"Out-of-Africa" theory contradiction

I remember something about a theory where at a certain time in the past the climate got
messed up, an ice age, and the "human" population went down to about 1000.
They started wandering about europe/russia/america which was possible due to the low sea level.
Some groups went south populating north and south america, japan, etc.

The program did not mention this, but presumably Africa was still okay climate wise so they just
kept on doing their thing.
This would then explain the gradual differences from Europe to Japan, and Africans being something completely different.

You mean from pangaea or a later version of that landmass? Most likely, that still doesn't answer OPs question about migrations of humans or why there is such a massive difference between Negroid and Caucasoid DNA and the latter's manifold variants.

I seem to recall one of the creators of the theory himself saying that in hindsight he was wrong.

top kek nigger please fucking educate yourself pangaea was like a billion fucking years ago

Isn't there fuck-all fossil record in Africa because the climate wasn't conducive to preservation?

From the new genetic data we are learning, along with what modern anthropologists theorize, the general picture goes something like this; a couple million years ago, our common ancestors broke away from their primate cousins, but so did other similar sub-species around the area of norther eastern africa and the fertile crescent. All these proto-human type subspecies all expanded and fought amongst each other until only few of the types were left. The neanderthals were in the north eurasian area, the homo-sapiens were in africa. At some point the neanderthals were wiped out, but instead of being purely by war and violence, a lot of it was through interbreeding with homo-sapiens. The result is that the people of Europe and Asia have a percentage of Neanderthal DNA while pure African people do not.

So in a superficial way, the statement of "Out of Africa" is correct, in that a common ancestor to all humanity might have came from the africa region long, long ago. But it was at a time so genetical far removed from modern humans, that there was a period of diverging subspecies from that common ancestor that shaped the way modern human races turned out. That part is critical in addressing the political motivations behind the full Out of Africa theory (which suggests that basically Whites and Asians were once genetically black people who just adapted to different environments).

To get away from the nogs. Frozen tundra and mountains have always been the white mans natural allies. Niggers cant farm, create insulating clothing, or produce vitamin d in low light environments. Without vitamin fortified food most "european" jigaboos would die of rickets(or at least be rendered sterile by d deficiency) in childhood.

Also whites had likely been in europe for ~15000 years prior to the h4 event. It has actually been cited as a major pressure motivating the differences between humans and niggers (under the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis).

No. modern humans share a common ancestor, that doesn't mean we are all descended from Africa, it's means both descended from one source independently, forking into Africans and the rest

No. modern humans share a common ancestor, that doesn't mean we are all descended from Africa, it's means both descended from one source independently, forking into Africans and the rest

I don't understand why WNs get all triggered about the Out-of-africa theory. It's like they implicitly think that if however many tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago, if the last common ancestor of niggers and humans lived in Africa, then Africans have the moral entitlement to unlimited gibs.

Given that the bonobos and chimps live in africa, it's probably the case that we did come out Africa. But we've evolved since then.

Like where the fuck do these people think we came from? The Pleades galaxy or whatever shit David Icke pushes?

When I mean Africa I am talking purely geography, and only because the oldest remains have been found around where I mentioned. So with the evidence we have the best guess IS around there. Perhaps factually its different but I am not sure we will ever know.

But yes genetically you are right in that from whatever common ancestor we all share, its much much older than what leftists and OOA theorists believe, and that there was a period of divergence of that species into various sub-groups.

...

Just becouse Africa today has the largest number of primates and tropical climate, that doesn't mean it was so in the past. With this theory, you are looking from the point of view of the modern climate and that nogs are the most "original" humans alive today.

Earth had Africa-like temperatures and flora up until about 8 mil years ago and then started to drop with Ice Ages starting 2 mil ago. Which means that the primate ancestors could have been all over the Old World, not just Africa.

This theory is on par with the KANGZ theory. Politically motivated kike bullshit.

(Checked)
Truth blessed by KEK.

The idea that the appearance of pre humans was the same as sub Saharan Africans doesn't add up at all.

Sub Saharans have no body hair, If Caucasians supposedly looked like them at one point, that means over the course of time Caucasians would need to have re-developed a miniscule and functionally irrelevant amount of body hair.
I think it's pretty obvious that our relatives of pre history would've been much hairier, resembling other primates, so at what point in time would every other race have resembled them? It certainly wasn't our common ancestor.

