Wednesday, July 7, 2010

The Out-Of-Africa Theory Is Rubbish

"Out-Of-Africa" was a result of political correctness, not professional scientific work. During the culture wars of the 1960's this was a backdoor approach to giving ethnic minorities credibility by asserting they were our ancestors and we are simply paler versions of them.

The evidence says this is simply impossible. Always was, always will be. Outside of popular consensus there was never much evidence to support the idea.

If you read this article you will see that what is demonstrated here is that European ancestors were engaged in sophisticated toolmaking, long distance migrations and even boat making back when Africans had barely begun to walk on their hind legs according to the fossil record.

There has always been a wealth of evidence to support "diffusion." It's a theory that was never discredited. It just became politically impossible to propose, which isn't the same as being proven scientifically inaccurate.

The evidence is that human beings spread out from an original location that is still unknown into Europe, Asia and Africa over a million years ago. They then pursued very different evolutionary courses until the genetic bottleneck 80,000 years ago at which time they were further triaged to very small genesis groups. At 40,000 or so years ago there were a series of catastrophic events that wiped out all the different flavors of man, including Neanderthals who were the oldest race of them all, leaving only Homo Sapiens behind. (Unless you count Neanderthal gene expression as Neanderthal survival)

This is what the evidence tells us. Whether or not it is socially acceptable is another story.


Anonymous said...

There exists different root races, whom have different origins, they may or may not have actual points of genesis, and no particular point can be yet observed, but the origin is different as much as can be observed. Civilizations do not have a common origin and neither do Nations, and neither do races, they have distinct origins.

Anonymous said...

This is one of my favorite topics. The basic premise of OOA is so dumb it makes it's defenders appear as retarded children. They claim that a very black skinned, receding chinned, sloped forehead, thick lipped, flat nosed, kinky and black haired and dark-eyed woman migrated to Northern Europe and then over time magically turned into Ingrid Bergman....Buhwahahaha! If Africa was the origin of all, then why were they still pissing in their drinking water when the Europeans were building Cathedrals? One of the biggest idiots supporting OOA is the total fraud Jared Diamond, who wrote the Pulitzer prize winning UBER-PC fantasy book called "Guns, Germs and Steel". The premise of this literary travesty is that White Europeans were just "lucky", and that is why they succeeded at -well- pretty much everything they tried, and that the dark-skinned races maintained their 2000 year lag time in development because they were "unlucky". So,in that context, according to Diamond, the only difference between Leonardo Da Vinci and an early 16th century aborigine in New Guinea is "luck". Yeah, right. Z

Anonymous said...

I've always felt that neanderthal man has been given a bad rap. Too many poeple reading clan of the cave bear and thinking that its fact.
What we know as fact about him. He had a larger brain than modern humans. He had blonde and red hair. He had light coloured eyes. He was the only humanoid specifically desighned to live in cold areas.
Yet we are told that with his larger brain he was less intelligent ?? He would have also had a better work ethic as he had to store enough food during the summer to last the winter.
I wonder if this Homo antecessor was a more aquatic form of humaniod.