"Out of Africa" Argument

of all the genes every human has in common six of them are the oldest, most unmodified form

of those six, all the races have a couple, asians have two, euros have two, africans have four .. but the abbos of australia have all of them, still intact
the only way they could have all of them is if they are the oldest
abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99257&page=1
wakeup-world.com/2013/12/16/dna-evidence-debunks-the-out-of-africa-theory-of-human-evolution/

Scientific theory differs from your meaning of theory I believe. Scientific theories are based upon successful hypotheses. Where as most people's idea of the word theory comes from wild guesses.

Op:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Deer_Cave_people
Your welcome

>Do you know what "theory" means?

Sure do matey. I also know what the phrase 'scientific theory' means.

Not everyone is a dumbass like you.

Genetics, including your chart, gives evidence for out-of-Africa, though.

Attached: 1432225958251.jpg (1180x1150, 234K)

Wrong, as a decendant of Anglo-Saxons I don't have any trace of denisovan DNA.

Plenty of Australiods have denisovan DNA.

How does it feel to be dumb?

close .... australia
Im not from australia, and im no abbo, but i do research genetics, and im telling you guys, the genes dont lie. the oldest known genes are from australian abbos, they still have six or eight of original homo erectus genes but they are homo sapiens, niggers have 4 to 6, most euros have and asians have 0 to 2

How does it prove it,

Africans were more isolated from mixing with Eurasians than Eurasians with each other, and they remained more similar to early homo sapiens because Eurasians wen't through different bottlenecks which made tchem lose many ancestral allele variants which got fixed in negroids.

What study is your picture from?

Attached: Ice_Age_Europe_global_PCA.png (1200x630, 67K)

that is correct
homo erectus split into african neanderthal and desinovian
but the original is australoids, ... from austroloids came negroids, cacausoids and mongoloids
please try to refrain fromnamecalling, it really doesnt advance your arguement and is quite childish

The remains are by far the oldest in Africa.

see

>but i do research genetics
Fuck off retard.

What study is that from

Scientific theories are the conclusion of all known data. there is a Germ theory of disease and theory of gravity among many other things which nobody would ever argue isn't pretty solid.
this is a pretty decent indicator.
It shouldn't be debunked, but i feel it was the easy way out in terms of finding the origin of humanity because the african continent enviornment makes it a hell of a lot easier to preserve and make fossiles compared to heavy forests/european enviornments. another good opinion, though i wouldn't say they ceased evolving, but that natural selection was no where near as tough as it was on the human population compared to the northern counterparts.

It's already done. Africans are a different species, and have many species within Africa like pygmies.

Attached: dna niggers erectus amoung us.jpg (403x403, 38K)

it gives the citation at the top

>Plenty of Australiods have denisovan DNA.

All Eurasians have denisovan admixture. Denisovans and Neanderthals were relatively genetically similar to negroids. Most of currently available tools can't reliably differentiate modern Africans from extinct archaics.

Attached: f23_2.png (1024x789, 201K)

Attached: nature-siberian-neanderthals-17_02_16-v2.png (630x650, 29K)

According to both the multiregional (MR) and the out-of-Africa (OOA) model, our recent Homo ancestors originated in Africa. Both models do not dispute that H. erectus migrated out of Africa over 1m years ago, spreading across Eurasia.

The difference between both models: According to the MR model, there was interbreeding between H. erectus and its descendant populations across Eurasia, therefore H. sapiens had evolved across all of Eurasia and Africa contemporaneously. According to OOA, H. sapiens evolved in Africa first and then migrated out of Africa, eventually displacing the other hominin populations in Eurasia.

There's evidence for both models. Recent genetic studies have found that there was interbreeding between H. sapiens and other closely related members of Homo, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, and this interbreeding happened as recently as tens of thousands of years ago. However, genetic evidence also shows Sub-Saharan Africans didn't interbreed with Neanderthals. Combined with the fact that the concept of "species" gets fuzzy at times (hence Homo sapiens sapiens), and that we are piecing the puzzle with archaeological and genomic studies, and you have a more complex story of recent human evolution.

