how old were you when you realized the out-of-africa hypothesis was pseudoscience?
how old were you when you realized the out-of-africa hypothesis was pseudoscience?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Show me a human skeleton over a million years old that isn't in Africa then.
We have anatomically modern human footprints from Eurasia that are older than the oldest African skeleton.
>We have anatomically modern human footprints from Eurasia that are older than the oldest African skeleton.
You are either so stupid you fell for this lie or you're lying. Either way we point and laugh.
What lie, exactly?
>We have anatomically modern human footprints from Eurasia
This is not true.
Whup cut off too early on that quote. I mean it is not true we have that older than human ancestor fossils or skeletons in Africa.
Not sure about anatomically modern like
said, but there were hominid footprints discovered in Crete, which disproves OoA completely.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2017.07.006
>Not sure about anatomically modern like
said, but there were hominid footprints discovered in Crete, which disproves OoA completely.
Not remotely. You just don't understand what "out of africa" actually means. There is some much older variant of it that nobod subscribes to I think regarding primates in general but that's like 1920s or something.
So you're doing the young earth creationist thing now. Strawmanning a theory and claiming it's wrong out of ignorance or lying.
>So you're doing the young earth creationist thing now. Strawmanning a theory and claiming it's wrong out of ignorance or lying.
What are you even talking about? What's the "steelman" (I hate this word so much) argument for Out of Africa then? Because modern theories suggest multiple centers of modern hominid evolution with only one species/subspecies coming from Africa.
>What's the "steelman" (I hate this word so much) argument for Out of Africa then
You misunderstood me, clearly. No, you just do not understand what "out of africa theory" is. No steelman involved. You flatly are completely ignorant of it.
>Because modern theories suggest multiple centers of modern hominid evolution with only one species/subspecies coming from Africa.
That is part of out of Africa. In spite of geneflow on occasion between regions they still go back into africa when the climate becomes inhospitable. This is cylical. You just do not know what the theory is.
>You flatly are completely ignorant of it.
Oh it's going to be one of these again. You're like a Flat Earther, get out of this thread and troll someone else.
>Oh it's going to be one of these again. You're like a Flat Earther, get out of this thread and troll someone else.
Accusing others of what you're doing is cute.
I'm the only one in this thread yet to have posted a scientific study with proof of my claims. Please get right on doing so yourself if you want to pretend to be an intellectual involved in this argument.
>I'm the only one in this thread yet to have posted a scientific study with proof of my claims.
Yeah, you're the flat earther. Only people totally ignorant of science use terms like "proof", and your "source" does not support your claim. You assert that it does on ignorance of the actual theory.
>Please get right on doing so yourself if you want to pretend to be an intellectual involved in this argument.
I don't care about the standards of a moron. Have a video since I guarantee you can't read anything or you would've realized how fucking stupid you are.
>a youtube video
>Yeah, you're the flat earther.
Ironic. Come back with a peer-reviewed paper that directly refutes the evidence I posted and we'll talk.
>Ironic. Come back with a peer-reviewed paper that directly refutes the evidence I posted and we'll talk.
Hahaha duck and weave. There is not a paper that refutes your misunderstanding of that evidence. That evidenec is fine. Your ignorance and lying about what it means is not.
Then post literally any actual scientific information. All you're doing is deflecting and ad hominem to avoid arguing on points of scientific fact.
>Then post literally any actual scientific information
Gutsick Gibbon is a primatologist.
So you have no papers to post. Thank you for conceding.
>So you have no papers to post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_Africa
Feel free to explore the source citations.
>Thank you for conceding.
Why, yes, I have consistently conceded that you're a lying moron.
You don't have to keep posting concessions, I already got it the first time. You're just embarrassing yourself by bowing and scraping like this.
>u don't have to keep posting concessions, I already got it the first time.
But it's fun to keep conceding to your stupidity
No need to be coy, anon. We all know that you have a humiliation fetish and like to be told that you lost over and over again.
>We all know that you have a humiliation fetish
Why yes, in a way I do. That's why I linked the wikipedia autobiography of "out of Africa" because I somehow knew, ahead of time, you were a dishonest lying prick with no actual interest of even checking anything anyone links you.
Oh, I mean a fetish for humiliating retards like you. Tee hee
>https://en.wikipedia.org
>i have no argument
YouTube videos are not an argument. Cite an actual paper -- at least one, to show you can do it.
