Out of Africa or multi-regional theory?
>>469117
Genetics showed that the mutli-regional hypothesis was false.
>>469117
no, it's basically everyone else who left africa and niggers have a common descent, but everyone else didn't evolve from niggers
>>469117
>Out of Africa theory
Idiots latching on to studies surrounding Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA, which is an incredibly small amount of human genetics.
Not to mention they ignore recently unearthed remains of human ancestors that date back to 100,000+ years ago outside the African continent.
Out of Africa. It's the obvious conclusion based on genetics and fossils that the overwhelming majority of biologists agree on.
Multi regionalists are pretty much always conspiracy theorists
>>469164
>100,000+ years ago outside the African continent
Are they from the middle east or something?
Are you suggesting that there is any genetic evidence that supports the multi-regional hypothesis?
Or are you suggesting that because some populations have Denisovan or Neanderthal genetic admixture this means Homo sapiens didn't originate in Africa?
>>469176
>Are they from the middle east or something?
One I recently found was claimed to be from China.
>Are you suggesting that there is any genetic evidence that supports the multi-regional hypothesis?
Me attacking one theory =/= me supporting the other.
False dichotomy.
>Or are you suggesting that because some populations have Denisovan or Neanderthal genetic admixture this means Homo sapiens didn't originate in Africa?
I'm suggesting exactly what I stated, that since the field of genetics is a recent science, and because only a fraction of human DNA has been explored, that people are politicizing certain findings while ignoring others, or the enormous gaps at least, basically they are leaping to conclusions or pushing certain ideas because they have a predisposition to them.
>>469184
>One I recently found was claimed to be from China.
Provide the evidence then. Show these anatomically modern human remains from China older than the Omo remains of Ethiopia
>I'm suggesting exactly what I stated, that since the field of genetics is a recent science
So is nuclear physics
>because only a fraction of human DNA has been explored
We've mapped the entire human genome
>people are politicizing certain findings while ignoring others
And here comes the conspiracy theories
Yes, yes, the Jews are hiding the TRUTH again
>>469184
China? You mean that isolated Homo sapiens population that is not only younger than the oldest Homo sapiens fossil in Africa (Omo 1), but is unrelated to any other modern humans today? Because that was from the first failed OOA movement.
>>469184
But the predisposition was originally towards an Asian origin after Eugene Dubois. I have read about the Chinese promoting the multi-regional hypothesis, as a form of China's a special snowflake, we developed separately.
>>469164
The oldest Homo species was found in Africa 2.5 million years ago. The oldest Homo species found outside of Africa was 1.8 million years ago (pic related, Homo erectus in Georgia).
>>469205
>Provide the evidence then. Show these anatomically modern human remains from China older than the Omo remains of Ethiopia
http://www.livescience.com/22529-oldest-bones-modern-humans-asia.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.21455/abstract
http://projects.ecfs.org/pchurch/atbiology/papers2012/humanhybrids.pdf
>So is nuclear physics
So that means we automatically know it all about genetics? (tips fedora)
>We've mapped the entire human genome
>hurr that is totally relevant to what you said
I am talking about the study of DNA across various groups over time, and no, we have not completely understood how all of that works.
Out of Africa relies on a small amount of data discovered in that respect, it has not been fully researched, including that of contemporary human beings.
>hurr durr if you disagree u r tinfoil
>its infallible because I say so
>DA JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ
>>469221
I'm not advocating the Chinese special snowflake self-development idea (whether cultural or in a human evolutionary sense).
Sheesh, I offer up a small bit of data that may tell a different story and the strawmen start flying out of the woodworks.
>>469242
>Oldest human bones discovered in Asia
>In Asia
You realize this means in the CONTINENT itself, and not period, right? That's like saying the oldest bones found in North America are the oldest in the world. Also, these aren't even the oldest Asian Sapiens bones anymore, this is.
http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/120000-yr-old-human-found-in-china-15101.htm
And even then, they're still younger than Omo 1, which is 195,000 years old (give or take 5000 years, so it might be a little older or younger).
