Out of Africa theory BTFO

7.2 million-Year-Old Pre-Human Fossil Suggests Mankind Arose in Europe NOT Africa

ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/72-million-year-old-pre-human-fossil-suggests-mankind-arose-europe-not-africa

Other urls found in this thread:

news.sky.com/story/egyptian-mummies-have-european-and-turkish-dna-scientists-10898867
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>7.2 million
Jesus christ.

TWO "pro-Europe" stories in a week. I'm starting to get suspicious. A third will make me paranoid. A fourth will confirm it.

Sahelcuckthropus BTFO

BUT WE WUZ KANGZ!!! *steals a car*

*assaults an individual in a MAGA hat*

WHITES IS A SUB SPECIES!!! WE DA ORIGINAL!!!

And this does what exactly?

That human life didn't start in Africa

If true lefty faggots can't say we are all niggers from africa

we didn't come from niggers we are our own superior race of beings

>Sup Forums tries to science

The Out of Africa theory refers to the idea that modern humans, ie homo sapiens sapiens, evolved in and left Africa.

This discovery is about the original homo splitting off from other great apes.

You're several million years off from disproving out of Africa.

Fuck's sake Neanderthals are literally named after a place in France, homos existing outside Africa is not a new discovery and has fuck all to do with disproving OoA.

How many times do we have to have this thread? The find says absolutely nothing about the origins of homo sapiens because it dates from several million years prior to the earliest human remains.

Some little monkey fellas made their way to land that would later become Europe, wow.

NO WE WUZ KANGZ! EVERYTING WHITEY DUZ IS IMMITATION OF THE ORIGINAL MAN! THE BLACK MAN FRUM AFRICA! THOSE "SCIENTISTS" WHO SAY EVOLUTION STARTED SOMEWHERE IN MODERN BULGARIA ARE JUSSSS TRUMP LOVING RACISTS BCUZ WE WUZ KANGZ NIIIAAAAGGGAAA!!!

I can't think of the proper theory name, but there was a theory that mankind basically evolved in their own isolated groups, across the world.
That's always made sense to me, I don't know why 'out of africa' is pushed hard, especially after Mungo man.

The title was more of bait. I'm not too well versed on genetic origins, but I thought the article was worth discussion.

Doesn't Out of Africa indicate that since Black people are the progenitor, they should have the highest capacity to evolve their children when bred with other races?
When in reality, when you look at the single mom thread a few hours ago, whenever they breed with another race, the children will always be black.

The theory must have its root in old views that Africa is the origin of all life because wilderness and primitive civilizations and shit a few hundred years ago compared to Europe, and to top it off they wanted to get religious people who believe in Adam and Eve to bite.

>99% DNA shared with chimps
different species
>.14% variation between humans
one race; the human race

that's not what this discovery suggests

>I don't know why 'out of africa' is pushed hard, especially after Mungo man.
Probably because it's been scientifically proven with genetic markers and shit.

And a quick google of the Mungo shows that they rechecked the DNA a few years later and the short version is it was an aborigine, and the long version is the only reason they thought it ever evolved separately was because it tested as having different DNA than aborigines, but upon further testing, it turned out the sample was just contaminated by modern European DNA, ie someone fucked up.

this
that is why niggers are so unevolved, they are primitive versions of us

>mankind basically evolved in their own isolated groups

that's nonsense. isolated species do not evolve into the same species.

Yakuum would disagree.

Europe is the birthplace of humanity? That means it belongs to everyone!

WE WUZ
news.sky.com/story/egyptian-mummies-have-european-and-turkish-dna-scientists-10898867

Lol I just find this shit pretty entertaining and a pretty good meme. The ancient Chinese were redheaded caucasians, humanity originated from Europe. Good bantz man.

Doesn't that mean blacks evolved out of us then?

...they knew it was aboriginal to begin with. It challenged the out of Africa theory, 'Modern man' probably started as aborigines that then moved up through Africa

> .14% Variation

Lewontin's fallacy

Proves niggers aren't human.

