Is there an actual argument against the Out of Africa theory, or is it all just /misc/ cope? For that matter, why are rightoids so against the theory? You can think white people are better than black people even if white people's ancestors were black.
There isn't. It's all /misc/ cope.
OOA was always a hoax. The whole concept of Africans invading Europe, and "anatomically modern humans" is pants on head retarded.
Ok but where is the argument?
Fairly simply: Europeans evolved in Europe, not Africa, and fairly recently. Massive neotenization and self-domestication in humans is very obvious and easily observable, even since the Neolithic.
t. neanderthal
How does a lack of continuum (in one pca with a small sample pool that lacks proper diversity) prove your point?
Not an argument but an alternative hypothesis. Multiregional with H. erectus from north India - west China being the hominids that slowly moved everywhere else and turned into sapiens.
Still doesn't change the fact that even those hominids got out of Africa, and that a huge amount of them mixed with a relatively recent OOA expansion.
>Multiregional with H. erectus from north India - west China being the hominids that slowly moved everywhere else and turned into sapiens
Already debunked by Ancestry/DNA tests.
Nope, that's the strawman multiregional you're thinking of, also known as strong multiregional. I'm talking about the "real" multiregional, the weak version.
tl;dr is that the strong multiregional = the candelabra model, whereas the weak multiregional = the ultimate ancestor species to H. sapiens, and thus all hominids, migrated out of Africa, dispersed, speciated into local hominids like Asian H. erectus vs European H. neanderthalensis. Those mixed with their neighbors, generating localized H. sapiens proper over time.
Thus, the common ancestor to all living H. sapiens would be a certain Asian/Eurasian H. erectus, due what I guess are political reasons (but I don't care enough to dig into it). This does NOT mean that African hominids didn't play a role in the origin of H. sapiens, just that it was minor compared to OOA groups; or that OOA is 100% fake, as it adapts the data to say that while H. sapiens is not African in nature, its ancestors ultimately still got out of the continent.
There's a bunch of research that uses the same genetic data in order to justify the hypothesis, like "The reversal of human phylogeny: Homo left Africa as erectus, came back as sapiens sapiens" (paper link is detected as spam), and for what I looked in the past there's *supposedly* a ton of Asiatic H. erectus fossils showing up the process from ~1 mya to 200-300 kya. I'm not agreeing with this model, only pointing out that it is an alternative hypothesis.
There are far older Homo Erectus fossils in Africa.
Which is expected
It's just cope, and as you pointed out, it isn't even necessary as cope.
it's cope and misunderstanding why eurasians and africans differ (and the actual distance between them)
Archeology is grave robbing and not science.
No
>Is there an actual argument against the Out of Africa theory,
How strict are you about Out of Africa? Depending on the population, you do have a few percent of Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA around. However, the vast majority of our DNA is not that.
>or is it all just /misc/ cope?
Some of it is Chinese cope, actually. They have quite a few examples of "archaic Homo" they've wanted to prove as transitional to the modern population there, but are probably Denisovans.
>For that matter, why are rightoids so against the theory? You can think white people are better than black people even if white people's ancestors were black.
Some of it is nationalism. Some of it is backlash against media propaganda trying to use it to promote immigration. Some of it is them just being retarded and not getting the point.
> Out of Africa theory
> hominid wanders out of Africa, does hominid stuff, dies out
> another hominid wanders out of Africa, does hominid stuff, dies out
> yet another hominid wanders out of Africa, does hominid stuff, dies out
Out Of Africa simply doesn’t make sense and now we have the DNA data to prove it, it only continues to be shilled by Leftist academia for political correct reasons.
That's a gross misunderstanding of OOA. It's more,
>hominid wanders out of Africa, does hominid stuff
>hominid wanders out of Africa, does hominid stuff like outcompeting the last hominid and pushing them to isolated regions with a little interbreeding
>hominid wanders out of Africa, does hominid stuff like outcompeting the last hominid and pushing them to isolated regions with a little interbreeding
Homo erectus, identifiable as Homo erectus, was still alive in a few regions 100kya, you know. Concurrent with fully developed Homo Sapiens.
Out of Africa was never and has never been 'debunked' as far as I can tell. I'm no expert on the theory, but usual 'debunking' is more about the implications and conclusions you can make from the theory and misunderstandings as to what OOA is exactly saying. Anybody I've ever heard say its been debunked, fail to do so.
Garden of Eden wasn't in West Africa
OoA is true but original humans weren't Negroids, they are incomparable to modern races.
There's _all_ the evidence to suggest we came from Eridu in south east Mesopotamia (Iraq),
while there is _no_ evidence (other than from people who thought creatures and DNA just spontaneously appear lol) to suggest we came out of Africa.
Also you kinda outed yourself by calling conservative people "rightoids".
Not saying this to fight, just saying.
>Is there an actual argument against the Out of Africa theory
No, it's largely proven.
Interbreeding between other species of Homo complicates the picture, but doesn't change our origin point.
>For that matter, why are rightoids so against the theory?
Because leftoids use the theory to espouse the idea that modern day blacks share some unique metaphysical quality that makes them superior to all other races because their ancestors did not leave Africa 100,000 years ago.
E.g. "Modern day blacks are the first humans" "Without Modern day blacks the other races would not exist" and so forth.
They ignore that despite most likely having lived in Africa, the most recent common ancestor of humans is not more closely related to modern day blacks than to the other races.
>the most recent common ancestor of humans is not more closely related to modern day blacks than to the other races.
lmao do you think genetics is a hoax?
I'm saying the populations that stayed in Africa continued to evolve just like the populations that left.
The ancestors of modern day blacks did not stay in some genetic limbo for 100,000 years while only the other races evolved.
Modern blacks are the descendants of the humans that stayed in Africa, an the other races are the descendants of those that left. That's it.
First of all the theory people dispute seriously is recent OOA, for which you can point out to some fossils outside of Africa that are simply older than the previously proposed exit date, for instance there's 78k years old skeleton found somewhere in the Balkans as well as some finds in the middle east. The typical proposed ROOA date is about 50k years ago so that's pretty much dead in the water.
There are however more sketchy takes(that don't neccessarily have to be wrong - but that's a broader topic) of multiregional revolution, which have however somewhat strong basic assumption. The problem with hominid fossils is that they're found in relatively similar geological formations across Eastern Africa and the sporadic finds in South Africa of hominids showing all sorts of transitionary features between the classical species show that out picture of hominid evolution is guided by fossil survivorship bias, had you adjusted for that and you'd have a possibility of OOA actually meaning out of Arabia if you get what I mean.
One particular problem we have is the case of Homo Erectus, which has obviously spread to Euroasia, but both its descendants - the Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens - have supposedly evolved in Africa and then migrated. Now that's a pickle - H. Erectus shows "modernization" of its anatomy outside of Africa, clearly because of evolutionary pressures of the new environment, but the new species with the same modern features brought up to 11 show up in Africa. This is what typically east Asian anthropologists(who don't have the political pressure on them to create a theory projecting the idea that humans are all the same) use to support their multiregional theories.