The potential for Sapiens to have actually originated in the Middle East, later migrating to Africa and then spreading across the rest of the globe? As far as I'm aware, the oldest Sapien fossils are currently found in MENA, though the migration from SSA is basically undeniable.
Greece is the new origin
>>16946313I think the desperate need for humans to not have evolved in Africa is one of those classic signs of low IQ internet poisoning.
>>16947753You are projecting.
>>16947771I don't think you know what that word means.
>>16947753I only made this thread due to the fact that the oldest fossils are found in MENA, nothing beyond that.
>>16947753>We NEED to be niggers because the soience says so!!!!
>>16947753Or maybe the OoA theory is just flawed.
>>16947753Is this a bot? He's literally saying the fossils are still located in the vicinity of Africa, just not east Africa like it was originally envisioned.
>>16946313we carry the flame?
>>169463130All archeology of human evolution comes from Africa. There are some nitpicky ways to try and subdivide humans by DNA strains in order to argue one group is "more" human than another, but this is entirely arbitrary. Humans came out of Africa and no amount of playing pretend will change that.
>>16947753>>16948568So we're just pretending the Morocco fossils don't exist to push the agenda, huh?
>>16948614Incorrect.
>>16948678What's incorrect?
>>16948723Nobody's pretending the Morocco find doesn't exist.
>>16948731And it still doesn't count, because...?
>>16948746What do you mean? It is a legitimate find showing that there were H. Sapiens in northern Africa around 300,000 years ago. It just doesn't doscount the mountains of evidence that the species most likely originated in Southern Africa.
>>16948757>It is a legitimate find showing that there were H. Sapiens in northern Africa around 300,000 years ago. And these are the oldest ones to date.
>>16948770Correct. What's your point?
>>16948777...Which suggests the "mountains of evidence" could easily be surmised as a migration that happened down toward the south, rather than the opposite.
>>16948781Incorrect. Heterozygocity trends downward as you get further away from the origin point. Heterozygocity among h Sapiens is highest in Southetn Africa. Fossils are not how we determine origin point.
>>16948796That just means the southern africans are less evolved, it doesn't point to an origin.
>>16948824That is not what heterozygocity means.
>>16948796Whatever. Nothing you wrote still refutes the OP's thesis.
>>16948913meant for >>16948841
>>16948913It explicitly does. Heterozygocity trends indicate a Southern African origin for homo Sapiens.
>>16949006You're a broken record.
>>16949316A point bears repeating if the person you're talking to refuses to address it.
>>16949333Funny how you disingenuously frame it as if 50,000+ years was a merely trivial amount of time for mass migration events to occur.
>>16949419I made no such claim.
as youtube told me humans started in siberia and migrated down
>>16948777The most divergent modern human genetically, Khoisan, lives in Southern Africa. Also, the most divergent Y-DNA (A00) and mtDNA (L0) lineages too can only be found in Sub-Saharan Africa. So until there's extraordinary evidence that Sapiens evolved in MENA, the most likely origin is somewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa.
>>16948781Wanted to reply to this one in the comment above. My mistake.
>>16948781That is an incredible reach with nothing supporting it. Finding a fossil in North Africa does not necessarily suggest there was a southwards migration
>>16948614>clearly this human fossil from Africa proves that humans don’t come from Africa
Boy all those replies really proved me wrong.
as a racist, i don't really understand why my fellow racists try to debunk out of africa. wouldn't it fit with observation that modern day africans are less evolved and more primitive/simian because they more closely resemble those early hominids, while europeans/asians evolved to a higher standard after they left africa?
>>16950844it's literally just a kneejerk reaction to "we're all africans!!! kumbaya!" as if that meant anything
africa is icky and weird and full of dirty ape people, i dont like being reminded it exist africa cant be where humans evolved because it just cant, the center of the universe both spatially and chronologically is europe, the smallest concession im willing to make is MENA, they are not as black as the, sigh i dont even want to type this word out, subsaharans
>>16950836Yes, they did.If you want to dispute the Sub-Saharan origin of humans you have to contend with the genetic evidence. Any archeological find you point to basically amounts to "this is the biggest fish ever because it's the biggest fish ever caught."
>>16950499why couldnt they have evolved elsewhere and just migrated to africa? just because its found there it doesnt mean its the origin area
>>16950883Do you have any evidence of such a migration taking place? Do you have an explanation as to why they ALL went on this journey rather than the vast majority of historical migrations where most people stayed behind?
>>16948568That is definitely wrong. The micro fossils that would eventually become all animal life, including humans, can be found anywhere that one once ocean floor.And did you know there was an ape that may have been a transitionary species to humanity found in Bulgaria on time?
>>16951080I'm convinced.