I think you mean (((evolution)))

who made that claim? It would be obvious that modern Africans would have changed in appearance overtime from something else previously, just like with all the other races.

nobody here, but I've heard people say things like this before

I can see that, Out of Africa theorists and leftists are putting ideology in front of facts and reason. And most normies operate under leftists ideological parameters even if they don't realize it, and thus agree with faulty ideas like Out of Africa.

We almost definitely do have a common ancestor. Different evolutionary paths converging on the same physical features is rare but it does happen (octopus eyes are an example of this).

But that would have been pre-sapien and most likely even pre-homo. Not something a reasonable person would recognize as a human.

"Out of Africa" has to reach so far back for commonality that it is a meaningless statement. Also it usually comes with a healthy dose of LARP with regard to northern "africans" (ancient mediterranean people) being the same thing as sub saharans.

PC cancer has infested biology and driven so many people away that I have to wonder if it is intentional. Run honest people out and let the liars take over to keep uncomfortable truths at bay.

As far as my recent readings go, the Out of Africa theory is starting to lose credence as more fossils are being found that lends validity to the theory that mans ancestor was not a primitive man, but in actual fact an ape/chimp that had developed the ability to walk upright first. Before the large increase in brain capacity.

The idea is that 4-5 different "breeds" of upright walking ape existed somewhere around syria/iran. Which account for the major races of today. Causicoid, Mongoloid, Negroloid, etc etc

These different breeds spread throughout the ancient world, all in different directions. Some interbreeding occured, with different breeds and with neaderthal and perhaps another more primitive ancestor.

Each "Breed" then evolved into roughly the modern humans you see today, because apart from sunlight/climate/season all the different strains were essentially exposed to the same hardships. So major evolutionary divergents occured

Read and spread that book. Just the first few chapters can destroy the narrative for some people.

New theories often have to come from people who are outside of the field in question. It's because new generations just inherit the old theories, and so after a time they can't get away from them. Here is my favourite example:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener#Reaction

You guise are idiots the Bible says god created Adam and Eve and they had incest babies until the great flood and then they had more incest babies and now here we are.

First, "lushful" doesn't mean shit in an enviroment at it's carrying capacity. For every square mile of jungle there might be ten of thousands of different species trying to compete for energy. If they can go somewhere with less competition, like one where they don't to have to run from as many shit as they do in the jungle, they will. And those who don't are fucked.

Second, there was never a conscious decision to "leave for Europe". Primitive humans didn't even know what the fuck any of this meant: they just moved from one place to the place right next to it, and at such snail pace that it took them hundred thousands of years to eventually reach the whole globe. They didn't just teleport into Scandinavia and go "Fuck, it's COLD here! Let's go back". The first humans to ever reach Scandinavia had never seen or even knew what an "Africa" was.

Third, and this is important: adaptation to harsh enviroments happens because evolution happens. Humans adapted to harsh enviroments for the same reason that bacteria adapts to different enviromental levels of antibiotics. Fate just keeps throwing suckers at those places until some of them manage to not die and to produce offspring. Then their offspring gets to rule the wastelands.

dubs confirm

Just kill yourself edgelord.
Adam and Eve is Jing and Jang dualism. Rib and Apple.
It has nothing with origin of man in the biological sense but everything with the development of consciousness. But this is offtopic so sage.

Nah, OoA theorists says that KANGZ arrived everywhere some 40 000 years ago, and so we wuzn't before that.

Is that what people call Jingoism?

why does it matter wether or not humans came from Africa?

If anything, the fact that Africans are so obviously inferior and that asians and aryans are so obviously mentally superior makes more sense to the out of Africa theory.

Nah, we just say it like that in our language. Nobody got time for chinks.

Because it helps destroying the whole "one race-the human race" bullshit the left likes so much. And if people realize that all those rapefugees are completely alien on a genetic level, then they will be more likely to oppose them.

Because its basically saying Sub Saharan Africans used to be white/tan people that somehow "devolved" to become Aborigines and Easterns Africans who basically destroy everything they touch.

I don't believe in the whole 'one race-the human race' lie, but I do believe that distant genetic ancestrys exists. But I believe it exists the same way we can share 50% of our DNA with Bananas. To me the out of Africa theory tells me that once upon a time humans were just apes with the ability to make stone tools and primitive culture. Then humans left africa and journeyed up north and evolved into Aryans where they went on to build civilization.
To me it only makes evolutionary sense that Aryans are superior breeds of human compared to their distant negro cousins.

