Out of Africa theory

I've seen loads of support for multiregionalism on 4chan, but I don't think it's actually taken seriously by many professionals.

>>76674
first of all, yeah i would believe this and other anthropological topics are /his/ related, as long as they are not clearly meant to be offensive to a certain group (bait)

and yeah, the out of africa theory is generally accepted. its clear all humans are the same race, and it had to originate somewhere

did anyone ever try to explain WHY early humans would have left africa?

deserts and snow-topped mountains aren't exactly "better" places to live

>>76674
Anthropology is part of /his/
The classification of of human ancestors and relatives for a few million years back is Physical Anthropology
Thus, neanderthals and the prehistory of the modern human species is firmly a part of /his/

>So what is /his/' take on the out of Africa theory?
Basically accurate. The problem with the Multliregional Theory is that is assumes too much genetic distinction between homo sapiens sapiens and what what kicking around in europe and asia. Out of Africa allows for the interbreeding of AMH and what other homos were around while Multiregional is predicated on phenotypic difference as evidence of great genetic variance.

Genetic data pretty much confirmed Out of Africa, hasn't really been questioned since the 80s and 90s.
Oh, and you're talking about "Out of Africa 2" since there was a great migration out of africa by homo ergastor, becoming homo heidelburgensis over time.

>>76674
The "out of Africa" theory, is the most widely accepted model of the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans.
Genetic studies and fossil evidence indicate that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago,[1] that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa at some point between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced other populations of the genus Homo such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.
The date of the earliest successful "out of Africa" migration (earliest migrants with living descendants) has generally been placed at 60,000 years ago based on mitochondrial genetics, but this model has recently been contested by simulations of mitochrondrial DNA data, 125,000 year old Arabian archaeological finds of tools in the region and the discovery of Homo sapiens teeth in China, dating to at least 80,000 years ago.

The recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa is the predominant position held within the scientific community

What else is there to know about this?
>>76854
They were fleeing the largest desert in the world.

>>76712
where, on /pol/? /b/?
Out of Africa is pretty much just accepted at this point in the field, it's got more evidence than multiregional since genetics came around

>>76890
>They were fleeing the largest desert in the world.

was africa a merciless desert 100k years ago?

this doesn't make sense, generally if a living creature is thriving enough to evolve like humans did, it wouldn't need to just pack up and go elsewhere

especially when that place is possibly worse for them

the whole premise is absurd

>>77037
You got me there. From now on, I'll believe what anon says and I'll ignore genetic facts.

>>76860

Are you new?

History starts with writing. Everything else is archaeology or biology.

>>77095
>& humanities

>>76890
>They were fleeing the largest desert in the world
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah, they'd rather go to Paris and eat some baguettes.

>>77128
That sounds nice desu senpai

>>77095
Go back to the nineteenth century, dude.

>>77037

The Sahara use to be a Savanna. The rock art at Tassili n'Ajjer give proof to this, so sometime during and after the last Ice Age the Sahara wasn't a massive sand sea.

>>77037
>if a living creature is thriving enough to evolve like humans did, it wouldn't need to just pack up and go elsewhere
They'd move on for greener pastures if they're nomadic and following the migrations of other animals, if population density is too high to support them in the homeland and they're forced to wander off looking for food, or just plain curiosity wondering what's over that next mountain, across that river, or who's past the horizon.

The very same types of people that were driven to explore the world and figure things out have existed since there have been people.

>>77512

How much Neanderthal DNA do you have?

>>77512
No, because the Africans back then weren't niggers. Sure they lived in Africa and they would probably pass off as niggers today, but they have still changed genetically during the 100,000 years just like the other races have. It's not like whites evolved straight out of blacks.

I simplified everything to an extreme because you sound like a /pol/tard faggot.

>>76860
This. OOA is mostly accurate. H. sapiens sapiens originated in Africa. Non-Africans have some admixture from archaic groups in Eurasia (Neanderthals/Denisovans), but only a few percent, and Africans have some as well from various back-migrations

>>76674
It is the most widely accepted theory, and the one that makes sense.

One can argue about the migratory waves, but it's hard to argue when the oldest remains of modern humans were found in the Rift.

>>76712
>but I don't think it's actually taken seriously by many professionals.

gee I wonder why, maybe it's because Academia is a liberal hugbox, and that their "rigorous, unbiased standards" are only used on things they don't agree with?

There's plenty of evidence for out of africa being bullshit but you'll find plenty of reddit tier excuses for why it's not valid "n-not a good source" "t-the guy who wrote it was a right wing weenie" "p-peer review"

out of africa doesn't even make sense

if everybody started out as black, where the fuck did asians/whites/arabs come from? if you honestly believe that black people turned into asians then you're full of shit, it doesn't even make sense. black people today don't have white babies, their children are only mixed when they have sex with a white person.

>>78100
Don't you have crystal pyramids and alien glyphs to go discover.

File: arlene_confused.gif (2MB, 500x288px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x288px

>>78100
>doesn't support peer review
>conspiracy theories
>doesn't present any evidence
>ignores that multiregional was accepted and overturned by out of africa
>ignores that out of africa was ridiculed at first and only with genetic evidence was it finally accepted

>>78195
lame reddit tier argument try again faggot, out of africa being bullshit has nothing to do with those things
>>78197
Out of africa states that 20,000 years ago black people moved out of africa and into the other parts of the world

So you're telling me that black people can become white and asian in only 20,000 years?

Why aren't the undiscovered tribes all full of white people then? No seriously, it does not make any sense.

>>77701
>It is the most widely accepted theory

Lots of posts saying this like this automatically means it's correct.

Out of Africa theory is nothing but Americans making their slaves special snowflakes AKA the fathers of all mankind.

>>78175
There is regional selective pressures that resulted in the phenotypic differences you see in humans today.

Skin color deals largely with natural sunblock. As ancestral humans lost body hair, they needed to darken up or the sun would fuck them up.

>>78237
Homo sapiens left Africa a lot sooner than that, dumbass. Humans have been living in Australia for at least 60,000 years for example.

>foams at the mouth about muh librul conspiracy
>doesn't even understand what the theory entails

>>78237
>20,000 years ago black people moved out of africa and into the other parts of the world
no it doesn't, you're way off m8
you're anywhere from 70k to 100k years off

ITT: C'mooooooooooon

>>78175
leave /his/ and never return, you don't know jackshit about how genetics work.

>>78318
>you're anywhere from 70k to 100k years off

and it's still bullshit, because scientists in china found teeth that are 20,000 years older than what out of africa states.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34531861

>>78352
Humans migrating out of Africa sooner or later than previously thought doesn't mean they didn't migrate from Africa in the first place.

>>78324
neither do you. genetics only tells us the story of the genetic line that survived. Its possible entire populations of humans around the globe went extinct due to one crisis or another.

"The Ice man" is a famous example of a preserved human with no living relatives.

>>78393
multiregional evolution theory makes way, way, way, way, way, way, way more sense than out of africa ever will, and the only reason out of africa has so much support is because of what >>78268 said

File: 1445167427709.jpg (74KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 2000x1333px

>>78440
Nice citations

>>78472
>expecting citations for an opinion

>>78472
nice ones you have there too. you believe in out of africa theory, and i believe in multiregional evolutinary theory. we could both throw papers at each other all day but we won't convince each other.

>>78237
The pale skin of Northern Europeans may not have evolved until just a few thousand years ago, actually. Lag time on human evolution is much, much less than previously thought.

>>78484
Ah so multiregionalism "makes more sense" because your feels say so

>there are people who honestly deny the overwhelming evidence for Out of Africa because of a few MS paint comics

>>78497
Examine the basis for your beliefs. Why does multi-regional "make more sense" to you?
Is that rationalization scientifically backed, or emotionally?

File: 1446080523518.jpg (38KB, 567x523px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 567x523px

>>78472
>>78562
>le citations faec xdd

http://www.academia.edu/1809315/Re-Examining_the_Out_of_Africa_Theory_and_the_Origin_of_Europeoids_Caucasoids_in_Light_of_DNA_Genealogy

now let's see you sweat and backpeddle and come up with 500 reasons why the source is wrong, as is traditions for redditors when presented with sources that don't align with their worldview

>>78497
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16018.full

>and i believe in multiregional evolutinary theory
And can't back it up with even a dailymail article why you think all modern genetics and anthropology is wrong other than some vague worldwide conspiracy theory.