Go "fucking love science" somewhere else, anti-intellectual.
>I'm the only one in this thread yet to have posted a scientific study
>Ohhh I'm so special! Teacher loved me and said I was a good student! Yayyys me!
>schizophrenia
That doesn't excuse your teacher's pet mentality and craving for acceptance.
Why are you psychoanalyzing random posters on the internet? Who is craving acceptance except you, desperate to get an "own" on someone online by calling them something you personally fear being called?
>seething samefag
Psychology is pseudo-science. This board is for science only.
The dating of the Tracholis footprints has been called into question (Zachariasse, W.J., Lourens, L.J. About the age and depositional depth of the sediments with reported bipedal footprints at Trachilos), but either way they are largely irrelevant to the out of Africa question.
If early hominins (or hominines) evolved in Europe, some of them migrated to Africa in the Late Miocene, and there evolved into Australopithecines and Homo, Homo then colonising Eurasia some four million years later.
But none of that is what people mean when they talk about 'Out of Africa'. They mean the recent expansion from Africa within the last 100,000 years which is responsible for the majority of modern human ancestry.
Incidentally, what sort of a shitty science board flags dois as spam?
>Incidentally, what sort of a shitty science board flags dois as spam?
Isn't it fun? You end up needing to input a newline somewhere in the numbers so it isn't misflagged as a phone number or something. Welcome to my world.
I should mention, to help you out, I normally encounter that problem with Nature. Circumvent the problem in DOI's by using its redirect or finding another publicly accessible URL if possible. Last resort is just break it up with a newline.
Just to be clear, if hominids evolved outside Africa then there is literally zero evidence to believe that every race/species of modern hominid descends from an African ancestor and plenty of genetic evidence to prove they don't.
>plenty of genetic evidence to prove they don't.
You mean like the dating of mitochondrial eve and y-chromosomal adam to just a couple hundred thousand years ago?
>Strawmanning a theory and claiming it's wrong out of ignorance or lying.
>he doesn't know
It's not ignorance, it's very deliberate. They want to separate humans into official species/races to justify racialist ideology and policy.
In their minds, equal rights is based on "muh all humans equal" and if they could somehow prove that blacks aren't human then everyone would support racial segregation and the supremacy of whites over blacks.
Nazism is the correct ideology, you are coping.
It's more like we are deconstructing the false notion that "muh all humans are African" that is routinely used in scientism media to pre-propagandize the public that mass migration of black foreigners into their countries is not only moral but somehow an act of restoration.
And to impugn your character in a similar way to what you just posted, you only have a problem with it because you are ideologically committed to the disenfranchisement and eventual genocide of white people.
this, who cares about truth n shieet, we gotta believe whatever's necessary for muh niggas to feel good about themselfs
Well, yes, that was what I meant by "or lying". But while there certainly are gay op cringelord poltards who think they can somehow "trick" people into racism, there are also a whole lotta trolls. Also there are a whole lotta really fucking dumb people. So I was just hedging my bets.
this post is mad naggerish
the post is very white of you and correct
Noice. Debunked in the first response.
Additionally, were is the evidence of the ability for humans to have come from East Asia? Where are the skeletons of similar mammal species?
You should really stick to your god shit to spread your racism, because if you are going to use biological evolution, you then have to actually use biological evolution.
>Additionally, were is the evidence of the ability for humans to have come from East Asia? Where are the skeletons of similar mammal species?
Chimps are proven to have evolved in Asia Minor/Europe plus what
anon said, so it's pretty likely that we diverged from our common ancestor in Europe or Asia.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-africas-apes-come-from-europe-113890377/
The implications of out-of-africa are more racist than denying the theory though
joke image but in reality out of africa was always half-baked feels-good ideology. The assimilation hypotheses are pretty good and this evidence seems to back it up.
charles darwin's theory of slow gradual evolution is wrong too, species stay in stasis unless there's extinctions or cataclysms
What time scale are they talking about?
about as old as when you first had sex
Black people are 50% homo erectus.
Whites are 0% homo erectus.
>Black people are 50% homo erectus.
Does that explain their high STD rates?
>how old were you when you realized the out-of-africa hypothesis was pseudoscience?
When I realized...
...that it was primarily israeli anthropologists who pushed that idea.
...that this idea suddenly came up in the '70s and was usually followed by the comment that we are all "Africans".