Out of Asia says that humans evolved in a quite big part of Asia, mostly Western Central Asia. And Africa had its apes too. Early hominids wandered into Africa, interbred with those apes. Then a new wave of hominids came, and they interbred with the previous batch, that already interbred with apes. Then newer and newer waves came, all of them interbred with the previous mess. And Africa is such a shithole because it takes virtually no effort to survive. And now those apes are coming out of that continent, trying to drag us down to their level so that they can spread their inferior genes, destroying civilization in the process. It is quite the narrative, isn't it?

I believe Aryans evolved mostly in Western Central Asia where its harsh and hard to live in. I just don't deny a really long time ago all Humans came from Africa. It doesnt mean we are all equal, its very obvious just from the way different races of humanity look.

At best those were some very early apes, not humans. That is the important part of this theory. And even so, nothing suggests that these early apes are from Africa. Also, it's quite likely that walking evolved because our ancestors were living in trees next to rivers and seas, and walking was advantageous in shallow waters.

Bump.

This jew is promoting "white man is neanderhal" theory, because due to modern genetic researc it is now clear, Semites from Middle East (jews, Arabs..) are 20% up to 40% Neanderthal.
Svante Paabo&Krause 2010 research shows that peak of Neanderthal admix is in Middle East, while Europa is at 1% or less.
Also, OoA is jewish hoax. There is no haplogroup A or B in European gene poll.
Homo Sapiens (Cro-magnon) originate in Asia. Homo Erectus (niggers) originate in Africa.
This thread is full of jewish shills.

Just fuck you, filthy jew with that fucking logic.
HSS originate in Asia. Homo Erectus originate in Africa.
Some of Homo Sapiens on contact area (North Africa, North East Africa), mated with Homo Erectus. Niggers are hybrid species between Erectus and Sapiens.
Also, this hybrid species Negro mated in Middle East with Homo Neanderthalensis. Product is double hybrid species Semites.
Therefore, jews are hybrid species between Caucasian, Negro and Neanderthal.

This user got it right.
It is Into the Africa. Modern genetic researches prooves that.

No. There is no A and B haplos in Caucasians. Therefore, it is impossible, HSS came from Africa, where A and B are the oldest haplogroups. A and B are original niger predecessor. Now they are mixed with Caucasian genome because Into the Africa.
With a simple words, some white Caucasians went Into the Africa and fucked bonobo like creatures - Homo Erectus. First nigger was born.

Not this bullshit again…

What about it, jew?
Search for Paabo&Krause 2010 research.
Middle East is 20% up to 40% Neanderthal admix. Proove me wrong, fucking jew.

This post doesn't discredit the fact that the admixture of the Ashkenazim is in large part of Neanderthal origin.

It simply states that they are not direct descendants.

Because it was full of niggers

Genetics show the OOA theory for the horse shit it is. This could only be peddled for sol long, then the human genome project came along and shattered the shitter out of it.

If you need a starting point, look at the genes on Australian Aboriginies, easiest single example the OOA theory is total tripe.

While you're correct about AFRICANS, the slaves brought over to the new world did in fact go through a sort of eugenics program in that the best slaves were one's with strength and were the one's selected to cross the Atlantic

I'm not necessarily a proponent of the AoA theory, but IF it were true, humans would have migrated north because North Africa would have had a quite favorable climate, as would the Middle East and Southern Europe.

They probably would not have migrated to north-west Europe until later, but anything around the Mediterranean would have been fair game. Also, people didn't get on a flight to Rome from Ghana, so they wouldn't have noticed the temperature changing very quickly. Grandpa might be complaining about how cold it is and how warm it was back in his day, but the kids would be accustomed.

Blacks are strong, but in a different way. They rely less on muscle mass and more on mechanical forces. They have extremely fast twitch muscle fibers which generate a lot of force very suddenly, but which aren't good for sustained movements like weight lifting. The sudden force generated by their muscles is then transferred into their tendons and ligaments which perform most of the repetitive work. West Africans display distal elongation of units, for example having short thighs and very long shins, and then they have very long and thick tendons and ligaments, which is why you often see black runners with "small calves;" half of their calf is dominated by the tendon. Thus Africans like Usain Bolt can generate a LOT of force very quickly, but most of that energy is retained in the tendons and ligaments during functional movement, whereas Europeans have more muscle mass and less dense bones, and smaller tendons, which can generate a lot of sustained muscle action but are energetically less efficient.