Again, both models agree that there was a migration of H. erectus out of Africa approx. 1m years ago, and both models agree there was a single genetic origin of modern humans. The distinction is whether modern humans arose in Africa first and migrated out to replace other members of Homo (OOA), or that these closely-related Homo populations interbred across Eurasia and Africa, leading to a concurrent rise of modern humans across the continents (MR).

There's no mainstream politicization on this. While OOA is still more widely accepted, there is growing evidence of interbreeding among Homo populations, regardless of where modern humans first appeared. I've never even heard about any political controversy over these theories except from fringe communities.

Attached: image138.jpg (491x320, 20K)

Negroids are still nowhere differentiated enough to be subspecies. It's likely the case for neanderthals as well.

this guy gets it

the eight genes that have evolved since homo erectus are all brain developments, negroids received four brain upgrades, asians six, and euros eight, these upgrades vary, and are not necessarily cumulative
newscientist.com/article/2080549-oldest-ever-human-genome-sequence-may-rewrite-human-history/
sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htm

>Only Asians

Why debunk it? It was the ice age and mixing with Neanderthals that gave northern subspecies an intellectual advantage over Africans.

This is true.

? there are no pure-bred neaderthals anymore. Caucasians have such a low percentage of neaderthal DNA it ranges from the 0.??? to maybe 3-4% depending on the source.

Maybe not debunked but very simply consider wolves and the household dog, one has remained the exact same for thousands of years while the other has evolved greatly. Take the average nigger and apply the equation to gooks, whites, hispanics ect and you have your answer. While years of adversity has made other human species to evolve, the black has remained as the wolf has for thousands of years with no progress.

Attached: wolves.jpg (1200x630, 49K)

>Can the "Out of Africa" theory be debunked?
Not by some retard nazi on the internet.

I should also add that sea levels rose and fell throughout early hominid evolution, which would lead to greater land connections through Arabia and Southern Europe, which is of interest in our evolution.

Attached: mediterranean dry up.jpg (1280x864, 381K)

>Im not from australia, and im no abbo,
that's always going to sound extreeemely suspect leaf

Attached: DkJ3Vu2WsAEa-oP.jpg (1040x1125, 93K)

bait

Other studies detected in everyone including tiny amounts in Africans. Europeans have less due to basal eurasian.

m.phys.org/news/2017-05-scientists-million-year-old-pre-human-balkans.html
That's not even true. Look into the remains found in the Balkans

Attached: main-qimg-d56b99bfba384157a63d7bb86f4fc9a5 Dannemann et al 2018 Hominin ancestral tree with super ar (602x480, 53K)

>not politicized
Funny you say that when EVERY SINGLE PERSON hears in school that we are all descendants of Africans as the homosapian foundational myth when that is simply not the case.

The reason it isn't "politicized" is become one theory, which is indeed politically charged, has cultural hegemony and doesn't need to fight for its position and is thus just consider "common knowledge".

And that is what we call a living fossil, while it may not be applicable for africans, they are well on the way to be that because of the lack of environmental pressure to change.

It sure can, Rajneesh, but you also have to forgo the unscientific and kike-promoted "Aryan Invasion Theory".

dumb ass

Attached: world racial history.jpg (1280x936, 487K)

It seems you're the one who is politicizing it. Both theories are still actively discussed in the literature without any political connotations whatsoever.