>>469242
>So that means we automatically know it all about genetics? (tips fedora)
Argument from ignorance.
>>469242
>Anatomically modern humans first arose about 200,000 years ago in Africa.
First line.
Holy crap, learn to comprehend what you read.
All of your links describe the earliest migrations of humans TO asia. From Africa.
>So that means we automatically know it all about genetics?
No, but we do know enough about human origins to conclude that we're from east africa
>I am talking about the study of DNA across various groups over time, and no, we have not completely understood how all of that works.
Humans evolved in east africa and followed the coastline to asia and australia. Another migration was more bold and went into the heart of asia to later spread to Europe and America
>Out of Africa relies on a small amount of data discovered in that respect
Except all humans having common African ancestors. And modern Khoisan people being the closest modern relations to the first men. And the oldest remains being in Africa.
You are a tinfoil hatter, and a shitposter to boot
>>469117
Out of africa, maybe some racemixing with neanderthals. Teeth in China dated to 80000 years ago caused an uproar in the scientific community a while ago which I think is testament to how unlikely a division 1 million years ago would be.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34531861
>1-2 million years ago
considering we diverged from neanderthals 400000 years ago, no
Multi-reegional is just a meme from stormfront in reaction to some SJWs going "we're all descended from Africans", it is all horseshit. If any legit scientists supported it they must have been around before more evidence was available.
>>469266
>Khoisan
Hey, if that's the case, then would Omo 1 look more like a Khoisan, but with more robust features? If so, then this depiction is inaccurate.
>>469184
What I never get an answer to is, is did these Homo Sapiens actually leave any descendants and contribute to modern humanity, or were they a genetic dead end? Because if it was the latter, then that is still perfectly consistent with OOA.
>>469261
>You realize this means in the CONTINENT itself, and not period, right? That's like saying the oldest bones found in North America are the oldest in the world. Also, these aren't even the oldest Asian Sapiens bones anymore, this is.
It is one example, and yes, I forgot to include the link with the 126k year old remains found in China. I closed the link just before the response was given asking for it.
My point on the skeletal remains is that the ages of these groups vary with the oldest, not to mention there are plenty of assumptions thrown in with them.
The point on Y-Chromosome DNA/mitochondrial DNA was also ignored, which pertains to how much is actually understand about the genetics of groups over time, which is small in scope and hasn't been fully researched.
In effect, Out of Africa clings to the theory that 'because our one example is oldest, that is its origin.'
>>469270
Aren't Neanderthals actually a lot older than we once thought, dating back to about 600,000 years ago? Or were those just Heidelbergensis with Neanderthal-like traits?
>>469277
They're a genetic dead end. There was a failed OOA migration that ended badly, and apparently cave hyenas had to do with it. It appears humans tried leaving Africa early on, but got their shit kicked in fast.
>>469263
>Argument from ignorance.
>le nuclear physics
Argument from false equivalence
Fallacy fallacy.
>>469266
>First line.
I copy-pasted the wrong link, and you've conveniently ignored the point I brought up about how only a fraction of it has been covered, which has been used as the basis for the genetics behind Out of Africa theory.
>>469285
In that case I don't know why people are latching on to it like it's some trump card proving OOA is false. Several branches colonizing out but eventually turning to dead ends is perfectly consistent with OOA, since it just says one of the later migrations out was the first one that was successful.
>>469281
It's very hard to tell. There is no clearly defined line between different species or sub-species.
>>469280
>In effect, Out of Africa clings to the theory that 'because our one example is oldest, that is its origin.'
The fact that Africa has the most genetic diversity is also a big argument in support of it. Other continents had more population bottlenecks and suffered from the founder effect.
