Out of Africa theory, false?

You may know that the mainstream theory for the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens is that we all descend from a common ancestor who lived in Africa some 65,000 years ago and that we are all so closely related that two groups of chimps living in the same jungle have more genetic distance between them than a European and an African.

I find this theory absurd.

First off, human races do have significant genetic distance between them:



The numbers at the top give percentage of genetic distance between where the lines break off.

A study in Population and Environment by F. K. Salter shows the loss of alleles in the offspring of different populations:


Legend:
AFR - Africans (Sub-Saharan Africans)
NEC - Non European Caucasoids (Saharan/North Africans, Middle Easterners, Indians/Pakistanis)
EUC - European Caucasoids (White Europeans)
NEA - Northeast Asians (Japanese/Chinese/Korean)
ANE - Arctic Northeast Asians (Siberians)
SEA - Southeast Asians (Cambodians, Thai, Malay)
PAI - Pacific Islanders (Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia)
NGA - New Guineans & Australians (New Guinean and Australian aborigines)

AFR*NEC=54
AFR*EUC=66
AFR*NEA=70
AFR*ANE=80
AFR*AME=90
AFR*SEA=88
AFR*PAI=100
AFR*NGA=99
NEC*EUC=6
NEC*NEA=26
NEC*ANE=28
NEC*AME=38
NEC*SEA=38
NEC*NGA=47
EUC*NEA=38
EUC*ANE=30
EUC*AME=42
EUC*SEA=50
EUC*PAI=54
EUC*NGA=54
NEA*ANE=18
NEA*AME=30
NEA*SEA=25
NEA*PAI=29
NEA*NGA=29
ANE*AME=23
ANE*SEA=42
ANE*PAI=47
ANE*NGA=41
AME*SEA=54
AME*PAI=70
AME*NGA=58
SEA*PAI=17
SEA*NGA=50
PAI*NGA=32

We can see that race clearly does exist.

Here is a map of hair type around the world, which coincides well with the old racial classification of Caucasiod, Mongoloid and Negroid races:


OoA proponents will argue that over the 65000 years since man left Africa, selection pressures were faced and people further evolved into the 'races' we see today.

My response to that is this: The precursor to modern snake species stopped walking 100 million years ago, and whales left land 50 million years ago... but some snakes and whales still have vestigial legs. Disadvantageous genes can be lost rapidly, but neutral ones don't have to disappear. Men still have nipples... and we became bipedal at least 10 million years ago... but we still have useless toenails. Why, then, have the supposed descendants of 65000 year old African migrants to places all around the world lost all their vestigial African features? They aren't disadvantageous to any environment, yet there are no vestigial African features in any non-African environment.

Out of Africa fails on every front and it is simply a tool to promote egalitarianism.

 

Okay. I re-read it about 5 times. Okay I searched it up on wiki. I really don't see how the "Everyone has origin's to Africa" is a tool for egalitarinism. Everyone is different and everyone knows that. As azn said, where you are will mold you and change you to whatever pertains to that area/climate.

 

Please don't post here, then. It's a rule that every post in this forum must contribute to the discussion at hand.

 

your enviroment will shape and mould you into watever it wants depending on ur surroundings. thats y there all different dumb ass dont question science i bet u think that midget jesus guy ( and his dad) born in the middle east (yet always shown as a pale white guy HAHA) made the whole fucking universe.

 

If you had cared to read my entire thread, I had anticipated this argument and have a response ready for it:

 

Interesting Govind, I had the same thoughts before an article about this came out a while ago:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htm

tl;dr: Cambridge researchers did DNA sample testing of of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea. This data was compared with the various DNA patterns associated with early humans. The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa 50,000 years ago.

 

If you put a black person in the far north for a thousand years his skin colour would greatly change (assuming he repopulated with other blacks in a controlled way)
but I agree that the African theory is a load of bull. Besides there was ice over all of europe and africa at that time?

neanderthals controlled everything until the ice receeded, as when the ice receeded the large trees did too. Once this happened the smaller more agil homo-sapien-sapien took over the grassy plains and eventually the neanderthals died off.

