Out of Africa theory is the theory that all humans originated in Africa and spread out from there.
But there's very clear evidence that proto-humans existed all around the world. There are even Homo Erectus bones in England.
How can humans have all come from Africa and spread out if protohumans were already in Europe and Asia?
That doesn't make sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_Africa_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans
There's two OOA's.
pic related is simplified, IIRC the earliest know fossil found outside of Africa is Homo erectus georgicus.
Maybe the specific Homo Sapiens just happened to mutate in Africa?
They then turned it to be better adjustable than everyone else.
>>860296
No one is denying that the very first protohuman evolved in Africa, but out of Africa likes to state that anatomically modern humans evolved only in Africa and spread out from there.
If Protohumans existed over the world, doesn't it make more sense that they all evolved into the different races?
>>860316
No
>what is genetics
WE
>>860316
And then they managed to develop pretty much the same skull shape somehow?
Why is it very hard to find information surrounding how races evolved?
There seems to be a complete lack of information about what the first anatomically modern humans looked like when they were in Africa.
They moved to Asia 70,000 years BC but I can't find anything on how they evolved into the Mongoloid race.
Exactly
It's ludicrous
All the "DNA evidence" and "fossil records" and "overwhelming consensus of experts" is smoke and mirrors
Likely by the Jews
Everybody knows that proto humans such as homo habilis were the exact same thing as anatomically modern humans
In fact, people just spontaneously generated on every continent
>>860340
WUZ NEANTHERTHAL
I thought it referred to hominids in general first appearing in Africa. Where were the earliest fossils of Homo Sapiens found?
>>860369
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omo_remains
Africa, specifically Ethiopia.
If humans evolved in Africa, why are there no humans in Africa today? Checkmate atheists.
Polygenism seems a lot less likely than a single origin.
>>860354
Because we don't have that much evidence when it comes to early hominids, just a few partial skeletons.
>>860363
Actually, most "white" supremacists pride themselves on their cromagnidness, and "Varg" himself is a cromagnid.
>>860439
>and "Varg" himself is a cromagnid.
Modern people are not ancient people anon.
>WE WUZ
>>860439
I am no expert on Varg, don't he think something happened to them due to the rise of Christianity or something?
>>860447
1. Cromagnid =/= Cromagnon.
2. Cromagnon are not "ancient" as there were cromagnon alive just a few centuries ago.
3. The cromagnon were not biologically "modern humans".
4. "Modern Humans" do not descend from the Cromagnon as the jewish Academiscists have indoctrinated most people. Firstly, the very notion of "modern humans" is wrong. Secondly, Only some peoples/ethnicities descend from the cromagnon (are cromagnid).
>>860472
>Cro-Magnon (Listeni/kroʊˈmænjən/ or US pronunciation: /kroʊˈmæɡnən/; French: [kʁomaɲɔ̃]) is a common name that has been used to describe the first early modern humans (early Homo sapiens sapiens) that lived in the European Upper Paleolithic.[1] Current scientific literature prefers the term European early modern humans (EEMH), to the term Cro-Magnon, which has no formal taxonomic status, as it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture.[2] The earliest known remains of Cro-Magnon-like humans are radiocarbon dated to 43-45,000 years before present that have been discovered in Italy[3] and Britain,[4] with the remains found of those that reached the European Russian Arctic 40,000 years ago.
>>860472
>2. Cromagnon are not "ancient" as there were cromagnon alive just a few centuries ago.
Where and when?
Did we all evolve from black people?
>>860472
>jewish Academiscists
>>860485
Did we all evolve from people whose skin was about as melanin rich as the people who currently live in the tropics? Yes, there is absolutely no discussion or question about that, it is as close to a fact as you can get in this field.
If you want any more than that, you'll have to explain what you mean by 'black' people.
>>860485
Yes, go far enough back and everyone was black. Go further back and they were pale skinned and covered in fur.
>>860488
>google 'guanches cro magnon'
>first result is this we-wuz tier shit
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_guanches_1.htm
>>860488
>is a common name that has been used to describe the first early modern humans (early Homo sapiens sapiens) that lived in the European Upper Paleolithic
By definition is refers to the upper palaeolithic
and this
>the term Cro-Magnon, which has no formal taxonomic status, as it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture.
It doesn't refer to descendants of early Europeans, and it isn't a formal taxonomic classification.