>>78519
The study of Foxes proves that mutations occur due to social changes, diversity of roles within the group allows for mutations, therefore the same mutations can occur over disparate geographic regions if the same environmental factors occur.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mungo_remains#Mitochondrial_DNA_and_origins

Seriously though, what the fuck is Mungo man?

>>78562
Because the Jews created the out of Africa "theory".

The reason is clear.

The Jews want us to let our wives have sex with black men and it's easier if they believe we have any relation to black people or Africa.

Wake up.

The oldest human skeletons in Africa are FAKES!

"Mitochondrial Eve" never existed!

>>78596
nice, is this the part where we throw papers at each other? cool, i love me some good old fashioned autism

http://www.academia.edu/1809315/Re-Examining_the_Out_of_Africa_Theory_and_the_Origin_of_Europeoids_Caucasoids_in_Light_of_DNA_Genealogy

>>78626
out of africa theory was part of a campaign in the 90's to abolish the idea of race, so even though you're just ironically shitposting you're half right.

>>78605
The study of Foxes only proves that we can domesticate foxes within a few generations. As in, we guided their evolution by willingly choosing which genetic characteristics we want.
Or what are you talking about?

>>78577
>>78633

>It includes afamily of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp. A downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and β-haplogroup, coined the
α-haplogroup emerged160,000 ± 12,000 ybp.

Do you even read the abstract to your own source jesus christ

>>78557

>There are people who accept un-modified OOA despite some of the main progenitors of the theory admitting they no longer believe it is correct

PROTIP: Admixture occurred; OOA is only half the story. Muh Denisovans, Neanderthals and archaic homo genera.

http://edge.org/conversation/christopher_stringer-rethinking-out-of-africa

>>78675
is this supposed to be a rebuttal because it doesn't prove anything

File: 1412974688906.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

>>78659
>out of africa theory was part of a campaign in the 90's to abolish the idea of race
[citation needed'

File: Wild and Tame.jpg (248KB, 750x1090px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 750x1090px

>>78666
Allowing tamer Foxes to breed changed the eye color and hair color of the Fox population. These changes/mutations were allowed when the aggressive males were prohibited from passing on their genes.

See pic related

This proves that social changes can cause similar mutations over disparate geographic regions.

>>78718
>out of africa theory is more of a valid theory than multiregional origin of modern humans is

[Citation needed]

File: 1442889562616.gif (646KB, 512x481px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 512x481px

>>78616
>studying it could support controversial theories
>conveniently not allowed to be studied

>>78100
I genuinely lol'd good job

>>78706
Humans would have already left Africa on these time scales.

>>78706
Just like your link doesnt support your argument

>>78689
>Charles Darwin converted on his deathbed
>This makes the theory of evolution false

You're using creationist logic at this point

>>78751
The only equivalent would be if humans evolved from eugenics, not "due to social changes, diversity of roles within the group".

>>78237
>20,000
It says 100,000 even in the OP's image you first replied to, you fucking mong.

>>78765

That's not the only case where this has occurred

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

(not the guy you're replying to btw)

File: vole.jpg (11KB, 194x259px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 194x259px

>>78175
Evolution doesn't even make sense.

If everybody started out as a single-celled organism, where the fuck did multi-cellular organisms come from? If you honestly believe that germs turned into fish then you're full of shit, it doesn't even make sense, animals today don't have other animals for babies, their children are only hybrid species when they breed with other species in their general genus or family.

>>78754
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559480/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6941/full/423692a.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/migration.htm

>>78754
Answer me.

Provide me the obvious proof that the Out of Africa theory was made up whole cloth by evil jewish communist muslims to destroy the Aryan race.

Give me your answer, and I shall give you mine

>>78802

The post I was replying to asserted that "you should believe this because everyone else does, and the opponents are MS paint comics." My reply was intended to signify "you are mistaken, many of the individuals who proposed the theory abandoned it in light of new evidence."

If you think that's the same as shitposting "Some guy changed his mind so God's real!" you are deliberately ignoring context.

>>78795
>>78787
>>78805
>>78853
>78852
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans


stop pretending that out of africa is the only accepted theory, it's a 50/50 split between people in the field

>>78864
>only accepted theory
Nobody said that. But it's the most logical and widely accepted.

I'm sure Lamarck still has followers in the trailer parks of the world too.

>>78864
>he multiregional hypothesis, multiregional evolution (MRE), or polycentric theory is a scientific model that provides an alternative explanation to the more widely accepted "Out of Africa" model for the pattern of human evolution.
5 0 / 5 0 s p l i t
0
/
5
0
s
p
l
i
t
:^)

>>78864
Nice Wikipedia article faggot

>>78689
I've actually read Stringer's book Lone Survivors and it makes similar points as this piece here. He's simply proposing a more nuanced view that's muddied up by the fact that earlier humans got freaky with everything we saw and made hybrids with other closely related species.

>>78860
Reading comprehension is your friend

>>78864
Out of Africa is a marxist theory to give Africans legitmacy in existing for thousands of years without inventing a damn thing.

It is frigging sickening that the anthropology community did not even half question this like they have with so much.

File: image.jpg (76KB, 706x674px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 706x674px

>>78175
>>78852

File: 1428694355485.jpg (8KB, 249x243px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 249x243px

>>78915
At least you admit that you don't care about facts which don't serve your Neo-Nazi ideology.

>>78915
>Out of Africa is a marxist theory to give Africans legitmacy in existing for thousands of years without inventing a damn thing.
[citation needed]

File: TameSF1.jpg (43KB, 198x233px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 198x233px

>>78803
No, if there are two groups A. living in India and B. living in Spain.

Consider climate change at the end of the last ice age, both populations can begin to migrate into new environments where new skill sets are rewarded whereas before skill sets suited to pre migration were rewarded over and over throughout long periods of time.

Both groups are now rewarding different males the opportunity to breed, ie. diversity of the group.

The Fox study shows us that Social Changes = Mutations. Therefore the mutation for Blue eyes can occur in two disparate regions as opposed to the commonly held view that mutations spread like a disease.

>>78888
>>78892
>believing everything some faggot with a leftist agenda in a college tells you

literally what is the point in even arguing this right now? congratulations on being brainwashed, i guess. if you believe in out of africa over multiregional theory you are a dumbass.

multireigonal theory is just as legitimate of a theory as out of africa, and your only argument is a bandwagon, really?

File: fair.jpg (51KB, 480x695px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 480x695px

>>78864
>50/50

Please tell me that you're jut kidding. The multiregional hypothesis is a tiny, tiny minority. It's not even considered to be "mainstream" science.

The first fucking sentence in the wiki article includes:

>...provides an alternative explanation to the more widely accepted "Out of Africa" model for the pattern of human evolution.
>more widely accepted "Out of Africa" model
>more widely accepted

>>78951
We guided their mutation, it wasn't social changes.

File: Wildsilver+fox+1.jpg (139KB, 640x462px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 640x462px

>>78951
this is the wild aggressive type pic related

>>78973
>multireigonal theory is just as legitimate of a theory as out of africa

[citation needed]

>>78979
>Please tell me that you're jut kidding. The multiregional hypothesis is a tiny, tiny minority. It's not even considered to be "mainstream" science

[citation needed]

out of africa is not the consensus you think it is, but if you've worked in academia you get swamped with claims of bigotry if you try and challenge it. much like the redditors in this thread so, SO hellbent on believing out of africa out ofa sense of white guilt

>>79010
Give ME a citation that out of africa is more legitimate than multiregional theory that isn't a bandwagon argument. I'll wait.

>>78941
>Question the status quo and you are a neo nazi
Reddit tier debate skills there champ

>>78951
>Both groups are now rewarding different males the opportunity to breed, ie. diversity of the group.
People breed regardless of how skillful they are or how beautiful they are perceived. It has always been like this.

>>78973
>and your only argument is a bandwagon, really?

This is the exact argument that you made in your earlier post. Your contention was that BECAUSE it's a "50/50" split, that it's therefore more legitimate.

You're now assigning the fact that your ideas are widely rejected by scientists as the result of some international leftist conspiracy.