This time frame was 30000 years AFTER this african theory when at that we were scavengers. Our brains wern't as developed off the bone marrow and therefore capable of much less.

We have no valid artifacts (around africa)to show that they were capable of travelling great distances that long ago. Though we have found boats on the northern coast of australia dating back 20000 years there is nothing nearly as advanced coming from africa.


Mesopotamia ftw?

 

no shit if u lived in australia ud know how bloody stupid aborigials are lmfao.
abos walked from asia to australia when sea lvls where lower.

 

nope they used boats as the sea levels were very low but not low enough to cross. They had very primitive boats that just had to cross like 50km streches.

 

Neanderthals were probably assimilated into the Cro-Magnon line. I don't see them going "extinct" like that.

 

I dn't really get it lol

 

Funnily enough, there is no one on earth more dissimilar to Africans than Australian aborigines, as far as genetic distance goes.

 

Don't they have a common ancestor with hippos? By "whales" I meant whatever the precursor to whales was 200 mya.

Exactly. Just like there is no selective pressure to get rid of buttock-concentrated fat, short wooly hair, joined nasal bones, the occipital bun, the simian shelf, shoveled incisors, etc, that occur in Africans (not all, but some) but almost never in Europeans or Asians.

 

Before I jump into this, I do find the articles interesting and the conventional theory to be somewhat... well lacking... but I do suppose that you should mention the predominant evidence for the conventional theory is the transitional fossil evidence.

You are absolutely correct; this seems to suggest either one of two things. Either the point of origin is much farther back than we believe, or the selection process was artificial, and thus much faster. Due to the archaeological evidence, I'd lean towards the latter. When the gene pool is relatively small, and people select for certain traits (which are not necessary for survival), neutrals dissipate much faster.

I'm also curious what your alternate hypothesis to the situation is?

 

Archaelogical evidence suggests that the point of origin suggested by the Out of Africa theory is accurate? Remember, though - the first animal known to have been domesticated was the Northeast Asian wolf (canis lupus), and wasn't that at least a hundred thoustand years ago?

Also, is there evidence that humans selected for traits they found 'pretty' that long ago?

I favor the multiregional hypothesis.

 

Yes, even the multi-regional theory suggests that at one point Africa was the convergent grounds for humanity. The main difference I suppose is the time scale? 2.5million years, from several regions of homo erectus, vs the 100-200 thousand years in the Out of Africa theory.

According to my readings, the multi-regional theory was discarded after genetic findings "which suggest that all humans ultimately descended from one female: the Mitochondrial Eve."

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

While normal DNA is variant, subject to high rates of changes under both natural and artifical pressures, mitochondrial DNA is relatively stable, making it a better case-study.

Source?

Ah well I did some research for it, your topic would be a little easier to comprehend if you posted your alternate in the first post.

 

Sorry about the delayed reply.

FreedomFight: By "point of origin" I meant point in time - sorry, I should have clarified.

The domestication sources:
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/6_28_97/bob1.htm

^ That is a freely available copy of a pay-to-view peer-reviewed journal found here: www.jstor.org/stable/4018458

I can read it because I'm enrolled at a participating University, not sure if you can though.

Granted, it's controversial because it goes against the mainstream theory, but that doesn't make it wrong.

By the way, didn't MTEve live 150000 years ago? Is there any proof that she was a Homo Sapiens Sapiens?

Shawn:
I believe that some form of the Homo genus spread around the world and later evolved into modern-day Europeans, Asians, Australians, and Africans - though I do not doubt that our LCA was from Africa...

 

At the end of the day, knowone will ever be able to providee 100% solid none arguable proof, unless dr who climbs out of the tele we'l never be able to travel back in time so we'l never get a 100% certain answer to where exactly we came from, so why try :embar:

 

Yes, give or take 50,000 years. I don't think there's definitive proof, but the reason why it's contradictory is because of the time frame. Your theory involves a divergence millions of years ago, not a mere 150-200,000 years ago.

This is a retarded argument. Science very rarely achieves 100% certainty.

 

You quoted the wrong person for the first one.