Basically Africans and Europeans are just strong in different ways. You still see a LOT of African athletes in sports like football

Apparently from a recent study Australian abo's left africa 70,000 years ago, this video seems to reinforce that with the land bridge.

Because of these factors, its naive to say "blacks are weak." I would expect Europeans to dominate a sport like weight lifting, but wouldn't expect the same dominance in other activities, like fighting. Europeans are "stronger" in the traditional sense, but Africans can generate a lot of force very quickly, such as in throwing a punch. BAM! Quick. Its just a different kind of strength.

No, you are stupid. The reason blacks dominate some sports, say boxing, is because whites just don't participate in them. In fact, sport entertainment doesn't cater to white people.

No, you are stupid. The reason blacks dominate some sports, say boxing, is because whites just don't participate in them. In fact, sport entertainment doesn't cater to white people.

Could you elaborate on this? To me, what comes to mind is how black athetles seem to break legs more often.

I don't think blacks would dominate fighting, but they would be equal competitors with whites in general, but with different fighting styles. Blacks do dominate certain sports like basketball because of their physique. The springy nature of their mechanical movements is PERFECT for basketball

Can't comment much on the video, except for the possibility that basketball is a sport morel likely to result in broken legs. But blacks do have denser bones, hence part of the reason why they cannot swim

Actually it was never unanimously accepted, always opposed and, for some time already, outdated.

We were giants not so long ago. Alot of folk stories from different countries further proves that too.

You must be new, this was discredited years ago.

Yes, but we have this autist who in every thread goes on about how the Neanderthals are jews, then says that jews are a hybrid of Neanderthals, Negroes and Cro-Magnons. And also claims that Europeans have nothing to do with Neanderthals, but says nothing about the origins of them. He just points to one dubious study that doesn't say word-to-word what he claims.

out of africa that is.

gee, thanks for this book, and also thanks for leading me to learn that an archive.is page and its links can't be downloaded easily through httrack
but no thanks for being an tard with the puter enough to fail to find the first google link of the title of the book
analyseeconomique.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/richard-d-fuerle-erectus-walks-amongst-us.pdf
thanx you dumass

I don't know a ton about OoA, but what are you suggesting? Supposing that Siberia is the most inhospitable place that modern humans came to occupy, are you saying that modern humans must have originated in Siberia because otherwise why would Eskimos have ever moved and stayed there?

The alternative is that early humans just made more humans and spread around pretty much wherever possible, not always from less hospitable areas to more hospitable areas.

Blacks don't dominate boxing

You are wrong, distance runner are from a small tribe in Ethiopia, it's not Ethiopians, much less Africans.

Fast runners are from Jamaica, again, that's not Africa, it's a small subset. Did you even read what's written on Bolt shirt? Remember, Africans, for being the oldest continent has the most diverse genetic makeup. This is different from African Americans, who were selected, or white American, who have a small pool of ancestors.

...

during the ice age sea levels were really low, the north sea and parts of the Atlantic ocean were land that flooded when the ice melted

i don't think it would be that early, niggers and whites can still produce fertile disgusting offspring so pre-sapien would be possible but not pre- homo

can't argue with those numbers

...

The out of Africa theory is bullshit that is only propped up to prevent racial realism from taking a hold in academia.
They discovered a while ago that early pre-sapien hominids ALREADY migrated out of Africa, then for some reason homo sapiens did it again a few thousand years later.
the FAR more likely theory is the multi-regional evolution theory, whereby early hominids (which were already spread across all of Eurasia and Africa) evolved simultaneously with different traits to aid them in their unique environments, rather than one single sub-species in Africa coming out of nowhere and replacing all humans everywhere. If the "recent migration out of Africa" theory were true, we would not see such distinct differences between asians, europeans, amerindians, middle-easterners, etc., because there simply wasn't enough time to evolve such stark adaptations.
Occam's Razor is on the side of a single, gradual migration rather than one gradual migration and then another magical one.

Blacks get fucked in UFC constantly. In fact they're outclassed by whites, spics, and asians in all areas of competitive martial arts.

again, back to the fast twitch muscles.
It's also why the world's strongest man is consistently won by Europeans.

but "muh speedj" (in running from baboons and lions).

I bet that guy either has erectile dysfunction or serious heart issues. Can't imagine how much blood it would take to get that thing erect.

You mean how they 'win' by tossing shit punches that only count as points for the judges to steal an fight from the rightful winner? Sounds like sports tier diversity quota being manipulated. You don't get knocked out or concede for shit, which is exactly what a real fight entails.