This is why people don't take folks like you serious. I sincerely hope that you're just pretending to be retarded.

File: Wildsilver+fox+2.jpg (90KB, 899x559px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 899x559px

>>78983
It was social changes, the Tamer foxes who were not as aggressive did not get the chance to breed as dominantly as the aggressive foxes. That is a social change were timid animals were allowed the chance to influence the gene pool.

>>79026
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559480/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6941/full/423692a.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/migration.htm

>>79026
>Give ME a citation that out of africa is more legitimate than multiregional theory that isn't a bandwagon argument. I'll wait.

>>78853

>>78100
>p-peer review
my sides

>>79026
Just like evolution is just a liberal conspiracy that academia is too afraid to speak out against.

>>79037
Not true for primitive societies living in volatile harsh climates were diversity of the skill set is not rewarded.

>dismissing support for the out of Africa theory as "lefty brainwashing material"
This is just sad. I wouldn't say that there is a clear right or wrong answer at the moment, but if you can't listen to both sides of an argument then you need to grow up (regardless of which side you believe).

>>79052
What he's doing is a combination of special pleading and ad hoc hypothesis. Very characteristic of pseudoscientific defense of pseudoscience.

>>79052
>>79086
Like I've said, give ME a citation that out of africa is more legitimate than multiregional theory that IS NOT a bandwagon argument. I'll wait.

>>79058
>>79071
These are NOT papers that prove out of africa is a more legitimate theory than multiregional.

They're papers that support out of africa, I could spam you with multiregional theory papers if I wanted too also. Seriously, nigger?

>>79055
It doesn't matter, that's not how the world works outside of a controlled enviorement as the lab where you can prevent the characteristc you don't like to pass. In the real world animals reproduce no matter how they are.
>>79095
[citation needed]

>>79115
>hey're papers that support out of africa, I could spam you with multiregional theory papers if I wanted too also.


Go ahead.

File: 1439076388865.jpg (15KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x300px

>>78765
>abos allowed to impede scientific discovery because muh culture

Just give them a fucking tank of petrol and they'll probably hand over the skeleton.

>>79115
Give me a citation that your posts aren't shitposts that IS NOT another shitpost.

File: 1446426977511.png (44KB, 706x674px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 706x674px

>>79115
>These are NOT papers that prove out of africa is a more legitimate theory than multiregional.

>inb4 b-but I'm not a /pol/tard
The logic is the same.

>>79126
I am the source.

>>78100
>I dont believe in what academics say because they are academics

Do you believe that the pyramids are a star map too?

>>79086
Funny how every post using strawman fallacies are from the left and you're the ones who think they're rational.

>>78237
>Out of africa states that 20,000 years ago black people moved out of africa and into the other parts of the world
>So you're telling me that black people can become white and asian in only 20,000 years?
Look.

At.

The.

OP.

>>79137
Right after you give me a paper that multiregional theory is less legiatmate than out of africa, that isn't a bandwagon argument.

>>79164
Oh look, a bandwagon argument.

>>79115
>These are NOT papers that prove out of africa is a more legitimate theory than multiregional.

>doesn't bother reading the papers.

>The availability of a large data set of DNA samples from >1,000 individuals distributed worldwide and typed at hundreds of genetic markers1,2 has led to the description of extremely strong patterns in the geographic distribution of genetic diversity in humans. Genetic differentiation between populations increases essentially linearly with geographic distance, computed along landmasses.3–6 Even more striking is the observation that geographic distance along landmasses from East Africa (a likely origin of anatomically modern humans) is an excellent predictor of the genetic diversity of individual populations throughout the world. Indeed, genetic diversity decreases smoothly with increasing geographic distance from Africa.7,8

These patterns offer compelling evidence for the hypothesis of a recent African origin of modern humans.9–13 They further suggest a scenario of the colonization of the world by modern humans through a large number of successive bottlenecks of small amplitude and a predominance of gene flow over limited distance.7 The simple nature of the patterns described, their smoothness, and the large proportion of variance explained by linear regressions offer an exciting opportunity to model these patterns with tractable population-genetics models, to gain insight into the key parameters of human-settlement history.

>The idea that modern humans originated in Africa, with populations subsequently spreading outwards from there, has continued to gain support lately.

>>79197
>Right after you give me a paper that multiregional theory is less legiatmate than out of africa, that isn't a bandwagon argument.

So you have nothing. Okay.

>>79197
Do you even know what a bandwagon argument means you retard?

Saying the vast majority of biologists believe in evolution is not a fucking bandwagon argument.

>>79220
It's a scientific theory mate, there are entire books on multi regional theory, just like there are books on the big bang theory. It's a theory, not a hypothesis, for a good reason.

>>79224
>Saying the vast majority of biologists believe in evolution is not a fucking bandwagon argument

We're not talking about evolution, we're talking about out of africa vs competing theories.

>>79243
>It's a scientific theory mate, there are entire books on multi regional theory, just like there are books on the big bang theory. It's a theory, not a hypothesis, for a good reason.

Okay, where are they?

>Africa hosts the first homo sapiens species
>Lots of neanderthals still in Yurop/Ayysia
>some homo sapiens decide to fuck off from Africa, hence out-of-Africa
>homo sapiens spread out across the world
>some end up breeding with Neanderthals
>this is because of their similar genetic makeup and chromosome numbers
>offspring are created with Neanderthal DNA but with homo sapiens characteristics
>cold snap hits the world
>neanderthals die out because of their primitive behaviour
>homo sapiens are far more advanced and successfully shelter themselves, make clothes and fires
>homo sapiens goes on to build pyramids, planes and buildings

>>79243
>We're not talking about evolution
It's making a comparison

Majority of cosmologists support big bang theory

Majority of biologists support evolution

Majority of anthropologists support out of Africa

None of these are bandwagon arguments.

>>78293
Humans first came to Australia in the 18th century

>>79256
Why are you being such a dense cunt? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=multiregional+evolution&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C36&as_sdtp=

Now, can you prove to me, without a bandwagon argument, that out of africa is more legitimate than multiregional theory?

>>79265
bandwagon argument, fuck off. people used to think the earth was flat.

>>76890
>They were fleeing the largest desert in the world.
Couldn't they just go back?

Question: how does minor archaic hominid admixture in all human population dismiss OOA as a whole?

>>79197
We have already provided pappers. What have you provided besides, "b-but your arguments and sources are invalid because I say so"?

>>79185
Oh the irony

>>79243
Except that I can make a better case for Ancient Alien origins than you have with multiregionalism.

File: 1417238664447.jpg (27KB, 407x292px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 407x292px

Let me get this straight.
People are trying to debunk Out of Africa by claiming that humans would never spread out or explore new lands, even over hundreds of generations?

That nobody in all that time ever wanted to make a new life for themselves in the great unknown, or got sick of their neighbor and fucked off to a new place? Ever?

File: L3.png (298KB, 771x764px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 771x764px

Well, what do you guys think?

>>79302
You haven't provided me a paper that proves than OOA is better than MRE. You've simply provided me with papers that support OOA, I could do the same for MRE.

Again, give me something that isn't a bandwagon argument or fuck off.

>>79308
Except, well, no you couldn't.

I don't get it. If Africa has been settled for the last 100,000 years, how was it so easily surpassed by Europe and Asia? Seems they should have had a hell of a head start.

>>79278
>at least a third of these are from the early 90s and 80s

kek

>>79337
>I could do the same for MRE.

Why don't you?

>>79337
>You haven't provided me a paper that proves than OOA is better than MRE
Ok then, I'm not going to keep wasting my time with you.

Out of Africa is pretty offensive to Africans. It implies they weren't smart enough to leave and are less developed than the ones that did.

>>79277
ebin

>>79358
But, I already did, shitposter san. see >>79278


>>79359
Good, I'm glad that you fucked off, bandwagoner.

>>79363
Not really. They would have continued to evolve just as much as the people who left.

>>79363
It's not offensive to me.

>>79333

We're saying such a thing is very unlikely to be the cause of other "types" of humans, because that would imply environmental factors led to the differences in modern humans.

But yes it's also hard to imagine animalistic pre-humans leaving a jungle when they already have what nature provides. Isolated stone-age tribes still exist because of this behavior.