When they interbreed they do

ANCIENT ARYANS

If 1% is the difference between a human and a chimp, then .14% is pretty huge.

viably interbreeding species essentially have to have common ancestry

>'Modern man' probably started as aborigines that then moved up through Africa
No, no it did not.

What the fuck gave you that idea?

>A fossil of a modern human dated to 54,700 years ago was found in Manot Cave in Israel, named Manot 1,[18] though the dating was questioned by Groucutt et al. (2015). Fossils from Lake Mungo, Australia, have been dated to about 42,000 years ago.

Its probably why slavs act like niggers, we are all descended from slavs SHIIIIIIIIET

DICKWASHERS BTFO

>English is their mothertongue

So then Africans are Europeans.

No silly fatman. This means Africans are Europeans.

>"evolved"

It means that Jews can say, "see everyone wuz once European!! We wuz all European. Europe for all :)"

Except science does exactly that silly kid.

...

So are you not of European origin lardo?

>t-that fossil was the very first one to live there!
I had read somewhere that aborigines and Pacific islanders have unique mitochondrial dna, and that and Mungo man made researchers question out Africa theory

>They didn't cross the Saharan desert and thus didn't mate with Neanderthals nor Cro-Magnon.

>Literally sub-human.

This is old-news. The Out-of-Africa meme was long-debunked before this 'new evidence' was submitted.

Evolution theory and out of Africa theory have taken a huge blow and should not be taught in elementary school anymore

The gods seeded the earth with different human types in different areas.
Its a part of the game.

Even IF this race of humans actually became homo sapiens later down the line (which is highly unlikely), we still have nothing to indicate that homo sapiens wasn't concieved in africa, since that is where the earliest skeletons of our race has been found.

trust burgers to be scientifically illiterate.

The whole out of africa thing does t really imply we are all black.. just that humanity started in africa.. why u guys so obsessed with skin color??

Not how it works u fucking stupid white trash american.

>7.2 million
>literal monkies

The genus homo is only 2 million years old. Furthermore there were multiple out of africa waves, including the first one which was with H. Erectus who is a predecessor for both Neanderthals and Humans. Europeans have been trying to prove for literal centuries that humanity originated here, but all evidence points to the opposite. Furthermore Neanderthals, abeit having white skin, were retarded as a rock and prolly almost as dumb as current day niggers. The proof for this is that their material culture doesn't evolve for ages only until they are exposed to H. Sapiens.

tl;dr: it doesn't matter where man originated from because if we evolved from niggers, how come there's still niggers?

Humans are BILLIONS of years old and are NOT NATIVE to Earth. Here is merely SOME evidence (though DEFINITELY not ALL of the evidence) suggesting not only a human presence on Earth BILLIONS of years ago, but also suggesting complex human civilisations on Earth BILLIONS of years ago:

* A human skull fragment from Hungary dated between 250,000 and 450,000 years ago
* A human footprint with accompanying paleoliths (stones deliberately chipped into a recognisable tool type), bone tools, hearths and shelters, discovered in France and dated 300,000 to 400,000 years
* Paleoliths in Spain, a partial human skeleton and paleoliths in France; two English skeletons, one with associated paleoliths, ALL at least 300,000 years old
* Skull fragments and paleoliths in Kenya and advanced paleoliths, of modern human manufacture, in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, dated between 400,000 and 700,000 years
* Neoliths (the most advanced stone tools and utensils) in China of a type that indicate full human capacity, dated to 600,000 years
* Hearths, charcoal, human femurs and broken animal bones, all denoting modern humanity, in Java, dated to 830,000 years
* An anatomically modern human skull discovered in Argentina and dated between 1 million and 1.5 million years years (eoliths -chipped pebbles, thought to be the earliest known tools- at Monte Hermoso, also in Argentina, are believed to be between 1 and 2.5 million years old).
* A human tooth from Java yielding a date between 1 and 1.9 million years years
* Incised bones, dated between 1.2 and 2.5 million years, have been found in Italy
* Discoveries of paleoliths, cut and charred bones at Xihoudu in China and eoliths from Diring Yurlakh in Siberia dated to 1.8 million years
* Eoliths in India, paleoliths in England, Belgium, Italy and Argentina, flint blades in Italy, hearths in Argentina, a carved shell, pierced teeth and even two human jaws all bearing a minimum date of 2 million years (end of part 1)