>>860485
Not in the modern sense, "black people" are a divergent branch of man like everyone else
Was everyone originally darker skinned africans? Yes
>>860472
>biologically "modern humans".
Define this. Cro-Magnons are just the earliest skeletons found in Europe that are almost indistinguishable from modern humans, which is why they are called anatomically modern humans. Neaderthals and Denisovans aren't classified as humans but there was interbreeding between humans and them, so were they biologically humans too?
>>860493
You got any proof for that?
Don't Cro-Magnon have a different skull shape to anatomically modern humans?
>>860507
>and it isn't a formal taxonomic classification.
Which was upheld by a race with significant nasal structure...
>>860531
Please, go back to /x/. Do you even understand how taxonomic categories work?
>>860520
>what is google
http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14657/why-do-we-assume-that-the-first-humans-were-dark-skinned
>>860515
What do you mean by 'black' people?
Bantu? West African? Negrito? Dravidian?
>>860520
One could infer that the first hairless humans darkened up as they lost their hair. Higher levels of melanin in the skin is an advantage in the tropics. It only becomes a disadvantage once you live in an area or have a lifestyle with poor sources of vitamin D in the food, and where there are long periods of little sunlight.
>>860515
How did we evolve lighter skin?
Evolutionary selection pressure for decreased melanin.
>>860562
see >>860542 and >>860543
>"comparisons between known skin pigmentation genes in chimpanzees and modern Africans show that dark skin evolved along with the loss of body hair about 1.2 million years ago and is the ancestral state of all humans." This is several million years after after the time estimated for the last common human-chimpanzee ancestor, but at least 1 million years before the emergence of Homo Sapiens. This suggests that the earliest species in Homo may have had lighter skin, but that the advantageous genes for dark skin were universal by the time of the first true humans.
>The first modern humans evolved about 200.000 years ago in Africa. When they lost their body hair (or at least most of it), they needed some other protection of their skin from the sun - otherwise they are prone to develop melanoma. Melanin is such a protection, and the rate of melanoma is much lower in dark skinned people. There is also a nice correlation between latitude and skin color - the more to the north (and to some degree to the south as well) you get, the lighter the skin color of the population gets. The reason for this is likely the better ability to synthesize Vitamin D (for which you need sunlight on the skin)
>>860581
I think the loss of hair and gain of melanin must have happened at the same rate.
You'd never have a naked white ape in the Rift Valley, dying of skin cancer young for a few thousand years.
No aquatic ape ITT? Image related.
>>860603
I don't really believe in aquatic ape theory, but is it just a coincidence that humans are well adapted to swimming?
I mean something as mundane as holding your breath is something that most animals can't do.
>>860603
I've read a little bit about aquatic ape, it's obviously not /x/ tier, but I think that some of the arguments are a bit of a stretch. Your picture suggests loss of body hair was an aquatic adaptation, I think it's much more likely to be related to cooling down more effectively allowing sweat to evaporate. And humans are better endurance runners than any other species.
>>860621
The place humans evolved has drastic changes through the seasons. Regions can be flooded at one part of the year, brush-land in another, grassland in another, and desert-steppe in another. The idea that Africa is a stable idyllic environment pushed by some Eurocentrists is an obvious fable; as is the idea that it's too harsh for anyone to develop there, this one is pushed by Eurocentrists sometimes.
I don't buy the aquatic ape theory because I can't think of a find that would /prove/ it. But I always keep it in mind when considering human prehistory, because we /know/ early humans had to deal with aquatic environments all the time.
>>860363
I don't agree with his "Nazi" views but he makes lots of interesting points about modern life that I really like. I don't think i'd like him in person so many ideas can be ruined by the person and/or their ideology.
>>860562
Vitamin D deficiency causes rickets. Rickets make you unattractive and too slow for raping, so the guys that had an easier time coming up with vitamin D in lower-light environments got lucky more often and so passed on their pasty genes while smokes didn't.
>>860267
Because they died out due to disease, famine, our ancestors killing them. It's notable that the same thing happened to us in different places.
>>860562
Gotta generate your own vitamin B if you want to survive in high latitudes.
>>860296
>dat overlap with neanderthals n sapiens
tfw you will never hook up with a high test neander female.
>>860316
Proto-Humans existed everywhere, sure. But Homo Sapiens outcompeted/drove them to extinction. For sure the Homo Sapiens in Europe boned with the Neanderthals, though I vaguely recall Homo Sapiens in Asia banging some other homo species?