It cannot. Humans evolved in eastern Africa

if you look at your chart you see the pacific islanders, new guinea and australian have the a close cluster group, and there numbers are the most diverged from all, and that all numbers are between them and negroids.

the negroids evolved separately from all other groups
an interesting side note, if you follow the DNA genetic lines of chimpanzees and other primates it is undisputed that they all began in australia. now why would all other primates except humans come from australia, and humans come from africa

ewao.com/2018/05/30/recent-out-of-africa-theory-proven-wrong-by-australian-discoveries/
englishnews.org/complete-chronological-archive/jewish-academic-subversive-malicious-out-of-africa-hypothesis-annihilated.html

Was the Sahara a natural barrier that long ago? Fucking humanoid species were on every continent after some time. Crazy if you think about it. The abbos down in Australia, Philipines, Guam, islands in the Carribean, Polynesia, etc. Fucking everywhere.

If the Sahara was always a natural barrier that would explain a lot. Islands have natural barriers too so that may explain the lack of genetic enrichment with it's inhabitants.

No, it can be interpreted as 2 species of humans have evolved; one in Africa and the other, I'll assume the Caucasus since they hold the most ancient evidence of any human civilization and the skeletons there look different than that of Africa which suggests that humans evolved differently in two places. Hell, Neanderthals were a species of humans as well.
Why is it so impossible to believe that Africans and other races are at least two different subspecies?

Humans who are sentient were less impacted by environment even during paleolithic than other animals. Ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans left Africa like 500,000-600,000 before ancestors of Eurasians but remained much more plesiomorphic all that time. In humans basality of populations seems to be largely random and doesn't correlate with phenotype, Australian Aborigines look most similar to homo erectus out of modern populations but are much less basal than Africans despite high archaic admixture and highly related Papuans are much more progressive.

africans are a completely different species of human,
just one look at them tells you that, who i am gonna believe, schlomo shekelstein or my lying eyes!

Attached: AfricanCline Mota PCA.jpg (300x347, 28K)

yep
this
niggers BTFO

Yes but we, the lay public, very intentionally only hear one theory. That is the political aspect

>africans are a completely different species of human,

They aren't but Bantu and Khoisan are indeed more genetically similar to Lower Paleolithic homo sapiens.

Attached: Mota PCA.png (400x321, 19K)

Attached: mota pca1.png (400x305, 20K)

Debunked a while ago.

“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked
redice.tv/news/out-of-africa-theory-officially-debunked

africans evolved in Africa and Europeans evolved separately in Europe from the neanderthal. We are not the same species, we just have a similar anatomy

Attached: whitepeoplesometimes.jpg (750x770, 98K)

Haha what a shill

>According to wiki, Fst between Europeans (CEU) and sub-Saharan Africans (YRI) is 0.153.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index#Autosomal_genetic_distances_based_on_SNPs

>According to this study, Fst between North American wolves and coyotes is … wait for it.. 0.153.

fws.gov/southeast/pdf/publication/red-wolf-genetics-research-von-holdt.pdf

westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/06/24/fixation-index/

Instead of trying to debunk the theory on Jow Forums which will only get us ridiculed for it by actual scientists, why not then just explain to lay people that being descendants of Africans isn't what they think it means?

>If so, how?
yes by taking one look at white people

Are Africans A Different Subspecies? | Tara McCarthy
youtube.com/watch?v=mkwewTlxS9k&bpctr=1542432224

No. You cant debunk a theory where the creators can change goalposts and fabricate evidence. We were created we didnt evolve. Wake up you idiot.

Those are thumbnails ffs. It is compressed and you can't read the legend.
Eitherway, if you fucking go braindead when you read Africans and assume your usual negroid, remember that Africa also includes North Africa which was a fuck fest of Romans, Arabs, and some other non-negroid tribes that migrated from either Europe or the Middle East.

All went on to enslaves nigger down south.

Negroes are protohumans.

>I'm still in Africa
CHECKMATE ATHEISTS

Enjoying your vacation user?

>Africans which stayed in Africa for millenia did so because they are the most primitive, uncreative, cowardly and dumb humans
What is there to debunk?