(start of part 2) Curiously enough, several of the very earliest artifact discoveries display a truly extraordinary level of sophistication. In Idaho, for example, a 2-million-year-old clay figurine was unearthed in 1912. But even this discovery does not mark an outer limit. Bones, vertebrae and even complete skeletons have been found in Italy, Argentina and Kenya. Their minimum datings range from 3 million to 4 million years. A human skull, a partial human skeleton and a collection of neoliths discovered in California have been dated in excess of 5 million years. A human skeleton discovered at Midi in France, paleoliths found in Portugal, Burma and Argentina, a carved bone and flint flakes from Turkey all have a minimum age of 5 million years.
How far back can human history be pushed with discoveries like these? The answer seems to be a great deal further than orthodox science currently allows. As if the foregoing discoveries were not enough, we need to take account of:
* Paleoliths from France dated between 7 and 9 million years
* An eolith from India with a minimum dating of 9 million years
* Incised bones from France, Argentina and Kenya no less than 12 million years old
* More paleolith discoveries from France, dated at least 20 million years ago
* Neoliths from California in excess of 23 million years
* Three different kinds of paleoliths from Belgium with a minimum dating of 26 million years
* An anatomically modern human skeleton, neoliths and carved stones found at the Table Mountain, California and dated at least 33 million years ago
But even 33 million years is not the upper limit. A human skeleton found in Switzerland is estimated to be between 38 and 45 million years old. France has yielded up eoliths, paleoliths, cut wood and a chalk ball, the minimum ages of which range from 45 to 50 million years.
There's still more.

(start of part 3) In 1960, H. L. Armstrong announced in Nature magazine the discovery of fossil human footprints near the Paluxy River, in Texas. Dinosaur footprints were found in the same strata. In 1983, the Moscow News reported the discovery of a fossilised human footprint next to the fossil footprint of a three-toed dinosaur in the Turkamen Republic. Dinosaurs have been extinct for approximately 65 million years.
In 1983, Professor W. G. Burroughs of Kentucky reported the discovery of three pairs of fossil tracks dated to 300 million years ago. They showed left and right footprints. Each print had five toes and a distinct arch. The toes were spread apart like those of a human used to walking barefoot. The foot curved back like a human foot to what appeared to be a human heel. There was a pair of prints in the series that showed a left and right foot. The distance between them is just what you'd expect in modern human footprints.
In December 1862, The Geologist carried news of a human skeleton found 27.5 m (90 ft) below the surface in a coal seam in Illinois. The seam was dated between 286 and 320 million years. It's true that a few eoliths, skull fragments and fossil footprints, however old, provide no real backing for the idea of advanced prehistoric human civilisations.
But some other discoveries do.
In 1968, an American fossil collector named William J. Meister found a fossilised human shoe print near Antelope Spring, Utah. There were trilobite fossils in the same stone, which means it was at least 245 million years old. Close examination showed that the sole of this shoe differed little, if at all, from those of shoes manufactured today.
In 1897, a carved stone showing multiple faces of an old man was found at a depth of 40 m (130 ft) in a coal mine in Iowa. The coal there was of similar age.

(start of part 4) A piece of coal yielded up an encased iron cup in 1912. Frank J. Kenwood, who made the discovery, was so intrigued he traced the origin of the coal and discovered it came from the Wilburton Mine in Oklahoma. The coal there is about 312 million years old.
In 1844, Scottish physicist Sir David Brewster reported the discovery of a metal nail embedded in a sandstone block from a quarry in the north of England. The head was completely encased, ruling out the possibility that it had been driven in at some recent date. The block from which it came is approximately 360 million years old.
On 22 June 1844, The Times reported that a length of gold thread had been found by workmen embedded in stone close to the River Tweed. This stone too was around 360 million years old.
Astonishing though these dates may appear to anyone familiar with the orthodox theory of human origins, they pale in comparison with the dates of two further discoveries.
According to Scientific American, dated 5 June 1852, blasting activities at Meeting House Hill, in Dorchester, Massachusetts, unearthed a metallic, bell-shaped vessel extensively decorated with silver inlays of flowers and vines. The workmanship was described as 'exquisite'. The vessel was blown out of a bed of Roxbury conglomerate dated somewhat earlier than 600 million years.
In 1993, Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson reported the discovery 'over the past several decades' of hundreds of metallic spheres in a pyrophyllite mine in South Africa. The spheres are grooved and give the appearance of having been manufactured. If so, the strata in which they were found suggest they were manufactured 2.8 BILLION years ago.