>>469280
Don't quote me, but Y-Chromosome DNA/mitochondrial DNA is so useful because it's sex linked, if every male lineage (Y-Chromosome) is shown to originate in Africa, and every Female lineage (Mitochondrial) shows the sage origin then pretty much proven that all modern humans originated in Africa.
>>469298
same*
>>469296
>The fact that Africa has the most genetic diversity is also a big argument in support of it. Other continents had more population bottlenecks and suffered from the founder effect.
Well... in all honesty, so what?
Genetic diversity =/= the place of origin, for all we know groups could have migrated back into Africa with non-native haplogroups and introduced them, then much later its assumed that because it exists there, it must be its beginning point.
>Don't quote me, but Y-Chromosome DNA/mitochondrial DNA is so useful because it's sex linked, if every male lineage (Y-Chromosome) is shown to originate in Africa, and every Female lineage (Mitochondrial) shows the sage origin then pretty much proven that all modern humans originated in Africa.
The problem is that the argument when its used in a popular sense, is to denote that we're descended from each other, similar to how because we share a common ancestry with chimps, that we therefore come from chimps, or vice-versa.
The level of genetic studies over time are also not consistent in the rigorousness of research, which was part of my original point, long lost under a pile of strawmen, tinfoil accusations, jew memes, and much more.
What about some people having neanderthal (mainly europeans) whereas africans have no neanderthal dna?
>>469314
So everyone moving away from Africa is less reasonable than everyone moving too Africa?
>>469298
The oldest Y-Chromosomal DNA is about 338,000 years old too, so it's highly possible that Homo sapiens is a hybrid species even back then from Africa.
>>469314
>Well... in all honesty, so what?
Because we can usually determine genetic relationships in such a manner.
We can identify the place of origin for most species by evaluating diversity.
Even in the case of languages. The region where a language family has the highest level of diversity is most likely near its place of origin.
>for all we know groups could have migrated back into Africa with non-native haplogroups and introduced them
Do you know what Occam's Razor is?
>The problem is that the argument when its used in a popular sense
We're not.
>The level of genetic studies over time are also not consistent in the rigorousness of research
Objectively false
>long lost under a pile of strawmen, tinfoil accusations, jew memes, and much more.
Your arguments were refuted, THEN you were rightfully called tinfoil
>>469322
Africans do have Neanderthal DNA, thanks to a Back to Africa migration 4,000 years ago, through Egypt, Ethiopia, and the rest of the continent.
>>469322
Actually it's well known that there was a back migration into Africa of people with Neanderthal genes.
Everyone from the Khoisan bushmen to the Yoruba have it
>>469314
>Genetic diversity =/= the place of origin
Diversity is actually something a lot of biologists and linguists look for when they're searching for something' origins.
>>469324
No, it highlights assumptions made, and that people parrot them without enough evidence or critical thinking abilities.
>>469342
You realize all of science relies on certain amounts of assumptions, right? And history and pre-history even moreso.
>>469333
>Your arguments were refuted, THEN you were rightfully called tinfoil
You spouted mostly memes in response, replied with strawmen, and only responded to one point while ignoring the other point.
>Do you know what Occam's Razor is?
Did you even fucking read what I typed up? Seems like you didn't. Looks as if the shitposting accusation is a projection on your part.
>Objectively false
Oh I'm sorry, is the quality of research and the level of it consistent to a perfect degree?
No, it isn't. You only believe that to be the case.
>>469353
>consistent to a perfect degree?
Literally no field of research fits this criteria. You're holding everything up to impossible standards.
>>469349
That doesn't mean said assumptions cannot be unfounded or unseated by further research and better evidence, which my point about the DNA was discussing.
The existence of (for example) R1a haplogroups in West Africa doesn't mean that is its origin, or just because we have a common ancestry in Africa, doesn't mean we descend from Africans.
>>469362
No, I was responding with your unecessary snarkiness with my own.
The point is that gaps in knowledge exist, and there isn't sufficient levels of evidence or research done to prove Out of Africa theory.