This is why the UFC constantly roflstomps niggers left and right with very few exceptions. Most of the nigger fights are for play on the various jewtube subversion boxes before the real fights begin. Fucking asians wipe the floor with niggers in real fights. What the fuck are you on? Are you making this shit up or do you actually fight and watch fights yourself?

Not true. Not human skeletons, but hominid skleletons. That is big difference. They never found connection between those hominids and modern human.
But skull from Greek Petralona cave is 700 000 years old and fully human. That is why (((they) hide it.

And then we also have you - kikel high scholl wannabe anthropologist from Jaffa JIDF, who keeps shitting that Europeans are Neanderthals. This "dubious" study is study witch came from the best genetic researc lab in the world on the Neanderthal genome. It is Svante Paabo&Krause 2010 research.
Listen, kikel. If you have academic credentials, log on to the site and there it is. It says - Middle East is region with highest neanderhal admix, 20% on the average, up to 40% spikes. North Europe is les then 1%. But jewish "science" are talking about 4% average for Europe with Middle East and statisticaly they are right. They just dont tell you, most of that Neanderthal admix is in Middle East.
Origins of Aryan/Cro-magnon race is west Asia, north of the Black Sea. Black Sea was lake before the end of Ice age. There was the beginning of our great white civilisation.

Learn English nigger

Well?

Maybe is it a desire for more, a desire for exploration? I mean, this is going to sound meta as fuck, but don't you think there's a radical difference between Europe and Africa? Some built the greatest civilizations known to mankind, others never evolved past mud hut status in millenia. At least, the idea they left isn't far-fetched.

As for staying there, it was an incredibly long trip, it's not like they'd go back that easily. And then the next generations quickly forgot where their ancestors came from. With their basic languages, lack of writing, and short lifespans, it's possible they forgot after only two generations.

I dont have a sharp chin, my eyes and hair are brown to black and I can get very tanned, yet my skin is very white. WTF am I?

What is your ethnicity?

Alright, now stop with all the "Intellectual" talk and listen to somebody who actually did Research and wrote a paper on this Anatole Klyosov

scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

The proto niggers who wanted something more left the bullshit.

The niggers good at not getting caught stayed in nigger land.

Thus, murrican niggers are super retarded.

I noticed this
The america nigger population despite being mixed seems to be highly retarded and dysfunctional

Also with the wests welfare programs the individuals least suited for civilization is promoted to replicate in great numbers.

MUST SEE doco on the subject of POLYNESIAN MIGRATION
(vid related, mayte :DD)
youtube.com/watch?v=2z6PlYiQSTs

reminder that it is mainstreamscience-tier confirmed that abos are genetically related to indians
if you look at the blackest / lowest caste indians, and compare them with noongas; you will see this immediately.

The questions are interesting but the premise is irredeemably stupid. In fertile areas where life is good, a mammal species multiplies until it reaches the carrying capacity of the land, then moves in on neighboring areas.

Anyway…

1. The original OOA wasn't Africa >>> Europe, it was Africa > Middle East > India/Central Asia > Europe (with people entering from the steppes and along the Mediterranean coast at different times in history. No one was ever calculating the relative comfort of life in Africa and Europe. People are randomly moving short distances everywhere and, in some places, population keeps expanding.

2. Africa goes through green Sahara/dry Sahara phases which function as a pump, bringing in SSA and Middle East populations/species during the green Sahara, which then flee as the grassland dries up.

3. Africa is actually a tough place for humans to live because of our continuous genetic history there… predators know how we taste, herd animals know how to avoid/attack us, microbes know every single in and out.

4. Post-glacial periods can be great for hominids. It happened in Europe c. 15kya and it happened in America c. 12kya. Basically, tundra is great for megafauna, and megafauna were great for paleolithic hunting techniques, and humans could get so much protein the population was skyrocketing.

5. Several comments in this thread seem to assume humans, once established in Europe, would populate it forever. But the Cro-Magnons may have been replaced before the Ice Age, and then most of the Ice Age population replaced by the population of the Eastern refugium; then these hunter-gatherers were replaced by Early Farmers from Anatolia/Levant, who were next replaced by Indo-European herders from the steppes.

This.

Yes, Europeans were anatomically modern 28-35k years ago. But 'humans' came "out of Africa" at least twice as long ago. There's nothing to get butthurt about, 50+ thousand years of evolution is more than enough to feel smug about the genetic superiority of your group, even if you're an idiot as an individual.