>>79386
yeah that must be why there are all of those great cities and monument in africa

>inb4 pyramids

built by egyptians, best thing africa ever built was a mud hut to be honest.

>>79373
That's not liking a paper, that's saying "I haven't read any of these do my work for me"

>>79353
Outside the argument. You can either go with where Jared Diamond was going or where Why Nations Fail went.

Either you succeed because of environmental determinism or because of inclusive vs exclusive societies, IE do your people work together to share the franchise. Or you go the racial route which may be where Jared Diamond was heading before he stepped on the breaks.

>In an article for Capitalism Nature Socialism about geographer Jared Diamond titled "F**k Jared Diamond" Correia opines that Diamond's Pulitzer Prize winning book Guns, Germs and Steel was "dull," and "chockfull of the bad and the worse, the random and the racist." Correia's critique stems from his assertion that Diamond "develops an argument about human inequality based on a determinist logic that reduces social relations such as poverty, state violence, and persistent social domination, to inexorable outcomes of geography and environment.[19]


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/262874734_F**k_Jared_Diamond

>>79411
We're not talking about monuments, retard, or anything remotely on the timescale of the pyramids.

>>79413
make like the other bandwagoner and just stop replying if you won't bother to provide evidence for why OOA is better than MRE.

>>79335
Interesting. Definitely not MRE though.

Gene flow back into Africa has been happening on and off for a while. I think part of the problem is that we haven't done enough genetic sampling of the most genetically diverse continent.

>>79443
Jesus Christ you're retarded.

Either cite a paper or shut the fuck up.

>>79433
Very interesting review. Racial differences are a product of environmental determinism, so oh well.

>>79386
How could they have evolved just as much in a stagnate environment?

>>79489
It wasn't a stagnant environment. Africa has changed a lot over the tens of thousands of years.

>>79475
I already did, though. This is the third time now, retard. >>79278

>>79443
Evidence has already been provided, you just to obtuse to read the articles, or you are a troll. Why should anyone reply to someone who cannot provide equal, up to date evidence.

Here, post a peer reviewed article since 2010 stating clearly that out of africa is false. I dont even care if it makes sense.

What I find amusing is that racists like to call Africans monkeys and shit

African DNA doesn't have neanderthal DNA in it, yet Europeans, Aussies and Asians all do (at least 1% from what I've heard). If anything, Europeans are closer to monkeys than Africans.

>>79403
>We're saying such a thing is very unlikely to be the cause of other "types" of humans, because that would imply environmental factors led to the differences in modern humans.
What the fuck else would cause that?

>But yes it's also hard to imagine animalistic pre-humans leaving a jungle when they already have what nature provides. Isolated stone-age tribes still exist because of this behavior.
Probably because they weren't animalistic, and life wasn't as easy as you're suggesting, and population growth is a thing, and also stone age tribes spread out all the time.

You're making no goddamn sense.

>>78577
I'll give you points for finding it hosted somewhere else, but "Advances in Anthropology" is basically a Christian bible thumper group devoted to showing the bible is historically accurate.

Here's an excerpt from an abstract they also published

>Also, that it was then when the woman transmitted speech to the man (it is further suggested that this may have been the Original Sin of the biblical Genesis), signalizing this transmission with the beginning of the symbolic thought, thus promoting the first artistic displays, like sculptures, painting or music, which were associated with the expansion of love and speech to the relationship between the sexes, with the consequent diversification of languages, mainly in the last 10,000 to 5,000 years. Love caused and causes human speech in both, phylogeny and ontogeny.

http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=55222

Truly an academic source

>>79506
It's still not as varied as anything out of Africa and does not have the variation in weather or climate that other areas have.

File: 1397937510736.jpg (28KB, 499x500px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 499x500px

>>79514

What gave you the idea that Neanderthal = monkey?

ITT: butthurt redditors drinking the communist kool aid

>>79353
Well we did for awhile when it was conducive, in my homeland of DRC we created these 110K to 80K years ago back when the rainforest was actually a much drier Savannah that supported human populations

It was a very conducive moment in time but after words Africa has been dealing with fluctuations the rest of Afraeurasia never dealt with.

In fact unlike the rest of the world the first forms of domestication came in the form of animals namely the African cow, only later did we moved from reliance of what is called "krebs" self sowing rain germinating fields of wild grains into the crops we know today; firstly Folio, pearl millet, finger millet, sorghum, teff, guinea millet and African rice.

Our crops are not like most of the world's in that they weren't domesticated in the rich bottomlands of river valleys rather the impetus of domestication was in the desiccation of the Neolithic Subpluvial, in that the domestication process was centered less toward BIG yields in exceptional years that were equivalent to river bottom fertility and rain and more so modest to low yields every year without extreme drought as well as the harvested grass used for fodder.

Over all the salinity, mineral toxicity, massive bird pests, bushpigs and other faunal and climatic irregularities formed the basis of our agriculture and thus shaped our society vastly different than Mesopotamia and China.

Egypt is different because they had the Nile but they still received Nabta Playa farmers of sorghum kreb 7K bc.

>>79509
That's not a paper.

That's a google search.

Point to a specific paper.

>>79550
They went extinct because they couldn't figure out trade.

>>79444

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/10/07/science.aad2879.short

>The extent of this backflow was much greater than previously reported, reaching all the way to Central, West and Southern Africa, affecting even populations such as Yoruba and Mbuti, previously thought to be relatively unadmixed, who harbor 6-7% Eurasian ancestry.

>>79509
That page is a fucking time machine from the early 90s. The one source that was less than 5 years old was a book on human origins that contained one page on multiregionalism.

Its like if I linked a similar page on the disease of homosexuality with citations from the early 50s

>>79538
holy shit

>>79538
Why are you even asking for a source on a theory that has yet to be confirmed? Genetic science is progressing rapidly, we were simply not able to find as much data as we have found within the last few years. Assuming the evidence is out there, the truth will be known eventually.

>>79548
Africa has the most genetic diversity of any other continent

>>79577

wat

>>79512
You never linked me to evidence that OOA is more valid than MRE. You simply provided evidence for OOA, which is not the same as providing evidence that OOA should be more widely accepted than MRE.

>>79538
>but "Advances in Anthropology" is basically a Christian bible thumper group devoted to showing the bible is historically accurate.

Oh look it's the standard reddit response, "this article that doesn't support my theory is wrong because the people who wrote it believe in god"

Fuck off.

>>79576
point me to a specific paper that proves OOA is more legitimate than MRE, bandwagoner.

>>79584
Yeah, thanks, that's the paper I was thinking of. I'm an AAAS member and subscriber.

>>79621
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=out+of+africa+theory&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36

I can do that to.

>>79538
>an abstract

oh how damning

File: littlefinger0501151280jpg-72e1d7_1280w[1].jpg (115KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1280x720px

>>79550
>What gave you the idea that Neanderthal = monkey?
Evolution is a ladder.

>>79606
This is because Europe, Asia, Australia and the Americas are all subject to the Founder Effect - a smaller population from Africa branched off to found new populations on each of these continents.

>>79628

You think we will get some ancient aDNA from Africa (and perhaps South Asia) anytime soon?

>>78237
>If europeans evolved from africans, why are there still africans
>if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys

>>79621
>point me to a specific paper that proves OOA is more legitimate than MRE, bandwagoner.

>Currently available genetic and archaeological evidence is generally interpreted as supportive of a recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559480/

Literally the first line.

>>79651
Dude, finding crazy shit in an abstract makes it MORE damning. An abstract is something you need to carefully police in order to not look like the ravings of a madman.

File: blue-eyes.jpg (136KB, 728x990px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 728x990px

For years geneticists said that blue eyes spread like a disease.

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-511473/All-blue-eyed-people-traced-ancestor-lived-10-000-years-ago-near-Black-Sea.html

But recent discoveries show that the mutations can occur in disparate regions.

> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140126-blue-eye-spain-fossil-human-discovery-gene/

Debating morons on any topic is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

>>79657
One would hope so. The size of genetic databases is swelling dramatically and our knowledge of DNA recovery is improving. It is true that the climate in Africa in general is not particularly conducive to fossil preservation, DNA preservation, or reliable dating.