These gaps aren't trivial either, some of them are quite visible and large, particularly surrounding human migration the further back we go, as I mentioned in another response.
>>469365
>doesn't mean we descend from Africans.
You realize that even if multi-regional theory was true we would still ultimately descend from Africa, right? The diverging points would just be pushed further back, the entire Homo genus is originally from Africa.
>That doesn't mean said assumptions cannot be unfounded or unseated by further research and better evidence,
Which is true for every single field, but as of right now every piece of evidence points to OOA, so the assumption is that OOA is correct, just like the assumption is that Special Relativity is correct since all evidence points towards it.
>>469281
I can't find any fossils/remains older than 300000 years old on google.
>>469365
>Just because my ancestors are from Germany doesn't make me German
This is how you sound
>The existence of (for example) R1a haplogroups in West Africa doesn't mean that is its origin
But the key difference is that we can see where the genetic point of origin starts here.
>>469374
>No, I was responding with your unecessary snarkiness with my own.
I'm not the one you were talking to before.
>and there isn't sufficient levels of evidence or research done to prove Out of Africa theory.
The research that HAS been done so far all points to it. You're starting to sound like a creationist going on about where the fossils for the "missing link" is.
>>469374
God of the gaps
>there isn't sufficient levels of evidence or research done to prove Out of Africa theory
Except the mountains of research, fossil records, genetic evidence, and common sense on top of the overwhelming support from credible biologists
>>469379
>You realize that even if multi-regional theory was true we would still ultimately descend from Africa, right? The diverging points would just be pushed further back, the entire Homo genus is originally from Africa.
Like I said early on, just because I don't accept one theory, does not mean I accept that alternative.
My position is that I don't know, that the research on the history of DNA and how it has travelled around human populations isn't complete yet, and that assumptions are being drawn early on with the first lot of data collected based on a fraction of the evidence.
This isn't an impossible standard to hold.
>Which is true for every single field, but as of right now every piece of evidence points to OOA, so the assumption is that OOA is correct, just like the assumption is that Special Relativity is correct since all evidence points towards it.
Sure, but each theory has a variation in the evidence gathered. Not all of it is comparable or relative even if it passes the scientific method and peer review.
Heck, there are instances where people entirely fudge data and get it published, but I'm not being black-and-white about it.
>>469397
>Like I said early on, just because I don't accept one theory, does not mean I accept that alternative.
The point is that no matter what theory turns out to be true, we'll still be descended from Africa. The only thing that would change is how far back the date of divergence goes.
>>469353
>You spouted mostly memes in response, replied with strawmen, and only responded to one point while ignoring the other point.
Where?
>Did you even fucking read what I typed up?
Yes, and you made countless assumptions instead of the least
>Looks as if the shitposting accusation is a projection on your part.
Except for the blatant disregard for logic and use of fedoras
>Oh I'm sorry, is the quality of research and the level of it consistent to a perfect degree?
Nothing is perfect, but yeah. All evidence points to Africa.
Look, if it's being related to niggers or something that annoys you then relax. Nobody is saying Mansa Musa or Tyrone is your grandpa. You share a distant common ancestor with him who probably looked more like a bushman than anything else.
>>469365
>The existence of (for example) R1a haplogroups in West Africa doesn't mean that is its origin
That's because West Africans, like all Africans, have at least 6% Eurasian DNA in them thanks to a back to African movement, not to mention North Africans coming in to trade with West Africans every now and then.
>>469385
>This is how you sound
Ever think they might not actually be?
Germany as a country isn't entirely made up of German ethnic groups. Ever heard of the Wends, Sorbs, Pommeranians, etc...?
So its clear you latch on to general assumptions, because they make you feel comfortable in the knowledge you possess now, and which ignores anything else.
> The research that HAS been done so far all points to it. You're starting to sound like a creationist going on about where the fossils for the "missing link" is.
