Out of africa theory

How accurate is this theory?
What are some good criticisms to it?

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans
ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/72-million-year-old-pre-human-fossil-suggests-mankind-arose-europe-not-africa?nopaging=1
sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083548.htm
euronews.com/2013/10/21/evolution-theory-shaken-by-new-skull-find
nytimes.com/2017/06/07/science/human-fossils-morocco.html
archive.is/bnwhT
youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
youtube.com/watch?v=bOgkGzMdieI
youtube.com/watch?v=q6c_dinY3fM
youtube.com/watch?v=xnqIj8C2Aek
youtube.com/watch?v=VggFao85vTs
youtube.com/watch?v=IfCOO7Z39j0
youtube.com/watch?v=2hWYgPDVX_8
youtube.com/watch?v=b5tci36bNjg
youtube.com/watch?v=PFHa4db3hA0
youtube.com/watch?v=A94smJ9QJ5g
youtube.com/watch?v=hvNNtBmA3SQ
youtube.com/watch?v=gwd_Iofr6ZQ
youtu.be/kPdxhLUKZYM?list=PLo0ThsDnveH5nv5TNviBrGTX9P6IrYfIe&t=412
youtube.com/watch?v=tPc899uUb-A
youtube.com/watch?v=jgGP_evkvOk
youtube.com/watch?v=TxpIsep4160
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>40,000-60,000 yr
um... check again, sweetie...

It's accurate.

telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

No.

Nothing of value developed in Africa, the evolutionary pressure was very low on the continent due to the stable and warm climate. This is clear form the homo family, all the species breaking off from it lived outside Africa; the neanderthals, the denisovans, homo floresiensis, all outside Africa. And the last Heidelbergensis (primitive ancestor) ofcourse died in the easy mode continent of Africa, of which the homo sapiens living there interbred. While euro sapiens bred with the much better neanderthal stock.

Who cares? At that stage in human history it's more of an animal migration than some kind of spread of civilization. Pre-agricultural humanity doesn't count for much imo.

>travel east thousands of miles to china thru tundra, veldt, and deserts
>wait 20,000 years to go a few hundred miles north to europe

It just doesn't make sense.

>130k headstart
>still cant match South America

Who would win, Aztecs vs Zulu?

There are more and more findings to suggest it wasn't as simple as out of africa.

We had two origins. Homo Sapiens out of Africa and Neanderthals out of Europe. The developed races you see today are hybrids, and they're the ones that conquered the world.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans

In evolutionary anthropology they are already teaching the multiregional origin and Out of Africa as a hybrid theory. 10 years ago it was just Out of Africa. Give it another decade and it will be an obsolete theory.

Who cares?

Hominids migrated out of Africa, but they evolved into modern humans after they left Africa.

> it is not valid anymore

the missing link has been found in GREECE, a 7.2 million years pre-human fossil, older than any other found anywhere else

ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/72-million-year-old-pre-human-fossil-suggests-mankind-arose-europe-not-africa?nopaging=1

sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083548.htm

/thread

the continents did not look like that when coherent human civilization began. Evolution was also present in the north and in the south with alternating seasons.

I have 0% probability to get sickle cell anemia, so those routes are incorrect

>phoneposter

cringey mobile link

Things change a lot in 20,000 years, buddy. Hell ~20 years ago your parents were probably happy and hopeful for their child. Now look!

So we started out as monkey-niggers, took a 50000 year trek via Asia.Then turned white.

Seems plausible.

I suggest you to update yourself, the oldest humanoid fossil ever found was actually found in Europe, the article was published recently but your teachers wont tell you that because saying that we originated from africa fits their agenda

how old?

Zulu. The Latin American / South American peoples had to trade off physical size and strength in order to be able to farm, breathe, and hunt in the horrible landscape (mountains and shit). They were far too small to compete with African warriors.

true. Australia was unpopulated untill 1100bc

My understand is that there was a find recently that challanged that theory
euronews.com/2013/10/21/evolution-theory-shaken-by-new-skull-find

Not sure if this it the actual article, wouldn't be surprised if it was ((suppressed))

So we WUZ Kangz

Zulu's are more modern I believe, they were founded in the 1700's. They most likely had better war tactics from fighting against the Europeans compared to the Aztecs which were pretty much slaughtered by Spaniard before 1521..

You would have to be pretty stupid to believe that population started from one point.

> 7.2 MILLION
> OLDER THAN ANY AFRICAN HUMANOID FOSSIL
> GREEK FOSSIL

>ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/72-million-year-old-pre-human-fossil-suggests-mankind-arose-europe-not-africa?nopaging=1

>sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083548.htm

Why did all our ancestors start in Africa though? Like you'd think there would be some ancestor from SE Asia or somewhere mixed in there at some point. Maybe i havent been keeping up on my human evolution tree as much as I used to, but hasn't every single direct ancestor of modern humans originated in Africa according to the prevailing theory?