...when reports started popping up which claimed that anthropologists deliberately destroyed excavation sites in Arabia and Asia.
In early college (studying anthropology). The adjunct professor who taught the intro class was kissing the feet of African students and extolling the virtues of the theory, then the tenured professor following him taught a completely different timeline in which human subspecies evolved independently on all Old World continents.
The fuck happened to Pangaea?
Pangea was 250 million years ago, long before even "dinosaurs" existed. Humans only be around about 100,000 years.
I honestly see our species being circa 500,000-300,000 years old but then we splintered or got disconnected.
I believe that the sumerians were correct in the fact that humanity had been around longer than what they tell us and that we were more advanced before we fell from grace and degenerated into the modern human.
I totally believe that all humans were great thanks to our overlords until we fell out with them.
before we were monkeys but with gene editing and the wonders of alien DNA used as a base to build our race into something proper, makes perfect sense.
then after the flood, we slowly degraded and splintered, to the point that today we are a shadow of our former selves.
does it seem like a schizoid drabble, indeed it does but more often than not, the truth ends up being stranger than any fiction we can come up with.
>I honestly see our species being circa 500,000-300,000 years old but then we splintered or got disconnected.
That's around the revised estimate now actually. You're pretty spot-on with that part. The schizo stuff is everything else you posted.
It's all guesswork "science" and yet you both believe it like it's fact. kek
Nobody knows for sure.
>out-of-africa hypothesis was pseudoscience
How so?
If you were in Africa, wouldn't you want to get the fuck out of Africa ASAP?
"White flight" from the ghettos existed the same tens of thousands of years ago as today.
Your picrel is just China-Chia-Nazi propaganda that the CCP pushes to claim all humans are China descent and the Han Chinese are the superior race on the planet, and that all other races must be exterminated.
That's their official doctrine. Nobody believes it. No science to even hint at it being true.
>CCP propaganda
is that from a chinese paper?
I never believed it
.t anthropology minor
whatever the result is, modern day europeans have not evolved from modern day africans. We may share some common ancestry somewhere in the planet some 500 000 years ago.
>modern day europeans have not evolved from modern day africans
Duh?
You think it's obvious, but OoA literally posits that Black Sub-Saharans are the root race for all of humanity. It's pure propaganda
Please explain to me how populations being genetic subsets of ones in Africa is "pure propaganda". I want a laugh
Oldest human remains are in africa and the most distant humans are pygmies and khoisans and they share a LCA with the rest of humanity around 200.000 years old
>Oldest human remains are in africa
in Morocco, to be precise
Morroco is in africa
Usually the people who use this theory for political ends pretend that the oldest human fossil was found south of the Sahara, because North Africa wasn't "black" until the modern era.
Haven't heard that one in eons. Like over five years ago. Usually it's that new bullshit about "Oh but sometimes some primates went to the continent millions of years ago"
Honestly I'm not sure which is dumber.
I think the "multiple migrations back to Africa" one is dumber. They'll admit that humans didn't come from Africa (nor did any other Great Ape) but they think that everyone somehow converged there to wait out a cataclysm when genetics shows us that the races correspond basically 1:1 with relic hominid admixture in some cases. It's easier to believe someone who thinks that the root species came from Africa 500,000 years ago than someone who thinks every species of hominid (from denisova hominins to cro magnon to neanderthal) was waiting in Africa until they could spread to the places we find them.
There is people that belive that humans have been the only apes that can walk in 2 legs are humans
North africa is less black right now that in the past
Also
Nobody except woke retards belive that a modern looking bantu black african population was the one that produced modern days eurasians if something OOA just imply thay blacks and eurasians are cousins more than anything else
Have you ever seen the skull of morroco and ethiopia? Does skull belong to an early version of our specie not to any modern day population but people on the internet is soo stupid they belive that sub saharan africa means mgbunmu modern day bantu
Bantus in fact are a relative new population back in the day africa was filled with other hominids and pygmies and bantues
>Have you ever seen the skull of morroco and ethiopia?
I don't think you know what "anatomically modern human" means. You're about on the same level of Paleontology or Forensic anthropology as a young earth creationist. "I can tell just by lookin at it!!"
That's a variant yeah there's a couple ad hoc rephrasings of that weird "multiple origination hypothesis" racists of ye olden daye tried to argue.