>>79584
FINALLY someone posts this

There was a huge shitstorm on /pol/ when we learned about 2 years ago that people like the khoisan have ancient neanderthal genes.

Completely devastated their aryan neanderthal superman theory

>>79647
Right, but you still can't give a reasonable argument for why people should believe in OOA, as opposed to MRE So go on, tell all of the anons in this thread why we should believe out of africa theory versus multriregional theory that doesn't boil down to a bandwagon argument.

Go convince the masses.

>>79672
OOA is not the confirmed theory, this is, as I stated above, a bandwagon argument.

>>79653
Ok Haeckel. Whatever you say.

>>79621
http://anthrojournal.com/issue/may/article/analysis-of-two-competing-theories-on-the-origin-of-homo-sapiens-sapiens-multiregional-theory-vs-the-out-of-africa-2-model

>This theory is now highly discredited by many scholars due to the lack of supporting evidence. It was once thought that the fossil records from Australia and Asia could be understood as showing evidence for such regional continuity. The facial structure of the Dali cranium from China, for example, appears to be modern in its proportions. The cheek bones are highly delicate. For a proponent of the multi-regionalist theory, this indicates an intermediate stage between earlier archaic hominids (i.e. Homo erectus found at sites such as Lantian, China) and later Holocene populations living after 10,000 BC. However, the conditions of these fossil materials were poorly preserved and, in the case of the Dali cranium, highly mutilated through post-depositional weight loading. There are also no fossil materials dating from between 100,000 and 30,000 BC – this gap undermines the multi-regional hypothesis as it indicates a lack of any modern Chinese anatomical features from before 100,000 years ago (Pettitt, P 2009b:130).


It took like 30 seconds

>>79514
We have Neanderthal DNA, any body who know human migration would say this years ago and it was reconfirmed most recently here
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34479905

Hell there are other studies that show a 20K year old back migration too

>>79716
>The strong anatomical basis of the multi-regional hypothesis is a weakness of the theory. Chris Stringer highlights this, suggesting that the physical features used to support the regional continuity (i.e. flatness of the frontal bone and the constriction of the skull behind the orbital area) are not only found in specific regions such as Asia, but all around the world. This suggests that these physical features are in fact general Homo characteristics and cannot therefore be used in support of the multi-regionalist view (Stringer, C 1984, cited by Pettitt, P 2009:131).

>>79738
>The most highly damaging critique of this hypothesis stems from recent genetic research. The multi-regional model proposes a shared genetic lineage between archaic Neanderthals and modern humans. Geneticists have proved this idea to be purely imaginative. Work on the Neander Valley skeleton and others have demonstrated that such a link in descent does not exist. It has been widely credited that Neanderthals did not contribute, in any case, to the human genome and therefore the evolution of modern humans (EP 2006b:71).
>On the basis that there is little supporting evidence to suggest the validity of the multi-regionalist view, it would seem that its competitor, the Out of Africa 2 model or population replacement model, has the upper hand. The Out of Africa 2 model is a strong contender in accounting for the spread and development of anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens (EP 2006c: 69).

>>79514
Hello there little Jimmie! It seems you've made the rookie-mistake of assuming that evolution is in a linear line!

Well, little Jimmie, see, evolution isn't a linear line from X to Y. Just like a tree, branches separate, go together, and end. Homo Sapiens didn't evolve from Neanderthals, they evolved from Homo Erectus which Homo Sapiens also evolved from. After these two groups were isolated for so long, they could now be considered two vastly different species.

>>79606
Genetic diversity is not the same as advancement. If anything that's a point against African development because higher diversity could only come about by a population staying similar to one another for longer.

>>79716
>discredited by many scholars

bandwagon argument, nice

>>79750
>It has been widely credited that Neanderthals did not contribute, in any case, to the human genome
false

>>79677

Context m8. If the purpose of the paper is to try to explain something like the "origin of language" you're going to find some weird shit as potential explanations.

>>79770
>It's bandwagon when it doesn't suit me

>>79678
Where does it say that blue eyes evolved separately, rather than merely spreading earlier than previously believed?

Also, even if blue eyes evolved twice, that doesn't mean Out of Africa is wrong.

>>79770
>Scientific papers are just bandwagons

Off to /pol/ you go.

>>79770
Nono, counter cite, in a real journal. Right now all you are is stamping your feet. The citations are there. Stop being a little bitch.

>>79716
>There are also no fossil materials dating from between 100,000 and 30,000 BC

So their argument for why MRE is wrong is because there aren't any fossils, okay. That's old research compared to this.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34531861

>>79769
We're talking about genetics, fool

>>79819
>>79812
>>79789
That article says OOA is more correct than MRE because of no fossil materials dating from 100,00 and 30,000BC

Well, they're wrong.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34531861

>>79812
Off to reddit you go.

Holy crap.

This thread is infested with Jews

>>79820
First of all, its a news article not a citation.

Second of all:

Dr Pontus Skoglund, from the department of genetics at Harvard Medical School, told BBC News: "The genetic evidence we have puts strong constraints on some aspects of human history, but less so on the timing of the out of Africa event. Most genetic reconstructions based on modern data relies on assumptions on the mutation rate, for which there are still some real uncertainties.

"In terms of direct genetic evidence, we already have a 45,000 year-old genome from Siberia (Ust Ishim) and a ~40,000 year old individual from Europe (Oase) that are consistent with being from now-mostly-extinct lineages. "

"The conclusion is perhaps that the genetics does allow an 80,000 year old East Asian population to contribute some ancestry to present-day people, but I think not very much. It is a very interesting discovery that is hard to fit in our current thinking, but not impossible. We are just starting to cope with this data point."

>>79810
It doesn't, that's the point, for every blue eyed person they find in ancient DNA, they expand the empire of Hunter Gatherers, they had to increase the size of range, if a blue eyed gene is found in China tomorrow, then the fictional Fingolian Empire will encompass the whole planet.

>>79820
>>79849
The "out of Africa" theory, is the most widely accepted model of the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans.
Genetic studies and fossil evidence indicate that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago, that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa at some point between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced other populations of the genus Homo such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.
The date of the earliest successful "out of Africa" migration (earliest migrants with living descendants) has generally been placed at 60,000 years ago based on mitochondrial genetics, but this model has recently been contested by simulations of mitochrondrial DNA data, 125,000 year old Arabian archaeological finds of tools in the region and the discovery of Homo sapiens teeth in China, dating to at least 80,000 years ago.

The recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa is the predominant position held within the scientific community

> but this model has recently been contested by simulations of mitochrondrial DNA data, 125,000 year old Arabian archaeological finds of tools in the region and the discovery of Homo sapiens teeth in China, dating to at least 80,000 years ago.

Which just means they migrated earlier.

>>79859
>joos
Where do you see the Jew, lad?

>>79859
>OOA is a jewish conspiracy
really guy?

>>79824
...and? Are fish more advanced than lizards because they have a higher genetic diversity?

>>79901
Okay, so you're pushing your own personal theory and can't find a credible scientist who believes it? Or am I misunderstanding you?

>>79859
Uh oh, it's the all powerful boogeyman: THE JEWS!

Fuck off.

>>79902
>The "out of Africa" theory, is the most widely accepted model

Stop saying this, it doesn't make the theory a fact.

>>79888
>its a news article not a citation.

It's a news article of a scientific paper, if you weren't a dense mothefucker you would have followed the link to the nature article which they provided.

>>76854

There are people living in Greenland dude.

This isn't a question of do people want to live there. The question is 'is it possible to live there?' If yes, there's people living there.

I have to admit, bar one or two posters it has been decently qualitative and substantiated so far. I am starting to like this board.

Anybody have the answer to pic related? (serious)

>>79953
>stop saying something that is true
Why is OOA more accepted? Ever consider the genetic evidence?

>>79939
It has already been proven in Russia with the 50 year study of Silver Foxes. MUTATIONS ARE CAUSED BY SOCIAL CHANGE.

I can provide the source.

It is a fact, that if a Silver Fox group in China and another in Europe, both allow Tame foxes to breed, they will both mutate with Blue eyes and White hair.

>>79957
You are the dense motherfucker who believes in a debunked theory for no reason other than to be contrarian.

>>79976
Its the two posters that ruin it for all, although he has been utterly thrashed in this thread.