The issue Sup Forums fails to address is the distinction between the two theories. One being the origin of homo-sapiens, the other being the origin of homo-sapien sapien societies. The first is the birth of our species, likely attributed to Africa (The Out of Africa Theory). The second discusses the origins of our societal and large scale functional units. This one is highly likely to be multi-factorial with multiple starting points. The earliest likely being the Fertile Crescent civilizations.

I mean if they wanna say a pre-hominid ancestor came out of africa they'd have to back it up, but there are hominid fossils found in the Caucas mountains (rep of georgia) that are as old or older than any found in the African savannah. Evolutionary differences in race suggest hundreds of thousands of years of geographic isolation. Negroids development of malaria resilience (sickle), the mongoloids bone structure differences (hip bones) and powdery ear wax, the caucasoid vit D and diet adaptation to cattle lactose.

How could they reach Australia and Europe at the same time (40.000 yr)?

It all makes sense now.
We were all niggers,
And the snow made me white.

pls no bully

It's not, they found bones in Europe

>Neanderthals out of Europe
Neanderthals descended from Homo Erectus which also came from Africa

read my previous posts, it has been proven that we originated from EUROPE, greece to be more precise

> HERE

The problem isn't so much hominids as it is homo sapiens (anatomically correct modern humans) which the oldest fossil was found in Morocco, older than the one in Ethiopia. The Morocco find was groundbreaking enough though, because before it every researcher was almost certain humans developed in East Africa.

That's not how the science works, you autist. Now we compile more data, do more dating, and find more evidence. Theories have large amounts of evidence to support them. Debunking it takes more than one bone finding. Which all your stupid articles keep bringing up. It's sensationalized so morons like you who don't know how the field work can repost it to feel smart.

Yeah, this is the article I was looking for.
nytimes.com/2017/06/07/science/human-fossils-morocco.html

Archive time archive.is/bnwhT

So?

This. Africa always has been and always will be a backwater continent for hominids. Quit feeding the nogs and let evolution take its course.

>How accurate is this theory?
Not at all.

>What are some good criticisms to it?
Genetic studies in Russia found Northern Eurasian populations had separated from africa populations at least 120,000 years ago.
Fossils indicate anatomically modern humans actually evolved in or near the mediterranean basin, not in southern Africa.
The Chinese have anatomically modern human fossils from 100,000 years ago.
Theory has been pushed for political reasons since the 1960s, with its supporters refusing to even acknowledge contrary evidence. Is considered discredited outside of western academia.

Smallpox played a major role too.

yeah, I can imagine a bunch of pussies sitting in a room tripping about how a humanoid traveled, what it ate and all that bullshit they have on scientific magazines even if they've never found anything regarding to what they ate, but yeaaaaah I guess that bone just flew there, I need a bunch of leftist historians to confirm that for me

Out of africa is the original white flight.

The fact that all races other than niggers have some degree of neanderthal ancestry in their DNA seems to prove the African origin is pretty solid to me

So let me get this straight... you are more willing to accept this as novel evidence of a prehistoric time traveller than refutation of old evolutionary theories also based on nothing more than a single find (the oldest relevant one)?

Just curious; it's all jewish tricks in the end, but the psychology of goy dealing with them is always fascinating to me.

K ready I'll come up with a theory for it!

1) Early humanoid monkey finds earlier humanoid monkey skull in Africa.
2) Early humanoid monkey takes skull with him as he hunts and eventually makes it across a narrow straight to Greece where he gets eaten by some animal or some shit.
3) Skull now deposits there incorrectly

This is why we get more data and the nerds you so despised work to develop alternate theories to potentially explain anomalies. It's part of the field. Are you one of those armchair "scientists" who thinks he can figure it all out with his "massive IQ!!!"?

well, if the oldest bone ever is there, along with the oldest human-like footprints also found at the same part of europe, humans did not came from africa, specially because this fossile is pre-human, meaning that it all began there, and by consequence humans too

yeah LOL it hunted and ran for miles and miles, crossed the sea... that is a looooong hunt buddy

Inaccurate.
People came from America.

neanderthal were in europe evolving for hundreds of thousands of years, "humans" left africa long before cromagnon entered europe

So now you are invoking pre-historic archelogists?

Do you have any idea how slow an laborious the process of retrieving something like a skull is? The fine work and delicate tools required?

Then they have to be assed to travel with it for thousands of miles when we KNOW that these people rarely even carried TOOLS in their travels, opting to make them on the spot with local materials.