>>860603
This pic gave me an erection and I don't quite understand why
>>860316
People back in the day don't give much fuss about genocide.
When a tribe move in, tribe that already there shall try to rout them, or move away. Sometimes conflict between both leads to death of all males of one group and the females join the 'conqueror' tribe. What if those two tribe from different species which is incompatible with each other? They just die.
>>860472
>cro magnon were not biologically "modern humans"
They were ayliums?
So much garbage in this thread. The memeing and /pol/tardation should have been kept out of this board.
>>860316
Except the earliest modern human remains are african, mitochondrial eve was african, and the highest level of genetic diversity in Africa
The big neon sign says Africa
Proto humans were outcompeted by modern humans and wiped out or assimilated
>>860341
>pretty much the same skull shape
lol
talk to a forensic investigator about that one.
>>861456
Compared to Neanderthals etc. he's right. Of course humans also cluster along racial lines, craniofacially.
Anyway, multiregionalism is a non-starter. Perhaps Out-of-Africa isn't entirely correct but multiregionalism is just bonkers based on the evidence we have.
>>860650
>he makes lots of interesting points about modern life
he's just a cranky hippy. he makes 0 intelligent points.
>>861392
Proto humans and modern humans.
You say that as if we're descended from a pair of incestuous twins.
Can't believe that saucer-eyed people like you think you have the right to obscure science with feelgood politics... What church do you go to?
>>861543
Not that anon, but do you have an IQ with 2 or 3 digits?
>>860267
>being this retarded
>>861543
...do you have schizophrenia?
>>862145
Neanderthal and Homo sapiens haven't always existed anon. Prior to Homo erectus leaving Africa all of our ancestral species since the split with chimps were found exclusively in Africa.
>>862153
Yeah but you know how liberals always like to scream "WE WUZ ALL BLACK"
I don't think their definition of "black" really works. What they mean is a black skinned proto-human.
>>860296
>Homo Erectus just slowly dies off alone over the course of 1 million years
Damn, that's kind of sad
>>862160
>What they mean is a black skinned proto-human
Sure, which makes more sense, because 'black' doesn't actually work as a biological classification (there is always inbreeding between populations so distinct divisions based on phenotype never accurately reflect the biological reality). The whole 'black' thing seems to largely be american, or at least when it's used as something other than a colloquial terminology.
>>862167
interbreeding* or admixture
>>862160
>What they mean is a black skinned proto-human.
No what you mean is you don't want to be associated with modern black people, and certainly not in a way that makes you think you may descend from them or be related in any way. It goes against your world view and you can't find a way to rationalise it so you have to rely on not believing it. By using black skinned proto human you are distancing yourself from that which hurts you, inventing an escape route, a caveat for your brain to carry on as it was rather than accept something you believe in could be wrong. A dissonance, the Dunning-Kruger effect, call it what you like but its there for all to see. If you want to fix it, you have to look at the evidence you can find and understand, look at the opinions of people who are experts and then come to a new rational decision based on this instead of a belief. Might even be the same, but at least it won't be on the shaky ground you stand on now.
>>860650
Like what?
>>860518
They should be if they can produce fertile offspring.
>>862227
That's why they are quite often classified Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, an actually reasonable subspecies classification.
>>862225
Stuff like to not consume as much, get out of the city and live in the country, off the land.
I was raised in the country and that typa shit really resonates with me. Im not a big fan of London anymore, too busy, too soul less.
>>862160
>WE WUZ ALL BLACK
Nobody says this
It's African
You're probably just a stormfag who is terrified of the notion of bearing any relation to black people that you flip your shit when someone mentions human origins being in africa
Fun fact, the people with the highest percentage Neanderthal DNA are Mediterranean-Europeans. Even more so in Tuscany.
>>862583
SO YO BE SAYIN ?
![4666651990_c4125ee936[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/meQgAnW.jpg "4666651990_c4125ee936[1].jpg")
natives look like gooks.
coincidence?
>>862604
ummm... natives come from siberians moving eastwards
(fun fact: they have ancestral history that says Cherokees were the late-arrivals to the continent).
So yeah, they are related to asians.
>>862583
WE
Full kek if you are going to believe the out of Africa "we waz kangs" lie. There are many differences between the different races on earth, it's not just about the pigment of your skin.
>>862254
>they are quite often classified Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
Not really. Most modern sources classify them as their own species, not a sub-species. From what we can tell, we only interbred with them with great difficulty, similar to tigers and lions.