You mean a featherless biped you cretin
And your point is?
You'd know what my point is if you knew what "anatomically modern human" meant.
Soo your point is that the skulls on morroco and ethiopia are not AMH?
I feel you didnt read my post
>That's a variant yeah there's a couple ad hoc rephrasings of that weird "multiple origination hypothesis" racists of ye olden daye tried to argue.
Ironically they were right for the wrong reasons. e.g. with Australian aborigines, Melanesians, and Negritos, they're a relic population of denisova hominins. Historical racists could tell they were different, but not why and not how different they were. Now we know why and we know how different.
>they're a relic population of denisova hominins.
Nooooo...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans_in_Southeast_Asia
Eh then I misinterpreted your meaning.
>Nooooo...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans_in_Southeast_Asia
>wikipedia
Yeah I'm not surprised they don't mention it there, wiki articles are notoriously terrible at integrating multiple topics.
Wasn't the point. I'm aware of DNA admixture. But that does not lend credence to that old anthropological hypothesis from the 1920s or whatever nor earlier inferences from skeletal measurements from said era.
Maybe we're thinking different eras. Can you be more specific?
>But that does not lend credence to that old anthropological hypothesis from the 1920s or whatever nor earlier inferences from skeletal measurements from said era.
I said they were right for the wrong reasons. The skeletal measurements told them these people were very different and that they looked more archaic, but they also had false positives because it wasn't based on genetics. Now with genetics we can see that some races really are defined by their archaic admixture, and that they constitute subspecies in the strictest sense.
>some races really are defined by their archaic admixture, and that they constitute subspecies in the strictest sense.
Always that point...
Are you suggesting there is something twisted about taxonomy? We can be dispassionate about coyotes and wolves, and they have a lower index of genetic distance than Africans and Europeans.
If anything it sounds like you're letting politics get in the way of your objectivity.
Here is when you hit the problem of species, depending of how you clasify species coyotes and wolves would be the same specie since they can interbreed
Dunno, the most transitional fossil from ape like creatures to homo like creature is on africa
>Dunno, the most transitional fossil from ape like creatures to homo like creature is on africa
It remains to be seen whether that will bear out forever. There are Asian transitional skeletons.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031918
I think if there's anywhere we'll find the smoking gun it will be in China. The conditions there have produced amazing fossils.
They are talking about ancient homos we already know there have been homos there since a long time
Wake me up when they find an austrolopithecus like creature
Okay, I understand the problem now. Well, problems. I'm about to leave but there's no harm in trying to suggest it warrants deeper study. Some hasty points from memory
Subspecies is just a holdover designation as a matter of geographical utility tied up with legal ecological concerns perpetuating its use. It is not a valid taxa last I knew so anything constituting it "in the strictest sense" is not really in any meaningful sense.
Secondly, that admixture is not significant in those variances you think exist regarding osteology. You genuinely cannot just grab random skulls in most reasonably healthy well fed populations and go "Yep looks different" and classify it like a boomer meme. it's a complex suite of carefully measured characteristics and ratios (osteometric points) and can have ambiguous results in spite of some extreme examples of individual variation more different from its own population than its population is from anyone else.
The major factors of variance of osteology in humans in general are ontogeny (growth), sexual dimorphism (no duh), individual variation, and "geographic variation" formerly called but erroneously so (as originally everything not known to be the other factors got dumped into it). None of this matters one whit to FORENSIC anthropologists utilizing osteology, however, as the trash-bin "other" category gives them good odds anyhow. Though, again, this is a lot more involved than cartoonishly extreme skull examples boomer memes pretend are common. Also this is a very quick and dirty summation.
What you might've noticed is nowhere in osteology are referent points severable from other factors for "race" that do not subdivide ad infinitum AND, the important AND "race realists" forget about, are not mutually exclusive. One can construct categories for various purposes, but they are not natural categories. Same thing in genetics. "can be useful", and "can be defined", does not mean "can be defined as natural category".
>North africa is less black right now that in the past
Yah ...no.Until white inventions allowed negroes to travel great distances they were relegated to small pockets of Africa. North Africa was populated almost entirely of whites as recetnyl as 3000 years ago
pic rel
You do realize egyptian ruling families stem from a variety of changing ancestries over time... right? Well, apparently not, since you posted a boomer meme.