Why are you so desperate about this? im so genuinely curious as to what is going on in your head.

I read up on something like this...Theory is man origionated in Europe, not Africa as previously taught...
Really gets ur noggin joggin...

Likely accurate. Most early human migration was from people trying to get away from niggers.

That geographical isolation of an impassable desert though. It works both ways in and out

Implying they didn't kill the niggers to almost extinction

Sea levels weren't identical to now, you autist. Plenty more paths existed. And yes, we hunted by running long distances. It's why you have the sweat gland system you do. I know yours is likely overactive due to your health issues, but please do try think.

The guy is intentionally obscuring the data to push his retarded agenda. If more data comes out to support the Greece theory then we shift to that. One skull does not a theory make. And we find shit like this happening all the time. They carried shit places. Hell the thing could've washed up on a beach for all we know. Dismissing the best theory we've got over a single skull is just showing a lack of understanding of the field, dude. As for your intricacy thing? Not at all. The skull isn't in perfect shape, it's chipped to shit... Rip it out of the ground and half of it is left, and we eventually find half of that half

I hate autists so much. If you reply to 5 or more posts in one response you deserve a permaban. It should be no questions asked.

Yeah so what man?

>How accurate is this theory?
very
>What are some good criticisms to it?- 63 posts and 3 image replies shown.
snow niggers feel offended their grand daddy was a nigger

and some believe it was higher, and most historians also say that the first humans used to eat more roots and maybe stuff they find along the way due to their jaws and teeth sizes and shapes, but okay your missing link was hunting a plant and he crossed the sea, then the plant stopped and killed him. I mean, if you want to follow what they say..............

Now you're just making shit up, lol. We were nomadic hunters long before we even became omnivores. Hence, as I said before, your sweat gland system.

L fucking MAO

Niggers

So who were the europeans living in europe obvious before the indo-aryans migrated there?
What was their culture like?

color/hight change from africa to south america: black/tall>lightbrown/medium>darkbrown/short>yellow/short>red/tall>brown/short. obviously thats how people changed just traviling accross the world.

>read both articles
>neither states how the fossels were determined to be 7.2million years old other than "state of the art methods"

radiometric dating takes to many assumptions to be quoted as fact. paleontologists and astronomers are both full of it. literally make audacious claims to keep funds coming in for "research"

>this (((theory)))

It's about (((their))) globalist agenda. They want to run a prison planet of race-less, culture-less, nation-less, identity-less subdued sheep. They make up less than 1% of the world's population, yet look at all they control from the world's finances to the media that brainwashes us.

In short, they use the entertainment and news media to encourage globalism and discourage nationalism and traditional western values. They distort and lie about the present and past in that effort.

The truth about immigration, by the numbers:
>youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

Cultural Marxist Jews Admit Organizing White Genocide

The plan to eliminate the white race:
>youtube.com/watch?v=bOgkGzMdieI

Cultural Marxism in action… Political Correctness, the tip of the blade:
>youtube.com/watch?v=q6c_dinY3fM

Cultural Marxism & Social Justice explained:
>youtube.com/watch?v=xnqIj8C2Aek

Why are we in decline - Cultural Marxism:
>youtube.com/watch?v=VggFao85vTs

The Jewish role in the refugee crisis:
>youtube.com/watch?v=IfCOO7Z39j0

Leftist subversion explained by former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov:
>youtube.com/watch?v=2hWYgPDVX_8

also see

The facts about slavery in North America:
>youtube.com/watch?v=b5tci36bNjg
>youtube.com/watch?v=PFHa4db3hA0
>youtube.com/watch?v=A94smJ9QJ5g

Cultural Marxist Jews fund media propaganda against whites on an enormous scale:
>youtube.com/watch?v=hvNNtBmA3SQ

The Jewish role in the porn industry:
>youtube.com/watch?v=gwd_Iofr6ZQ

Does this sound familiar at all? (starting at 6:52)
>youtu.be/kPdxhLUKZYM?list=PLo0ThsDnveH5nv5TNviBrGTX9P6IrYfIe&t=412

The Holocaust:
>youtube.com/watch?v=tPc899uUb-A
>youtube.com/watch?v=jgGP_evkvOk
>youtube.com/watch?v=TxpIsep4160

This is true. In Angola, you can get by just living off the land. You have a ton of fruits and even mandioca growing naturally. Moreover, there are tons of animals roaming around (including a lot of fish if you are near a river/lake or by the coast) which you can hunt. There is absolutely no need to develop agriculture there unless your population density becomes too high.

Because of this, during the colonial war, the Portuguese burned fields and forests with napalm as nigger soldiers would hide in them and live simply live as hunter-gatherers.

underrated

>who cares about knowing history
what?