>>The research that HAS been done so far all points to it. You're starting to sound like a creationist going on about where the fossils for the "missing link" is.
>I don't agree, therefore I'm your next strawman/bogeyman
Not even worth replying to in-depth.
>>469406
>That's because West Africans, like all Africans, have at least 6% Eurasian DNA in them thanks to a back to African movement, not to mention North Africans coming in to trade with West Africans every now and then.
Right, so there is outside influence, its not all originating from one continent.
...And that is just one example.
>>469117
https://peronsoddities.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/skull-found-in-greece-rejects-out-of-africa-theory/
Out of Africa BTFO
u
t
o
f
A
f
r
i
c
a
B
T
F
O
more like this
genetics proved it a long time ago
>>469416
>wordpress
>>469405
>Where?
If you're not the same fellow throwing that around and ignoring what I am stating, then I apologize.
Hard to make distinctions at times, after all, its 4chan.
>Yes, and you made countless assumptions instead of the least
I've pointed out assumptions made in the theory, and I don't accept those assumptions.
>Except for the blatant disregard for logic and use of fedoras
One meme against how many in response?
In terms of blatant disregard for logic, that begun with the first fellow who disregarded my points altogether.
>All evidence points to Africa.
As I said early on in the thread, just because the continent is genetically diverse, does not mean said diversity is the originator.
>>469395
>pointing out gaps
>therefore I'm bringing god into it
There is that equivalence again.
>Except the mountains of research, fossil records, genetic evidence, and common sense on top of the overwhelming support from credible biologists
On the DNA point, no, it is mainly derived from Y-Chromosome/Mitochondrial DNA which is a fraction of overall DNA research and ignores contemporary human beings.
Said this more than once, and it keeps getting ignored. More research needs to be done across the board in this respect, with less assumptions made.
>>469416
>700,000 years ago
Okay, that is definitely not Homo sapiens, no matter what these tinfoil hat morons try to say.
>>469423
>>469449
http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/05/russian-geneticists-disprove-out-of.html
https://sapientiaexanimo.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/russian-geneticists-disprove-out-of-africa-claim/
http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/human-skull-challenges-out-africa-theory-001283
STILL BTFO
T
I
L
L
B
T
F
O
>>469444
>ignores contemporary human beings.
What?
>>469454
>two blogs that both refer to the same exact study from a pseudo-scientist
>a conspiracy site that's referring to the same exact Greek skull
You're not very smart, are you?
>>469413
>Right, so there is outside influence, its not all originating from one continent.
You really are a hopeless case.
This was over 180,000 years AFTER mankind rose in africa
>>469449
>I disagree with what they are saying
>therefore the evidence is false and sources unreliable
>>469455
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/theories
Correction, I rushed that and had a Freudian slip, I meant it relies too much on contemporary people.
Which in actuality highlights my point about migrations, haplogroups, the origins of various groups, etc.. which branched out from my original point.
Having to respond to what others think is my argument, as opposed to what my original argument was, then its no surprise.
We /x/ now
>>469466
Homo heidelbergensis, a species we evolved from, was still fucking around in Eurasia and Africa back then. Hell, not even Neanderthals were around at that time.
>>469463
>influence from slavery times
>180k years ago
Nice projection.
Also its only one example to highlight that just because said haplogoup exists in Africa, doesn't mean it originated there.
You're responding with a circular argument.
>>469466
Anon, you realize that's what you're doing right?
>>469480
what I am doing is providing counter-sources, not just dismissing it to protect my feel-feels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
>>469478
That's not what he said at all, he said 180,000 years AFTER humans arose, but 180,000 years ago. Can you even read?
>>469484
Pseudo-science and blogs aren't a source.