Imagine being this stupid LOL. Yes little one I know. These arent greeks, these are the earliest Pharaohs. This is what happens when you kneejerk to keep trying to push nonsense over facts. Yes, I am the one that knows whereas you are just grasping at straws
>These arent greeks, these are the earliest Pharaohs.
pharaohs
>>1400 BC to 400 AD
pharaohs
Bodhi why you gotta cause psychic damage like that.
https://www.baka.com.au/technology/some-ancient-egyptians-were-natural-blondes-20160426-gof9hn.html
>>>SOME
Bodhi remember how I said the ancestry of Egyptian ruling families changed a lot over time?
Kiddo I forgot more about ancient history than you will ever know. You are embarrassing yourself.
Whateeeeeeeeever you say bodhi
remember how I said EARLIEST. Words mean something
>remember how I said EARLIEST.
I remind you the EARLIEST dynastic period is the 31st century BCE
An international team of researchers have successfully recovered and analysed ancient DNA from Egyptian mummies dating from approximately 1400 BCE to 400 BCE, including the first genome-wide data from three individuals. The study found that modern Egyptians share more ancestry with sub-Saharan Africans than ancient Egyptians did, whereas ancient Egyptians were found to be most closely related to ancient people from the Middle East and Western Asia.
This study counters prior scepticism about the possibility of recovering reliable ancient DNA from Egyptian mummies. Despite the potential issues of degradation and contamination caused by climate and mummification methods, the authors were able to use high-throughput DNA sequencing and robust authentication methods to ensure the ancient origin and reliability of the data. The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, shows that Egyptian mummies can be a reliable source of ancient DNA, and can contribute to a more accurate and refined understanding of Egypt’s history.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/first-complete-genome-data-extracted-from-ancient-egyptian-mummies
You got dunked on, go be retarded somewhere else
>1400 BCE to 400 BCE
>> 3150 BCE
One of these things is not like the other. I get it, numbers are hard. I guess?
I see you want to continue being retarded to the very end. No surprise here. What proof do you have to north africa had more black people 30,000 years ago? Oh you have zero, zilch, nada, you just made it up that's right. You are a stone cold retard
Well y'see bodhi that wasn't me but he's not wrong anyhow. Rememebr what I wrote about osteology? Well no because you don't read. Anyhow, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_North_Africa
Rrriiight so my mistake thinking you weren't dumb enough to conclude "Literally one mass grave exists in the levant therefore everyone was white including ALL OF NORTH AFRICA". I'll lower my expectations further.
>Rrriiight so my mistake thinking you weren't dumb enough to conclude "Literally one mass grave exists in the levant therefore everyone was white including ALL OF NORTH AFRICA". I'll lower my expectations further.
This is pretty much exactly the exact justification behind OoA btw. Except there's less than a mass grave, it's often less than half a single skeleton.
Are you trying to out-compete bodhi for being intentionally dumb or is this just your natural state? Anyhow I'm off.
>YOU'RE DUMB
>YOU'RE DUMB
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>REEEEEEEEEEEE
run along now and lick your wounds .....
for any anons that want to learn the TRUE history you are welcome to my personal video archive that took me 20 years to acquire from someone with an actual degree in anthropology since you are all such pseud credentialists
https://ugetube.com/@bodhi_mantra?page=play-lists
>3150
>6500
hmmmmmm ....
HMMMMMM.........
rofl, retarded script changed s.m.h to baka
No,ancient north africans were blacker
>pic
Nobody except wu wuz noggers belive that egypt was black modern day egypcian resamble the one of the old days witha bit more of nog blood
I wanned to add to this thread that in add to the bones we have the fact thag our closer living relatives (chimps,gorillas and bonobos) are in africa is a point for OOA
>I wanned to add to this thread that in add to the bones we have the fact thag our closer living relatives (chimps,gorillas and bonobos) are in africa is a point for OOA
The highest diversity of archaic Great Apes is in the Pannonian Basin in Europe suggesting that they evolved there.
That could be a theory for the origin of apes yet it does not concern OOA
It would imply that the diversity of archaic hominids is because they evolved separately in different climates from the same Great Ape common ancestor. As you well know, Chimpanzees are also far down the evolutionary tree that began in Pannonia.
Rh-
/ thread
The only people who say the word "pseudoscience" are cranks and laymen.
I'm glad you agree that the skeptics/deboonkers are all cranks.