Pangea?

It's a load of bullshit.

Not a homo though??

Etruscan, Minoan, Iberian and several dozen languages that aren't recorded

I'm fascinated by post-civilization history and would be interested in discussing where and how agriculture and organised society arose.

Don't really give much of a shit about animal migratory patterns. Which is what I consider pre-civilised humanity to be.

Up until around that time, most of Europe was frozen. It only became inhabitable around 10k years ago.

that's fine

1) AFAIK it's been mostly debunked. The only reason OOA theory ever existed was because that was the location of the oldest fossils found. Before they found the oldest fossils there, they used to have out-of-asia, and so forth.

2) Where we originated from is largely irrelevant, because cutoff points for what counts as our species, genus, etc are mostly arbitrary. Retards like to use OOA to say "we're all africans :^)" but that argument is completely fallacious and doesn't take evolution into account anyway, even if it were confirmed true. You can always find a last-common-ancestor for whatever clade you want whenever you want. Go back 100k years and find ancestors in Africa. Go back to the Mesozoic era and you find the common ancestor of all modern mammals living on what's now antarctica. Are we all antarcticans? Go back to the first single-celled lifeform from which all other life evolved from. Are we all bacteria?

problem is this trend is continuing

>All this bullshit from neo-marxists
Alright boys and girls here is the real story of the races. About 1.5 million years ago a split happened in cromagnon man. when one group of men become isolated from the greater population due to rising sea levels from the end of a glacial period. This group of men is often refereed to as Atlantians. While the rest of the human population was running around with sticks, the limited resources of Atlantis quickly forced a massive evolutionary leap forward. They learned to live inunion with nature and the divine. The Atlantians gained knowledge of agriculture, but never made it to the copper age before a warming period occurred raising sea levels to cover most of the island. The majority of the arable land was now under water, so most of the population jumped onto their fishing boats and traveled into the unknown.

The Atlantians would eventually hit shore around modern day France, well some of them at least. Most died in the journey. The Atlantian population began to recover now that they had set up in Europe. This naturally brought the attention to two pre-human species: Man and Neanderthals. Over time the Atlantian genes began to spread into the inferior species populations, raising their conscious awareness. The tribes that had been injected with the superior Atlantian genetics would eventually spread to Asia, India, and the eastern Mediterranean.

The original Atlantian tribe still existed in Europe, living in union with nature. Unfortunately miscegenation spread through many of the tribes lowering the consciousness of many European sub-races. The core soul of the Atlantian still rings true the the European people though, it's what gives us our divine spirit and yearning for the greater that we know we can achieve.

Africans would never get any Atlantian DNA, and native Australians left the continent before the calamity of Atlantis. These people shall always struggle

True, but right now it's due to human activity.

Are you a GI larper?

Anthropology major here. Yes, out of Africa theory is correct, though that map has some errors and is a bit misleading as to how natural selection works. Yes, hominid bones were found in Europe predating any found in Africa, but hominid populations were bottlenecked in the African continent regardless, meaning that 100% of our ancestors at at least one point were in Africa.

Hominids evolved throughout the Mediterranean and Africa for millions of years, constantly splitting into isolated groups and interbreeding. Erectus spread out around Asia a couple of million years ago, but these are not our ancestors according to genetic evidence. Ergaster branched from Erectus in the African continent, spawning Heidelbergensis, which is thought to be the last common ancestor of Denisovids, Neanderthalis, and Sapiens.

Neanderthalis branched from Sapiens around 400-600k years ago, and Denisovae branched from Neanderthalis shortly after, Denisovids seeming to be a distinct group of S/SE Asian Neanderthals. These are all in part ancestors of modern humans that are not SS Africans. All Sapiens that departed from SS Africa have genetics from these populations.

A wave around 60-90k years ago spread out through Asia, Australia, and much less-known the Americas(supported by genetic samples as well as some early explorer accounts). These are your Australasian-types, some of whom contain the most DNA of any non-sapiens hominid(there are PNG genetic samples with 10-15% Denisovae DNA).

Around 40k years ago, a branch of sapiens developed around the fertile crescent that we refer to as the Cro-Magnids. These are the most significant ancestors of all non-SS African sapiens, comprising 85-98% of human DNA across the globe. These people expanded rapidly from the ME, replacing and absorbing other hominid populations, from Europe to the Americas.

SS Africa is the most genetically variant part of the world now, with small pockets reaching back over 200k years of near-genetic isolation.

AMA

>Atlantians
ayy lmao

Its BS. Bible proves we were created around the middle east since it mentions 4 rivers near the garden of eden, two of which we know today (Euphrates and Tigris). Even assuming some change of curse during the flood, that still would not be africa