>>79978
Lots of factors. Having to plan for winter, sexual selection of neotenous traits in females, self-domestication, it's a very complex issue.

>>79978
lol so whats their alternative, if it wasn't mutations and evolution?

God reached down and "perfected" the nose? (Then why'd he fuck it up the first time?)

>>79998
Why should I believe a man when he isn't intelligent enough to click a link on a news article?

You still HAVE NOT provided evidence for OOA being more legitatme than MRE.

The evidence you provided, was literally JUST disproven 15 days ago, in the article that I linked you.

You are free to read it, and this time, make sure to click the link and read the scientific article too, you dense fucker.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34531861

OOA is a shaky theory, and in time, will be proven to be the worse theory.

>>79990
I am well aware of the silver fox experiment. It certainly proves that artificial selection for behavioral traits can also influence physical appearance.

This is due to neoteny and is tied to human self-domestication. Certainly social factors can cause evolution to go one way or another, this happens in animals and is known as sexual selection. Typically seen being performed by the female of the species to select peculiar, otherwise non-adaptive traits in males.

Humans are nearly unique in that we have engaged in sexual selection of the female of our species, hence red/blonde hair and blue/green eyes, in addition to childlike features and behaviour.

>>79990
How is the fox experiment relevant to this discussion?
Mutations are caused at random, scientist just selected the ones they liked the most in order to tame them. SELECTED.

>>79980
>Why is OOA more accepted? Ever consider the genetic evidence?

What does it matter? We could find a fossil in the British isles that's older than all others and people would still claim it walked there from Africa.

OOA is accepted because it's comfortable for certain world views. All science is divided like this.

>>80053
So Blue eyes can mutate in disparate geographic regions due to global stimulus, such as the end of the last Ice Age.

>>79978
Nasal physiology changes with cold and or dry air, same with lips and kinky hair (though none are ugly imho) even then the argument that wide and flat features are the basis of all humans is incorrect.

That in and of itself is an adaption that happened later when we migrated to the humid lowlands from the afromontane of Ethiopia.
>>80007
Neoteny was categorized by early physical anthropologists and apparently Khoisan were categorized as the "most" neotenous.

File: Isabelle.png (49KB, 196x196px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 196x196px

>>80086
And have you ever considered that you refuse to accept OOA because it ISN'T comfortable for your world view?

>>80049
see>>79902
>>79888

It doesnt meant they didnt come earlier. My scholarly argument stands, yours sinks. You base your beliefs on ideology, not science, and as such you will be rightfully mocked.

>but this model has recently been contested by simulations of mitochrondrial DNA data, 125,000 year old Arabian archaeological finds of tools in the region and the discovery of Homo sapiens teeth in China, dating to at least 80,000 years ago.

>Which just means they migrated earlier.

>>80086
>OOA is accepted because it's comfortable for certain world views

Hitting the nail on the head. OOA due to politics is desperately trying to be proven, while China is making the real strides in the field.

>>80106
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34531861

Recent research is showing OOA to be, well, bullshit.

>>79980
Genetic science has been exponentially increasing in the last 5 or less years. The old theory will be thrown out as new information arises.

I don't really see what you're finding issue with. Homo sapiens most likely did come out of Africa, but that doesn't mean that all of our development was done there. Weve confirmed that races other than Africans have neanderthal DNA that contributed to their development. They didn't get it in Africa.

>>80116
Thats because China wants to prove its been a nation for 80,000 years. Its the same reason the Isrealis dump money into archaeology, so they can say it really is the chosen land.

>>80124
They did get in Africa.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34479905

>>80124
>Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture throughout the African continent
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/10/07/science.aad2879.short

>>80111
>scholarly argument
>still has not proven OOA to be more ANY more legitimate than MRE

The only scholarly argument you provided was a years old scientific paper that was just disproven 15 days ago.

>>80144
Now you are just getting into a whole different argument, no point in even going there.

>>80116
That isn't showing it to be bullshit.

Jesus Christ. READ THE FUCKING PAPER.

http://anthrojournal.com/issue/may/article/analysis-of-two-competing-theories-on-the-origin-of-homo-sapiens-sapiens-multiregional-theory-vs-the-out-of-africa-2-model

The conclusions of that paper weren't solely based on the fact that there weren't any modern Homo Sapiens in China, and furthermore, in the very article, it says that the data point fits into the OOA hypothesis.

>>80080
It proves that Social Changes cause physical mutations.

Consider Eskimos in the Arctic, they are limited to a select number of roles within the group, the chance for diversity with the group is limited due to environmental factors, now if you take the whole group into a different environment, say a Savannah environment, then the diversity of skill sets will change and thus mutations can occur within that group. The diversity of social change will allow for diversity of physical traits such as eye color.

>>80116
That doesn't disprove anything
>"So either there must have been rapid evolution of the dentitions of a Skhul-Qafzeh type population [read:a transitional hominid] in Asia by about 80,000 years, or the Daoxian teeth represent a hitherto-unsuspected early and separate dispersal of more modern-looking humans."

No one knows yet

File: There must be more to life.jpg (184KB, 620x826px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 620x826px

>>80116
>http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34531861
That actually is fascinating and I'm going to be following it more closely from now on as I'd like to see what they uncover down that line of questioning. But you do seem to be approaching it from a decidedly anti-OOA bent, rather than simply seeking the truth. Even the researchers quoted in the article haven't jumped to your conclusions, and appear to be first examining whether this simply means there was an earlier migration from Africa that was far more successful than was first theorized.

>>80151
Dude did you even read your article? It's saying that people went BACK into Africa and gave them neanderthal DNA

>>80186
Why don't you read the paper, and while you're at it, provide me an argument for why OOA is more legitimate than MRE.

Because the last time you tried that, you got proven wrong.

>it says that the data point fits into the OOA hypothesis.

It proves OOA wrong. You are a dumbass, read the paper.

>>80220
Which is basically the same and what I am saying.

>>80223
It proves people migrated earlier. God, you are stupid.

>>80223
>It proves OOA wrong.

No it doesn't.

>"Many workers (often including me) have argued that the early dispersal of modern humans from Africa into the Levant recorded by the fossils from Skhul and Qafzeh at about 120,000 years ago was essentially a failed dispersal which went little or no further than Israel."

>"However, the large sample of teeth from Daoxian seem unquestionably modern in their size and morphology, and they look to be well-dated by uranium-thorium methods to at least 80,000 years. At first sight this seems to be consistent with an early dispersal across southern Asia by a population resembling those known from Skhul and Qafzeh.

>"But the Daoxian fossils resemble recent human teeth much more than they look like those from Skhul and Qafzeh, which retain more primitive traits. So either there must have been rapid evolution of the dentitions of a Skhul-Qafzeh type population in Asia by about 80,000 years, or the Daoxian teeth represent a hitherto-unsuspected early and separate dispersal of more modern-looking humans."

Literally from the same article.

This thread is dumb because nobody's going to read academic papers, and if they do nobody will believe them.

Is it really that weird that I'm going to follow academic consensus? Does it really make me a sheep if I think experts know more than me?

>>79621
>Oh look it's the standard reddit response, "this article that doesn't support my theory is wrong because the people who wrote it believe in god"
when you look for the actual "original sin" in the historical record then yes, that's not science anymore

you've been outed /pol/ but nice try

>>80106

Do you want me to lie and say I'm not biased?

>>80299

That's totally fine, just don't strut around saying it must be accepted because everyone else accepts it. This shit could change with one significant finding.

>>80254
>evidence for OOA being bullshit
>'The only possible explanation is not one, but TWO out of africa migrations!'

Just like this guy >>80086 said, it's all political bullshit from guilt ridden people despaterly trying to prove OOA. It's grasping at straws tier.

>>80281
Except it does.

>Scientists working in Daoxian, south China, have discovered teeth belonging to modern humans that date to at least 80,000 years ago.

>This is 20,000 years earlier than the widely accepted "Out of Africa" migration that led to the successful peopling of the globe by our species.

20,000 fucking years.