>>469469
>The story of human origins is complicated. Many of the genetic studies cited in support of the Out of Africa hypothesis have been based on analysis of Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Yet Y-DNA and mtDNA represent only a tiny fraction of the human genome, and we have until recently been reliant on the analysis of DNA extracted from contemporary people. The surviving Y-DNA and mtDNA lines represent only a subset of those present in the ancestral population. Advances in ancient DNA testing in the last few years are now beginning to transform our understanding and knowledge. Analysis of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA have provided evidence that archaic humans contributed to our ancestry. For some good articles summarising the current thinking see the links below:
Taken from the link.
The field of genetics is far from reaching a complete conclusion on the matter with all data taken into account.
Funnily enough, I said this right from the start, and was called a tinfoil for it.
>>469496
you just dismiss it as pseudo-science over and over, contributing no new information. It's not furthering the discussion. No one is learning anything. It's not going anywhere.
>>469493
>That's because West Africans, like all Africans, have at least 6% Eurasian DNA in them thanks to a back to African movement, not to mention North Africans coming in to trade with West Africans every now and then.
Which means its 'diversity' has been influenced by outside forces and one recent piece of evidence supports this, and its not the only kind around.
Can you idiots fucking read? This was one of my original points.
>>469506
The world is flat
Source:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
>>469508
You're the one who said
>>influence from slavery times
>>180k years ago
>Nice projection.
>>469509
Okay, I disagree. Here is some information that contradicts your claim.
http://futurism.com/facts-obvious/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_the_Earth.27s_circumference
>>469508
>putting quotes on the "diversity" part
>implying even without the Eurasian DNA they aren't the most genetically diverse people on the planet
>>469514
>genetic studies done on contemporary people
>showing the diversity of the African continent
>automatically means that diversity comes from Africa
>not from outside of it
I'm looking at the evidence a different way, just because R1a is present there doesn't mean that is its origins.
Likewise it was one example, the same could be said of other haplogroups.
Also see >>469499
>>469530
And you'd need evidence to say it is
>>469539
Already placed a link showing that here: >>469469
Section highlighted here: >>469499
Which is what I said right from the fucking beginning, here: >>469164
>Idiots latching on to studies surrounding Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA, which is an incredibly small amount of human genetics.
Has it finally sunk in yet?
The rest of the replies are 'wew lad' tier.
>>469530
Isn't the solution that African diversity is from everyone else migrating to it instead of the other way around the one that makes the most assumptions, since it would require much more mass migrations?
>>469532
Did you see what I said? I wrote even WITHOUT the Eurasian ancestry, they're still obscenely genetically diverse. The Eurasian is rather small in comparison.
>>469556
I understood already that it was one example, I've said that already.
I've already responded to the genetic diversity point, in fact I did so right from the start. See >>469550
>>469552
I acknowledge there are examples of migrations into Africa, I'm not saying all of it is, I am saying that the assumption is made that just because the diversity exists there, it must be the origin of the rest.
This assumption is based on the limited amount of genetic research conducted so far, which is far from complete.
>>469578
Why is the amount of research "limited"? You keep saying it's not enough but under what criteria is not enough? We've mapped out the entire human genome. What more do you think we need to research in order for you to be satisfied with these findings?
>>469609
I think that anon genuinely wants to see a skull found in Eurasia that's over 200,000 years old.
>>469609
The answer to that was linked, more than once.
Mapping out the genome isn't all that relevant to the point I am making, because I don't have any issue with the work of Watson, Crick, etc... The issues raised are different.
Anyway, I am running out of steam on this.
>>469617
>we are talking about DNA research now
>time to divert the topic back to skulls
This is why its getting derailed.
Also, that given subject is always open ended. I accept the finds, nobody knows when those finds will end though.
The DNA point is different altogether.
I'm repeating myself, again.
Don't believe the afrocentrist lies
The congoloid race is not from the Yamnaya empire
All the "human" races appeared all over the earth at the same time and evolved the ability to interbreed over 100,000 years
>>469652
>evolved the ability to interbreed
kek
>>469652
Yeah, sure buddy.
