Is Varg right? I'm somewhat ignorant on the theory but I assumed this was universally accepted. Also, what does /his/ think about Varg (and his wife's) views on Europeans.
>Is Varg right?
I don't think so.
>I thought the theory was universally accepted.
Things in science never really are. I think that it has the most evidence pointed towards it, but I don't think I'd put much weight in it.
>What does /his/ think about Varg?
He's a sociopath and murderer, ruined one of the greatest Black Metal bands in history, and has resorted to racial theories to try and feel superior now that he's amounted to nothing in his life.
I think Varg is pretty based. I am not too sure about the 'out of Africa' theory considering they have recently found a human ancestor which predated the oldest found 'human' in Africa.
are you actually for real?
Varg is completly retarded and his theories are based /pol/ tier science.
He makes good music and is really interesting tho.
But considering the most powerful man in the known universe is Mr. Barack Obama at the moment, Out Of Africa remains the "right" for now on.
I don't agree with him at all.I just have no real knowledge when it comes to anthropology. I know more about seventeenth-century England than anything else.
This is interesting.
He is constantly contradicting himself about the murder and his burning of historical churches is a great sin.
I did hear that some recent findings in Asia sparkled some more doubts about OOA, although I still think it's considered the leading theory.
The problem I've always found with multi-regional origin is that humans have very tight genepool for a species evolved in this way. Either out of africa is true, or the "out of africans" more or less genocided the people living before them to the point where the difference is miniscule.
I think that irl. it was still OOA but different than people think - the main racial/ethnic groups of Africa(Cape, Bantu, Eastern Africans and Pygmy) were the actual "different" people evolved locally, then some catastrophe has happened, decimating the population(tightening the genepool) and after being rebuilt, Eastern Africans moved out of Africa(which again, makes sense since from mDNA to various halogroups you can clearly see that Eastern Africans and non-Africans share many similarities that other African populations don't).
Aka we wuz ur ancyzturs an shieeet only applies to Ethiopians and the like.
Sorry senpaitachi, but if you deny Out of Africa you know NOTHING about anthropology and genetics relating to earliest humans.
Also inb4 someone jumps at me with some bullshit like a supposed evil nigger conspiracy to put down white man or anything like this, stop reading popsci and dwelve into actual science.
The biggest problem I have is that it requires justifying massive evolutionary convergence, while still kicking the ball of out of Africa back further.
All Homonids develop in Africa. Unless you posit an independent development of Homonids on different continents (which is /x/ tier), you still have a common ancestor moving out of Africa and giving rise to the human species.
The problem is that polygenesis has to somehow explain that homonids in Europe, Asia and Africa developed into something that had MORE in common with each other, rather then less. So much so that interbreeding, which was impossible, became possible. And all these distinct evolutionary pressures, all converged towards producing lifeforms not just similar in function but in construction.
Like I said, good fucking luck with that.
The study in the video doesn't say what he thinks it says. All it says is that after the split, non-African groups continued to develop on their own, their changes grouping into new clades as time went on. It's like saying that dalmatians and terriers don't share a common ancestor, simply because dalmatians have genes coding for spots and terriers don't – but those different genotypes both developed from the same fur pattern genes, so it's really a non-statement.
>I don't know much about canine genetics, so just take that analogy at face-value
Using SNPs in particular is grasping at straws, because they are by definition SINGLE nucleotide polymorphs, literally the difference of one amino acid in the genetic code. At most, the study could argue that the most recent common ancestor between all the haplogroups was something immediately ancestral to A.
This, basically. The genetic similarities between human populations are so overwhelming that people like Varg will never be able to push the common ancestor back to anything pre-human. IIRC, those ancestral humans are actually closer to us in time than they are to the first humans.
It's true though that modern Eurasians didn't evolve from modern Africans – after the initial divergence, there were many other splits and re-convergences between the different populations, and none of them were identical to modern populations, not even the ones directly ancestral.
As for Vikernes, he's a murderer, an arsonist, and a fool. Someone with true respect for European culture and heritage wouldn't go burning down 12th century stave churches, no matter their 'religious' convictions. He's an edgy cunt who frantically picks and chooses his current beliefs to whatever suits his collapsing ego. Maybe somebody will give him the proper viking treatment someday.
>Ok Ellu bak
>At lét hinn’s sat
>only made one good album and the second half of it is shit
>not a hack
Ethiopians left Africa and then came back 30k years ago.
There was the first human, they were dark brown skin and likely seen as black today. That human population spread down the mountains into Southern Africa, and West along the borders between the Savannah and forest. They fuck arguable a hybrid between an ancient hominid and a almost human population that came before.
At the same time Africans migrate across a landbridge that connects Arabia to Africa as well as through the Nile and into the Levant. Somewhere they fuck a hybrid Neanderthal-almost human population.
These people migrant all around Eurasia, adapting and changing dramatically except a small population that seemed to have stayed close to africa and came back to Africa before splintering off into Ancient North Africans, Ancient Ethio-Somalis and Ancient Ethiopics.
>The church corrupted people into being sedentary, we must go back to be cherrypicker collectors and hunter, even when the global population is 7 billions and counting.
>The Jesuits (or something I don't remember what he said correctly) and the Mediterraneans made unjust descriptions of neanderthals, calling them uncivilized and ugly because they were jealous of neanderthal civilization
Varg is a retard that constantly make mental gymnastics to suit his point of view and see himself and those like him as victims of a colossal conspiracy against them. Not much unlike every single retard that I have met in this board/website, but unlike him, I doubt people here have actually committed murder. Still he is a great musician, but only his post release, specially his paganism chants. I would not quote him in anything, unless you were trying to be edgy or you were joking.
