts say it's true then I'll believe it, if experts decide that maybe it was simplistic and they have a new better theory then i'll believe that theory
I don't really care either way
surprisingly honest post for this board.