>>469241
I don't think that anyone is arguing that the Homo genus didn't originate in Africa - just that the Homo Sapiens species originated, at least in part, outside.
>>469652
>evolved the ability to interbreed
And people say liberals are stupid.
Out of Arabia / The Fertile Crescent.
Africa was historically the most underpopulated continent in the Old World until the past century.
It makes no sense that there would be such a mass exodus from Africa, with literally everywhere else surpassing it in population.
I think Out of Africa is a politically charged theory, rather than a genuine one. Arabia used to be lush and fertile, and perhaps over-cultivation desertified the land.
>>470007
Your an order of magnitude wrong m8, 100,000+ compared to ~10,000
>>470007
Nation of Islam detected, get out.
>>469496
your hurt feelings are not a source
>>470007
>Africa was historically the most underpopulated continent in the Old World until the past century.
>It makes no sense that there would be such a mass exodus from Africa, with literally everywhere else surpassing it in population.
Uh, no, it makes perfect sense on so many levels.
>>470007
it only takes a few 100 years tops for a population to expand to fit the resources available
from then on it is about developing new technology and agricultural practices to procure more resources
>>470007
Are you retarded? Humans left Africa thousands of centuries before Fertile Crescent civilization.
>>470145
Who the fuck said anything about feelings? Why is it always feelings with you people?
>>470440
Once again, he's probably a Nation of Islam member.
>>470145
Says the faggot getting butthurt.
>>469117
If you accept the massive oversimplification: the one on the right is right
>>469145
You're retarded.
>>469509
Lurker here
Now I know you are two timing trolling little bitch
Fuck you, you gay cunt
>>470085
>>471158
I honestly don't know how you could gleam that I am an Afrocentrist from my post that opposes the African "ownership" of humanity's origin.
It's as if you don't even have basic reading comprehension.
>>470168
>>470263
>>470440
Yet Africa has never had the population growth to take advantage of the most copious natural resources in the world, and Bantoids only reached South Africa in their late Iron Age.
Only people with an agenda still defend this outdated dogma. There is nowhere near enough evidence to make such claims. How many lost civilisations could be buried under the sands of Arabia and the Sahara? We may never know.
>>469117
Tesst
>>469578
>This assumption is based on the limited amount of genetic research conducted so far, which is far from complete.
This was pretty much the deathblow to the multiregional hypothesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L3_%28mtDNA%29
>>472536
>Yet Africa has never had the population growth to take advantage of the most copious natural resources in the world, and Bantoids only reached South Africa in their late Iron Age.
What the fuck does that have to do with humans coming from Africa or not?
>>472536
Nation of Islam nutjobs believe that humanity is descended from the Middle East.
TOBA TOBA TOBA TOBA TOBA TOBA TOBA TOBA TOBA TOBA TOBA TOBA TOBA TOBA
>>469117
We have some non-Homo Sapiens DNA, but not enough to constitute the multiregional hypothesis.
Since the widespread acceptance of the Toba Catastrophe theory, there's really no reason to believe the Multiregional Hypothesis.
>>472536
>Bantoids
Nigger what are you saying?
>>479184
Unless you hate black people so much, you can't even comprehend that you might have been descended from them, or you think it's some sort of Jewish plot.
>>7515755
Out of Africa is true but liberals don't realise how it fuck in proves blacks are inferior. Out of Africa basically says humans evolved and left Africa, but the blacks stayed and didn't evolve.
>>469340
t. Alberto Barbarossa
>>480315
...were you dropped on the head as a baby or were you born this stupid?
>>480315
By that logic abos are the most advanced people on Earth since they left Africa the earliest.
>>480315
how does this prove that blacks are ''inferior''?
>>480315
>implying black people have stopped evolving in Africa
Even if this was true, it would only mean East Africans are "inferior", as North, Central, West, and Southern Africans all moved out from that region.