The funniest thing about this is that for the longest time /pol/ types used to compare other races to Neanderthals, call them Neanderthals, unevolved, etc.
But when we found out it was white people that had most neanderthal DNA, and Africans have the least amount, suddenly the public image of Neanderthals turned into peaceful, advanced and clearly more intelligent, etc.
So humans didn't come from Africa in one wave.... and then multi-regionalists imagine that the different regions remained isolated until the age of discovery?
How do they account for the origin of their favorite haplogroup happening in Africa, and then spreading outwards from there?
R1b1c came from West Eurasia to Africa. R itself has an origin outside of Africa as far as we can tell. Look how it connects to East Africa (the high % in Western Europe and Cameroon are due to founder effects).
So genes that come from Eurasia can penetrate into Africa, and due to the founder effect, can spread rapidly? And that's just non-coding genes, so genes that code for anything useful must have surely spread farther and faster.
Central Africans (unlike East Africans) have basically no Eurasian autosomal admixture. A Y-DNA haplogroup is a very small part of your genetic material, only shows paternal ancestry which can be due to distant events that left basically no autosomal admixture. Read founder effect, genetic drift etc.
And obviously genes that code for anything useful spread much faster since they provide extra fitness. Malarial genes of African origin are common in formerly malarial areas of West Eurasia even if the associated African ancestry is basically non-existent.
If you believe blacks are the first humans then that would mean they are primitive apes not fit for civilization you fucking retard.
OoA sounds too simple to explain the human species, Im leaning towards the Out of Asia hypothesis instead.
>If you believe blacks are the first humans then that would mean they are primitive apes not fit for civilization you fucking retard.
The fuck are you talking about? The humans that stayed behind in Africa didn't just stop evolving, they continued to change with each generation just like the people that left. That of course doesn't change the fact that the first humans had dark skin.
>If you believe blacks are the first humans then that would mean they are primitive apes not fit for civilization you fucking retard.
How so? Evolution doesn't just magically stop anon. Also all human are equally close to the most common recent ancestor with chimpanzee
>Evolution can stop and barely change thats why we still have monkeys today.
No you fucking idiot we dont have monkeys today because evolution stopped what the fuck. They are still under environmental pressures we just can't notice it within our life times.
Good God don't reply
My point is the monkeys have barely changed comapered to us because the environmental pressures are not as extreme as us so they suffer from a natural stasis where they only experience minor changes.
If the blacks are the original humans then it means they suffered from natural stasis big time which would explain why they didnt already had civilizations thousands of years before the other branchs of humanity even freaking existed.
Well that's one of the major fallacies – that OoA implies everyone came from "black people". That's entirely false, we came from "Archaic Homo sapiens," something entirely different from modern blacks. Nobody is saying that, for example, ancestral Europeans were the same as / descended from modern Nigerians. The ancient human populations concerned are so completely removed from modern ethnicity that calling them "black" or "caucasoid" or "Japanese" would be a complete non sequitor. It's likely that they had relatively dark skin, brown skin, but that's hardly "black" in the modern sense of the term.
Look at modern human populations – none of these has persisted unchanged for 50000 years. Journalists like to say that bushmen / khoikhoi / san / hottentots are the most ancient human group – because that's sensational, and it sells. It's also wrong. Their genes simply show the furthest divergence from the other groups; put simply, they've changed just as much as everyone else has, they've just done it in somewhat greater isolation. And if you physically compared a bushman to, say, an archaic human being, they would look vastly different.
tl;dr equating ancient human populations to modern groups is stupid
We are very different from the monkeys anon, are you retarded? Natural stasis is the reason why any life that is primitive remains on the earth after a single branch of it mutates into a new form via natural selection.
They've actually changed just as much. Ancient chimpanzees were not the same as modern chimpanzees – we just don't hear much about ancient chimps because who fucking cares about them?
In fact, for such a populous and widely disseminated species, Homo sapiens is surprisingly uniform, genetically speaking. Even the aesthetic differences between populations, and especially between individuals, is relatively low. Apart from looking at minor differences in (mostly non-coding) areas of our genome, there aren't too many sure-fire ways of distinguishing between population groups. There are nuances in facial structure (which we are biologically programmed to pick up on – and yet still fuck up classifying people except into extremely broad racial categories), there's the very clumsy approach with pigmentation, hair texture, etc. (which causes significant overlap between some of the most distant groups), and then there's the dental phenotype (oddly the most accurate).
So really, your "natural stasis" should be applied to the species as a whole, as we really haven't differentiated that much. If you compare us to dog breeds, which have differentiated extremely in only the past couple thousand years, we're in stagnation.
Are you talking about Denisovans? Because they've showed how homo erectus left Africa evolved into Denisovans and Neanderthals and later bread with Homo Sapiens who came out of Africa.
Doesn't disprove OOA
>genocided the people living before them
no, it;s pretty widely accepted that Homo Sapiens outnumbered other archaic homos and pretty much fucked most of their DNA out of the gene pool. Most humans have small amounts of Neander DNA, anywhere between 1-4%. Highest concentration is in souther Europe.
Jesus Christ, I didn't realize 4chan was so susceptible to pseudo-history bullshit.
>Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans are all considered to have descended from Homo heidelbergensis that appeared around 700,000 years ago in Africa.
>The correct assignment of many fossils to a particular chronospecies is difficult and often controversies ensue among paleoanthropologists due to the absence of universally accepted dividing lines (autapomorphies) between Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis and Neanderthals. Some researchers suggest that the finds associated to Homo heidelbergensis are mere variants of Homo erectus.
I'll give you my erectus.
But you're right. I know there was some erectus still around when Sapiens made their way on the scene. I've heard some theories of modern humans also smashing with those old erecti.
The same species, yet only male neanderthals and female sapiens were able to have kids?