>>80235
No it isnt. They still didn't get their Neanderthal DNA by staying in africa. The timeline (roughly) is this: Homo sapiens arises in Africa. Homo sapiens goes out of Africa. H.S. meets Neanderthals and acquires N. Dna. Some H.S. stay out of Africa and acquire more N. DNA. Othe H.S. goes back into Africa and introduces small amount of neanderthal DNA to the Homo sapiens left behind.

So yes, humans came out of africa but developed into the distinct, different races that we see today outside of africa.

>>80329
>Do you want me to lie and say I'm not biased?
I just want you to try and take a step back and think about WHY you're biased in the manner you are. What exactly are you wanting to prove by disproving OOA, and what do you want to keep so badly that you would lose if you had to accept OOA as a theory?

>>80333
>Dr Pontus Skoglund, from the department of genetics at Harvard Medical School, told BBC News: "The genetic evidence we have puts strong constraints on some aspects of human history, but less so on the timing of the out of Africa event. Most genetic reconstructions based on modern data relies on assumptions on the mutation rate, for which there are still some real uncertainties.

>"In terms of direct genetic evidence, we already have a 45,000 year-old genome from Siberia (Ust Ishim) and a ~40,000 year old individual from Europe (Oase) that are consistent with being from now-mostly-extinct lineages. "

>"The conclusion is perhaps that the genetics does allow an 80,000 year old East Asian population to contribute some ancestry to present-day people, but I think not very much. It is a very interesting discovery that is hard to fit in our current thinking, but not impossible. We are just starting to cope with this data point."

One data point that can fit into the theory does not refute it.

>posters: 42
>replies 240

holy fuck the arguing is real

>>80358
*So yes, humans came out ofAafrica but developed into the distinct, different races that we see today outside and inside of Africa.

There, fixed that for you.

>>80333
>People can't migrate more than one time

>>79782
>If the purpose of the paper is to try to explain something like the "origin of language" you're going to find some weird shit as potential explanations.
>original sin as a possible scientific explanation for the origin of language
anon, try to contain your stupid

File: 1444183956541.jpg (126KB, 845x403px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 845x403px

>>76674
The "Out of Africa" theory has been discredited many times. It was first started as a campaign in the 1990's to promote "equality" and was accepted by scholars at that time as true. Although many scientists have now discredited the theory, it is still taught in schools for some reason. I guess you can say the same people who started that campaign movement are the same people who influence universities and Liberal Campaigns of "Equality". Even if the all out of Africa theory is correct, we've all separated far enough to be our own unique cultures with different strengths. According to the Research of James Watson, a well known scientist whites have gotten more advanced and smarter than other races. Don't listen to the liberals false campaigns of "equality" when modern science can prove against it, unless you know who is funding that research.

>>80393
OOA states that 60,000 years ago people moved out of africa and went on to populate the globe.

If OOA was as true and correct as you believe it is, it wouldn't have a GIANT FUCKING GAPING 20,000 YEAR HOLE IN IT

>This means that everything below those stalagmites must be older than 80,000 years old; the human teeth could be as old as 125,000 years, according to the researchers.

The teeth found in china are probably even older than 80,000 years. "Well maybe there was TWO, or THREE out of africa migrations!" simply does not cut it. At all.

>>80436
There's no evidence that these 80,000 year old teeth would be of people who came from africa, that is speculation. OOA theory only goes back 60,000 years.

File: 1392685228638.gif (999KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 250x251px

I know about the out of africa theory but have also heard that Turkey was the cradle of mankind. Which is it?

>>78908
>I've actually read Stringer's book Lone Survivors and it makes similar points as this piece here. He's simply proposing a more nuanced view that's muddied up by the fact that earlier humans got freaky with everything we saw and made hybrids with other closely related species.

Yes, that's exactly why I said "modified OOA" as opposed to the original formulation wherein we are all literally identical except for meaningless variations in phenotype

>>80468
>OOA theory only goes back 60,000 years.
No, it was updated.

>>80509
Yeah, I'm totally sure it was updated in the 15 days since those teeth were found.

Lel. And think about the implications of what you are even saying. So OOA theory goes back 60,000 years, Chinese researches find 80,000 year old teeth. What evidence is there to support an earlier migration?

There isn't any, OOA advocates take any evidence that makes the theory look weak, and just shove it into their theory along with it.

>>80416
What are you trying to prove?

>>80471
Agriculture and PIE originated in Turkey
that is all

>>79433

Jared Diamond makes me laugh because it's clear he was going one direction, and then went, "Nope, shit, time to apply the same arguments to a different hypothesis so I can avoid unwanted conclusions."

Anyway, who has that delightful image macro of the guy demolishing Diamond in a series of rageposts? I hate to reference macros for any serious posting, but it was of relatively high quality.

>>80471

Some of the oldest archaeological sites evincing organized habitation by human societies may be found in Turkey, such as Göbekli Tepe, but I am not aware of any theory which ascribes to Turkey the origin of modern man.

>>80554
One data point that can fit into the theory does not refute it.

>>80663
It doesn't fit into the theory, that's the whole point. A 20,000 year gap is more than a tiny data point, it's literally a gigantic gaping flaw in OOA theory.

>>79514

You should re-evaluate your understanding of evolution. Africa has a higher rate of archaic hominid admixture than the other places you mentioned (especially among pygmies and bushmen). Admittedly, some peoples of Asia have a high degree of Denisovan admixture, which does seem to correlate with being stupid as fuck. Those people are a small minority, though, basically just the "black Asians" and certain Pacific peoples.

Also there is no straight line wherein h. sapiens was superior in every way to denisovans and neanderthals. Compared to heidelbergensis, though, sapiens was more "advanced."

>>80705
>Humans existed 200,000 years ago
>Our earliest discoveries outside of africa were from 60,000 years ago
>General consensus up until that point is that humans left Africa 60,000 years ago
>A new discovery finds some remains from 80,000 years ago
>Theory gets updated
>People claim OOA is no longer valid because... is impossible for people to leave Africa in 120,000 years of existing?
Ok friend.

>>78973
Leftists have the science once again, and kekservatives get left with a sore anus.

>>80865
>Leftists have the science
Yes, because liberals never try to hide science be referring to it as racist, and banning it. Fuck off to Reddit.

>>80463
>advances in anthropology
pls

>>80554
OoA goes back to 100k-120kya, happening in waves

>>80857
>Humans 200,000 years ago are the same as Humans 60,000 years ago and Humans today, despite having different DNA from outside of Africa

>>80972
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/10/07/science.aad2879.short
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34479905
When will this meme end?

>>80857
>Theory gets updated

But it wasn't updated, that's the whole point. There's zero evidence for an out of africa migration longer than 60,000 years ago.

They're simply taking the evidence that proves their theory wrong (in this case, 80,000 year old teeth) and blobbling it into their theory under "a second wave" when there's no evidence for an older migration.

It's like when the bad guy says "ha ha jokes on you I wanted to get caught in the first place!"

File: blackqt.jpg (188KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1136x640px

>>81038
>when there's no evidence

Except for, you know, the entire field of population genetics.

>>80996
>BBC
>Science Mag
You sure picked the first 2 sources you found on Jewgle.

>>81083
Ok.

>>77037

Have you read a single history book in your life?

>>80931
What advancements? Can you provide any sources, it's like liberal don't know what those mean.

>this thread
holy lel
The academic arguments for the OoA theory are certainly far from rock solid but the arguments against in this thread are hilarious.
>science don't real cause liberal agenda
You Americans and your binary identity politics crack me up almost as much as the idea of a political "Africa" 60,000 years ago that we can talk about as influencing a contemporary agenda.

>>81081
The population genetics don't account for these 80,000 year old teeth, though.

>>78239

More like a lot of posts just stating that as a fact, faggot. No need to be passive-aggressive about your inability to believe genetic evidence.

>>81145
HOW?

ITT: /pol/ BTFO

>>81158
How what? OOA's uses genetic studies to account for a migration 60,000 years ago. They have no evidence explaining an 80,000 year old migration.

>>81115
The "journal" name is "advances in anthropology" and they publish all this weird biblical shit, it's not a well respected source

>>81265
>the study and journal are wrong because it goes against my liberal worldview

imagine if scientists discredited research because the authors were athiest

>>81218
What are you talking about?

>>80996
I already responded to those two articles earlier in the thread. They show that less developed humans left africa, acquired neanderthal DNA, and some came back to Africa to give them the neanderthal DNA present in them today.

