Human evolution

>>538156
Out of Africa. There is only one race. The human race.

>>538156
Both seem to have equal credibility at this point in our knowledge

>>538156
The multiregional hypothesis does no longer receive credence in anthropological circles.
Besides, your picture alone is enough to invalidate it: when has evolution ever happened so cleanly and symmetrically? At the very least, Asians and Europeans should share a more recent common ancestor.

>>538174
> Multiregional evolution holds that ... human evolution has been within a single, continuous human species

>>538176
>In Weidenreich's original graphic there were also diagonal lines between the populations, e.g. between African H. erectus and Archaic Asians and between Asian H. erectus and Archaic Africans. This created a "trellis" (as Wolpoff called it) or a "network" that emphasized gene flow between geographic regions and within time. It is important to remember that the populations on the chart are not discrete – i.e., they do not represent different species, but are samples within a long lineage experiencing extensive gene flow.

File: geneticrelationship.jpg (57KB, 446x308px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 446x308px

>>538174
The out of Africa theory is currently the best supported by evidence to be sure, but that doesn't mean that race is genetically unimportant. There are smaller differences between some animal species than Sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans for example.

>>538228
Go back to /pol/ with those fucking retarded jpg charts

>>538234
Not that poster but there's a cited, academic source entirely and you can look it up and judge its credibility and whether it supports anon's gist.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8412653
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masatoshi_Nei

>>538215
That's good, but that wasn't my point. Europeans and Asians diverged more recently from each others than from the other branches, I don't see how it's possibly to argue against that without rejecting almost all the genetic evidence.

>>538256
Also the branches are rather misplaced: Europeans should be between Africans and Asians. There was obviously more gene flow between Caucasians and Africans than between Asians and Africans, and there was more geneflow between Asians and Australians than between Australians and Caucasians until very recently.

>>538156
http://wakeup-world.com/2013/12/16/dna-evidence-debunks-the-out-of-africa-theory-of-human-evolution/

>>538156
The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic cultural marxist influenced campaign in the 1990’s to remove the concept of Race. This is the same agenda Jews push through multicultural tv-shows, etc. Another symptom of cultural marxism without any basis in reality.

>>538286
>linking to a tinfoil esoteric bullshit blog
Not to mention they're literally too stupid to interpret the genetic evidence.

>>538298
>Geneticians are cultural marxists

>>538156
Multiregional hypothesis isn't supported by any proof. Out of Africa is supported by dating the age of haplogroups.

There was admixture with archaic humans in europe, asia, africa and australia, but the common ancestor of all humans today is homo sapiens who originates from africa.

>>538298
Nice false flagging.

>>538228
Also this. 50k years is plenty of time for evolution to occur.

File: MacaulayRichardsmtDNAtree.jpg (171KB, 1084x1743px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1084x1743px

>>538318
>Out of Africa is supported by dating the age of haplogroups.
Not just the age but also the relations between them.

>>538318
Good goy.

>>538335
Indeed, I could've been more precise.

>>538337
I'm about as /pol/ you can get, so...

How can people not support the multi regional hypothesis when we know that different races of homo sapiens mixed with separate groups of extinct hominids and at different rates?(i.e Neanderthals, Denisovans, others yet to be identified)

>>538337
Just for the record, I'm well convinced that there are genetic factors to intelligence and that the distribution of alleles affecting IQ and psychosocial traits is closely linked to recognizable ethnic groups. I don't think grouping people in great continental races has much meaning for anything other than paleontology, but the genetic differences between smaller populations are significant and useful for most disciplines.
I've actually read studies on the subject and I've even occasionally posted digests of the findings on /pol/ to try to educate you retards before I realized it was throwing pearls before swine.

>>538363
Because the news of parahuman admixture merely updates the OoA hypothesis to "OoA with parahuman admixture."

Yet another /pol/ thread.

Archaic long abandoned theories must be true because I am so racist that I am willing to abandon science in the name of denying blacks might be more closely related to whites than I am comfortable with.

>>538365
Most people on /pol/ are well versed in the basics of human population genetics. Don't let the few redditors fool you into believing /pol/ is this monolithic anti-intellectual board.

>>538379
It's not even a problem of ignorance and lack of education, it's a problem of intellectual dishonesty, distrust of experts' motives, confirmation bias, wishful thinking and generally a lack of interest in finding the truth (you might have noticed that this is what race denialists are guilty of as well.)
This is something that poisons all HBD debates to some extent, but /pol/ is a particularly toxic environment for intelligent discussion.

>Don't let the few redditors fool you into believing /pol/ is this monolithic anti-intellectual board
I've formed my own opinion of /pol/ by wasting entirely too much time on it and related boards over the years.

>>538254
>There are smaller differences between some animal species than Sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans for example.
Where in that paper does it say this?

>>538379
This is probably the stupidest post I've ever seen on this board.

/pol/ is an echochamber for disillusioned teens. If you think anyone there has any expertise on any topic, you're a fool.

>>540094
No idea, I didn't read the paper and off hand I'd guess that paper itself doesn't compare human and animal populations.
> you can look it up and judge its credibility and whether it supports anon's gist