(start of part 5) What are we to make of these perplexing discoveries? They cannot simply be dismissed. If even ONE of these discoveries is TRUE (and I believe that MANY if not ALL of these discoveries are TRUE), then it changes EVERYTHING that modern mainstream anthropologists THOUGHT they knew about the human species. (end)

Yeah I'm an archaeologist and I'm calling bullshit

any day i get to post this is a good day

Suddenly Sup Forums acknowledges Greece and Bulgaria as part of Europe.

Gentlemen, I present to you the Nampa figurine (placed next to a coin for size comparison). The Nampa figurine is a tiny figurine made of clay found in 1889, when workers were drilling near Nampa, in southwest Idaho.

“The record of the well shows that… they had penetrated first about fifty feet of soil, then about fifteen feet of basalt, and afterwards passed through alternate beds of clay and quicksand…down to a depth of about three hundred feet when the sand pump began to bring up numerous clay balls, some of them more than two inches in diameter, densely coated with iron oxide,” geologist of Boston Society of Natural History, George Frederick Wright (1838-1921) reported in his book “Origin and Antiquity of Man” (1912).

The Nampa figurine appears to be of a female human and was discovered at a strata dated to about 2 million years.

>Dhimini Skull found in Georgia is 1.8million years old and completely blew the fuck outta the whole homo erectus cult years ago
cling on to your tree little monkey, hate those white people all you want time tells the truth

>Dhimini Skull
Dmanisi skull* fucking foreign names speak english

Ha, fpbp.

you are a liar who peddles leftovers

that thing spooks me, it really does.
like, dont look into its eyes

If dogs evolved from wolves, why are there still wolves? Fucking dumbass...

A coin with curious and indecipherable inscriptions was discovered in Illinois in strata that would date it between 200,000 to 400,000 years ago. The finding was reported in 1871 by William E. Dubois of the (((Smithsonian Institution))). What makes this coin so significant is what Dubois said about it - he described the UNIFORM THICKNESS of the coin and concluded that it must have "passed through a rolling-mill; and if the ancient Indians had such a contrivance, it must have been pre-historic." Pic related (it's a depiction of the coin).

But didn't that one nigger with a big head create white people in Egypt

idk

Lmao all the humanoid fossils we found pre-dating humans can fit in two shopping carts.
>Implying we'll ever know the full story
>Implying it matters because niggers are still a problem

>Date rock
>oh shit the rock is millions of years old
Also some of your sources refer to 1852, top kek

>Implying niggers ever got domesticated

Dunno if it has eyes, bruh. In any case, I doubt a hunter-gatherer made that figurine since hunter-gatherers, well, hunt and gather. Hunter-gatherers are in the business of survival, they don't have the time to engage in works of art.

Considering the shifting of the continents and the various ice ages that have happened, it is literally impossible (and also pointless) to tell which exact piece of land we originated. Plus, it was aliens.

Which means black people evolved from white people? I've always wondered which came first.

WE

Sauce on that? Seems interesting

It turns out hunter-gather tribes only need to put in 20 hours a week of work to survive.

Black people evolved from monkeys / gorillas / whatever they look closest to in regards to region.

White people?

Go read the emerald tablets of thoth. Explains much.

>Also some of your sources refer to 1852

That makes it MORE credible, NOT less! Why? Because there was less (((censorship))) in 1852 than there is now. Also, 1852 was 7 years before Darwin published his theory of evolution to the public so archaeological evidence of extreme human antiquity from before Darwin's theory of evolution is not coloured by Darwinist bias.