Those that left were not the same as those who came back and are certainly not the same as those who didn't come back.

>>81314
sigh

>>81307
Sick ad hominem my /pol/iticizing friend but thats clearly not what the poster said.
No peer review = no deal

>>81307
I'm not falling for it /pol/

>>81312
What are you talking about?

>>81334
it was peer reviewed

>>81343
i'm not falling for it /reddit/

>>81329
Are you going to address my facts or literally just close your ears?

>>81334
I'm that anon, it's peer reviewed but it's peer reviewed by the kind of people that publish in that journal. So the peer review process doesn't work for them, since they're this fringe community of bible thumpers.

>>76674
Well, this board is designed to be a marxist safe space, so most likely everyone supports it.

>>81353
Get a better journal or get lost

>>81353
>>81382
>it was peer reviewed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

>>76674
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon, it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory - The thread

File: 1445281602635.gif (831KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 200x200px

>>81382
>So the peer review process doesn't work for them, since they're this fringe community of bible thumpers.

it's like i'm really on reddit

>>81401
>this source doesn't count because le bible mayme

you get lost, buddy.

>>81428
Source doesn't because read this article >>81412

Didn't humans go out of East Africa and back inside over and over in different groups and shit?

Why would they go to only one direction?

>>81314
>present in them today.
Which means
>Those that left were not the same as those who came back and are certainly not the same as those who didn't come back.
Doesn't matter

>>81442
backpeadling: the thread

>it's not peer reviewed so it doesn't count
>oh, wait it was peer reviewed, well it still doesn't count because I don't like who published it

And you people claim to be so logical and unbiased. Kek.

>>76674
Out of India is more accurate

Out of Africa has already been proven wrong by the discovery of human remains in China dating LONG before the supposed migrations.

>>76906
That's fair enough, there is not a whole lot of evidence or reason for multiregionalism, but why Africa in particular? Why couldn't it be out of Asia?

>>81464
I only posted twice in this thread f am but its cool if you want to think thats its only me and you here.
You're perfectly entitled to your ideas but if the only evidence you can find to back them up is widely discredited journal published by a non-academic company in China that has been charged with fraud, I'd be a little bit critical about those ideas.

>>76906
>Out of Africa is pretty much just accepted at this point in the field
not any more m8, the whole idea behind it was a recent migration out of africa, but we know now humans existed outside of Africa far before that supposed date.

Out of Africa is an outdated remnant from the 19th century.

>>81503
Because Africa has the oldest remains.
>>81520
Before what date? Before 200,000 years ago?

>>81449
Africans have much, MUCH less neanderthal DNA than other races, the presence of which causes significant changes in the humans it is found in. So they're still different.

>>81516
yeah senpai im sure that when they found those 80,000 year old teeth they were liars

it passed peer review mate, you are just being biased

>>81538
The oldest we have found, it's not really conclusive proof

>>81581
I neither agreed with you or disagreed with you, just pointed out that the journal you cited has been widely discredited and is published by a company with legal issues related to fidelity.
Also why do you think I wouldn't accept the recent Daoxian findings?

>>81558
They aren't, they literally aren't. The genetic difference between humans on any continent is so small that you can find more genetic difference between people of the same ethnicity and region than between a swede and someone from Zimbabwe.

>>81538
out of Africa places the date between 100 000 and 60 000, human remains have been found from about 120 000 years ago

either way out of India is far more likely as migration along the Arabian coast is far easier and India is the most genetically diverse place outside Africa.

likely humanoids migrated there first then evolved into modern humans in the rich subcontinent

>>81629
>just pointed out that the journal you cited has been widely discredited

according to whom? you?

>>81605
Yeah, 120,000 years earlier than any other place on earth isn't conclusive at all, sure. So, how about you find some older remains and then come back.
>>81647
>out of Africa places the date between 100 000 and 60 000, human remains have been found from about 120 000 years ago
And african remains are from 200,000 years ago.

>>81655
>according to whom?
The mainstream academic community and the original pre-2014 editorial board and staff of the journal before they resigned en-masse. Its an interesting story if you'd like to look it up.

>>81520
>19th century
You realize that means the 1800s right?
Wrong again.

Multiregional is not this new cutting edge theory, it was the one accepted before being replaced by Out of Africa.

Anthropology is always going to have disagreements and things shifting as understand becomes better. Yes, maybe OoA as it stands needs to be fine tuned, but over turned entirely? I think not.

>but we know now humans existed outside of Africa far before that supposed date.
What "supposed" date? Do you realize that pushing that date back to earlier doesn't invalidate the theory and it certainly doesn't support multiregional.

File: gg.png (9KB, 215x215px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 215x215px

>>81696
>mainstream academic community

dont make me laugh

>>81732
Why?

>>81732
>jew meme
>scientific consensus is not how science works
I smell /pol/

>>81732
So the majority of working anthropologists AND the STAFF of the journal denouncing it doesn't dissuade you?
Now I feel like the retard for spending three posts replying to a troll.
8/10

>>81718
its likely that out of africa existed but what isn't likely is that there was just one group that left. that is what OOA implies, that all the different races today could be traced back to some prehistoric black guy

it's more likely that two different subgroups of hominoids left africa. it explains the differences in the races today.

>>78577
>cited 4 times by other research
yes, clearly this is well accepted evidence

>>81818
[citation needed]

File: cover.jpg (319KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1000x1000px

Yeah so, is there ANYONE who refutes OoA that isn't both racist and religious? I feel like all the arguments against it here are based in fear. This "liberal agenda" shit is getting old; it's not even addressing the argument.

And since when is being liberal and/or atheist a reddit thing anyway? You think your god is proud of you for posting here? If souls were real, we'd all be damned here, for sure.

>>81828
Are you actually implying real academics use http://www.academia.edu as a platform?

>>81839
give me a citation that proves black people can evolve into white and asian people given enough time

It's generally accepted among academics that the first people originated from Africa then branched out across the world. I find it hard to believe humans simultaneously evolved.

>>81876
So you think apes became the white man with no interlude?

>>81818
>that there was just one group that left. that is what OOA implies
Find me where OOA implies that just one group left. Do you understand how few humans that'd be?
Different groups left at different times and went different places. That's how you get haplotypes distributed how they are.

The only real key tenant of OOA is that AMHs developed in Africa first, then spread out. What's so controversial about that? It conforms to the fossil, material cultural, and genetic evidence.

>>81851
No, 4 is an embarrassingly low number so my point is that academics don't use that shitty journal. The article in questions is actually a part of Advances in Anthropology, though they seem to have some financial connection to academia.edu.

Actually if you look, for the hundreds of articles they have the most any of them have been cited in 12 times.

>>81876
>give me a citation that proves evolution
what?

>>81689
put of Africa is specifically focused with a recent date of human expansion, pushing the date back means the theory is faulty and humans developed for longer outside Africa.

>>81948
>What's so controversial about that?

It implies that whites and asians are descended from black people. There's no evidence that supports this.

>everybody is just ignoring the 80,000 year old teeth that were found in china

why is it so hard for people to realize that out of africa is fualty? you have to realize that out of africa theory only goes back 60,000 years

>>82007
this

>>80929
It's not hidden, it's refuted.

Get some ointment, mate.

>>82026
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v26/n3/full/ng1100_358.html

>>82084
OoA goes back 200,000 year.

>>82084
the issue isn;t with humanoids dedveloping in Africa, its when the migrations out of Africa took place where homo sapiens developed into homo sapiens sapiens

its far more likely that this crustal step in social development especially happened in Asia (specifically India) rather than Africa.

it also means humans are divided far more than previously though, which seems to line up with the genetics showing how close Eurasians are while Africans represent an outlier.

File: 2625697-9079972544-Oh-Yo.png (6KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 390x470px

>>78100
>realise your ideas aren't taken seriously by professionals
>attack academia as a whole

>>82115
If you can't even be bothered to write a post then simply put: fuck off.

>>82178
>A minority of contemporary East Africans and Khoisan represent the descendants of the most ancestral patrilineages of anatomically modern humans that left Africa between 35,000 and 89,000 years ago.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v26/n3/full/ng1100_358.html
You can't even bother to read a couple of lines.