Not here on vacation. Believe it or not people do business here, especially saffas

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534718301174?via=ihub

>what is scientifically classified as homo sapiens emerged among separate groups that were already significantly genetically isolated from each other prior to spreading across the world
>BUT THEY ALL CAME FROM THE SAME ARBITRARY LANDMASS YOU SHITLORD!

why are leftists so low iq?

Attached: it aint me pepe.jpg (640x450, 37K)

BLACK PEOPLE BUILT NOTHING
youtube.com/watch?v=B2Ts4oLSKoQ

yea we came from Africans, the same way we evolved from monkeys. Macro evolution exists, just look at sub-saharins i.e "Negros"

>Can the "Out of Africa" theory be debunked? If so, how?

DNA mapping shows that no Negros ever left Africa.

Plus, African Negro have never accomplished anything. Ever. SO why would you think that they ever had the wherewithal to leave their home?

I don't

>being descendants of Africans

We're not though; the fact that you said that shows how effectively you've been brainwashed

I'm surprised this isn't taken into account more often in our history books. Figuring that humans were migrating during the last glacial maximum, the coastal shores must have been miles out further than where they are today. Doggerland, Sundaland. So much history has been lost.

The proto indo-europeans (or the aryans/cro-magnon) has impregnated the homo erectus.
The modern africans shares genomes of the homo erectus and the cro-magnons, but modern european doesn't have homo erectus genomes. A very small portions of europeans have homo erectus genomes (due to migration)

youtube.com/watch?v=uJauteYFEsE

the "out of africa" theory is a rewritten history by (((them)))

t. Australoid

Attached: Fig.+2+Effect+of+adaptive+introgression+of+Denisovan+HLA+class+I+alleles+on+modern+Asian+and+Oceania (960x720, 132K)

>all other primates but humans come from australia, and humans come from africa
For the same reason all apes aren't on Australia currently.

North Arfrican have negroid admixture since a long time

Attached: ANA Taforalt Natufian Dzudzuana qpgraph.png (914x969, 162K)

Ah so there were degenerates that were into coal burning even 300000 years ago

The creator started toying with simian genes. Australian aborigines first, then Africans, then middle eastern including jews, then east asians, then caucasians. Each time they refined the process making more godlike beings to rule over the previous editions. It wasn't out of africa. Africa was just the second edition and that's when they went bigly on production efforts, hence they're the older race but also one of the least civilized. The older the race the more monkeylike.

Attached: 1515947284343.jpg (845x403, 109K)

Russians rig studies like they rig US elections

And knock the Bermuda proxy off, dumbass.

It's already been debunked, dumbass.
Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find
telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

here's a better chart. this is scientific proof

Attached: 1500663520199.png (546x548, 49K)

Attached: Europe was the birthplace of mankind.jpg (574x529, 53K)

>Ancestral North Africans
>%45
>Not even that %45 is directly related to Subsaharan negroid
Fucking pilpuling like a kike with your chutzpahs.
Read your fucking graphs.

I’m hearing from anthropologists they came from Eurasia (Siberia maybe?).

Cro-Magnons were nowhere near Africans. Where did you get that from?

they found older remains in the Balkans
phys.org/news/2017-05-scientists-million-year-old-pre-human-balkans.html

>debunked
How about you make a case for it instead?
Isn't it true this theory is completely baseless?

Correct me if you weren’t implying this.

Whites are not the ancestors of all of mankind. The Europeans are actually the newest race of humans on earth (which is why they are smarter and more evolved than about every other race). We all came from a common hominid ancestor likely from Eurasia.

I'm more of a stoned ape theory/jesus was a mushroom type guy

These timeline shifts are fucking crazy man. I remember a few years ago we learned that humans actually came from Europe and it was Europeans and Turks who started everything and it became mainstream and everyone abandoned the out of Africa theory but then all the sudden it's back again? Just say a documentary about the out of Africa theory and I was like WTF why are they going back to that outdated theory? I've got through so many timeline shifts this year its so tiresome.