Just going to assume he's white due to his geographic location, and by white I mean under his hair or whatever would be roaming back then.

Can you give me a quick summary? I'm too lazy to do research.

It's in the book 'Forbidden Archaeology' by Michael Cremo and the late Richard Thompson.

You enjoy your wonders of the industrial revolution, I'll just stick to modern tech.

there were until some retards decided to give them equal rights...

>moving the goal posts
>implying you weren't buttblasted wrong
>Europeans have been trying to prove for literal(!) centuries that humanity originated here, but all evidence points to the opposite
lol the opposite of europe?
your anti-white bullshit is so blatant and old, die already you white hating cuck

I'll do both, pal.

>ancient humans looking more and more realistic

Its a odd feel.

>they don't have the time to engage in works of art

Really? Coz in my view white people when they were hunter gatherers made some the greatest art fucking ever

The interesting thing about Nation of Islam is that the same idea comes from some interpretations of Summerian mythology.

Enki, created Enkidu(the one from Gilgamesh, except in original it's in plural form, ergo there were many Enkidu - for our purposes you can call them white people) who as opposed to simple people(niggers) and their overlords(jews, Gilgamesh was one of them) was much more capable and independent from Enki's control.

common ancestor spread OoA not homo-negro

El Graeco is the oldest known potential hominin. He is several hundred thousand years older than the oldest potential pre-human from Africa: 6–7-million-year-old Sahelanthropus from Chad,” Spassov stated as Seeker reports"
>I'm an archaeologist
>Belgium is a real european country

Do you think whites are more evolved than niggers? or less evolved. Because I'm pretty damn sure we're further evolved than niggers. keep in mind that archaeologists and historians are usually conservative by nature. That's what studying old culture clashes does. You can't unite two cultures or people, because in the end all it comes down to is a competition of genes.

Forbidden Archaeology is a bad book and you should feel bad. It tries to discredit Darwinism, which is amusing at first, but it gets stale fast.

The Great Pyramid exists at the center of the planet's land mass.

All ancient megalithic structures can be directly traced back to the great pyramid upon lines that intersect across the planet and all lead back to the original pyramid in egypt.

Thoth was part of an ancient race of highly evolved humans that existed before the great deluge, which destroyed ALL of the nations of the world at the time. He was given a mandate to re-civilize the planet after the deluge had receded, and he did, beginning with Egypt.

It is thought that the ancient sites we found all over the world were created in homage to Thoth, as he gave out individual replicas of his original emerald tablets to disciples who then left to try and raise up the new humans all over the world.

Supposedly, Thoth is an immortal, and has volutarily 'died' three times already. He is currently "dead" and has promised to rise again.

TLDR White people are part of an ancient anti-diluvian race of advanced humans and survivors of a world wide destruction.

We're being kept in the dark about it because to have this as public knowledge would destabilize the planet and cause massive riots and killings of white people by the inferior races.

>Mankind

keyword in all of this

>Chad
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

its like im back in 1990, read some current findings, grandpa

Got sauce? Can't find anything on El Graeco.

this obscurantism bullshit, back peddle more you fucking belgian bitch resorting to we're all white in the end arguments. you couldn't keep the goalposts still if you tried

I always suspected that niggers were a degeneration from something better

Never believed we humans evolved from a subspecies of monkey

This is more intriguing than the average Sup Forumstard could understand.
Sub-Saharan Africa has huge genetic diversity. Groups of people there are genetically farther away from each other than from europeans and asians. They were full of various early humans interbreeding with each other and creating huge amounts of different human groups.
The idea of multiple hominids evolving around the same time on possibly three different continents (Australia) and overflowing in one (Africa) is pretty difficult to explain.
It was aliens.

you fucking retard it's literally the article of the thread! And I quoted that it's in Seeker Reports!
>I'm an archaeologist
>I do real research durrr herr

Man, religion really has a way with twisting stories and fables into fucked up shit. I really pity these people to be so damn gullible.