>>16950883You are not wrong about that. It's just that all the arrows are pointing to a Sub-Saharan African origin right now and by all arrows, I mean that. Autosomal-wise, Allosomal-wise and Extranuclear-wise.It's possible that sometime in the future maybe they will encounter a sample that is not in Africa while being real old and also Sapiens. That would change everything. That is an "extraordinary" proof. Until there's an extraordinary proof like this, the most sensible thing to do is just following those arrows I've talked about. This is literally how science works, rinse and repeat.Behold: Florisbad Man.
>>16950857>the smallest concession im willing to make is MENA,They literally aren't black, leftist retard.
>>16950894Could've been pressure from Neanderthals in MENA, though I don't actually believe OOMENA.
>>16950844No human group is really more evolved than another. Intelligence was almost certainly no longer universally beneficial at the time of OOA; Group differences today are just due to climate and social complexity, with the latter and related things definitely overpowering the former by a mile. Look up recent cognitive evolution in say, Europe. There was basically no trend until the introduction of agriculture and pastoralism. Africans simply haven't been exposed to sufficient social complexity for long enough.
>>16951377>No human group is really more evolved than another.Stopped reading there.
>>16951383They're adapted to different levels of social complexity, which require different levels of intelligence. A hunter-gatherer and an agriculturalist aren't trying to do the same thing.
>>16951387That's the cope argument, yes.
>>16951394Whatever you say.
>genetic diversity is DEFINITELY evidence of deep time >but it could never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever be explained through admixture with archaic hominins!!!!meme
>>16951402Very speculative. Isn't there only evidence of Neanderthal and Heidelbergensis admixture in SSA? (Ignoring the Malagasy and other, more recent mixes).
>>16951314erm I literally never said they were????
>>16951383No extant life form is "more evolved" than another.>>16951402We do see admixture. We can even identify what parts of the genome are a result of it.What is so offensive to your sensibilities about the fact that present genetic evidence points to a Sub-Saharan origin?
>>16951387Exactly, which is why north europeans are fairly stupid, they only adopted sedentary agriculture in the early iron age, meaning they didn't have enough time to evolve intelligence. God this board is filled with fucking retards, and I'm slowly becoming one by interacting with them
>>16951426>I fucking love vagueposting
>>16951451What is vague about what he said?
>>16951454Just a bunch of axiomatic claims.
>>16951456No, it's an empirical one. We observe different admixtures of archaic hominid species in different groups of people. You're more than welcome to look this up elsewhere if you don't believe me
>>16951463See? You're not even addressing any argument.
>>16951456Which of those claims is "axiomatic?" No species is more evolved than another by virtue of us all sharing s common ancestor (ie. have been evolving for the same amount of time).We can see and identify archaic admixture, which is a conclusion one can draw by the existence of claims surrounding varying admixture in separate populations.The final point is a question. What tickles your booty so hard about a Sub-Saharan origin?
>>16951464It's impossible to address something that does not exist. Make an argument
>>16951465Tbf, if two populations have different #s of generations, couldn't you say one is "more evolved"? If you subjected a group of drosophila to colder temperatures, after 10 years you might see that population develop some traits that allows them to cope with cold weather. Due to longer generation times, you wouldn't see the same thing in a group of mammals.
>>16951475You can say that. But it would be a subjective assessment rather than objective fact. I'll concede that it depends what you mean by "more evolved."
My ancestors were white, not Africans. OoA is a pozzed science.
>>16950881You've missed identified what side I'm representing here.
>>16951509Honey, you're not White now.
>>16951541Hi jidf
>>16951475Generally when an organism has developed more novel traits than its relatives you’d say it’s more derived rather than more evolved
>>16951402We know it’s not admixture with archaic hominins because we already have examples of admixture with archaic hominins that didn’t create similar genetic diversity
>we>we>weholy mother of reddit
>>16951614>r-redditCan you repeat that without the tears this time
>>16951614Does this retard realize that "we" has more than one definition?
>>16951449If you had properly investigated the topic you would know that the initial gains spurred by agriculture and to a lesser extent, pastoralism, were rather rapid. It only took 5000 years(really less than that, agriculture wasn't popular in west-africa until 3000 years ago) for niger-congo people to form a 10+ point IQ-gap between themselves and the various hunter-gatherers (old studies show 55 vs 65 IQ when environments are effectively equalized). I also noted that climate was significant, but became increasingly less relevant the more socially complex you were, which is almost certainly a factor here.
>>16951810EA3 is actually a better predictor for IQ than the IQ PGS here. Cognitive evolution in Europe.
>>16951818
>>16951449Utter nonsense, they were practicing agriculture since the Chalcolithic.Native northern euro HGs in Scandinavia were genocided by proto-Germanics who came from the south and eastIn the British isles and on the mainland they were already replaced or assimilated by Neolithic farmers millennia before.
>>16951810>>16951818>>16951820>"""cognitive evolution""">"The entire world exists in your head already" -t. geneticistsKEK. What makes you any different to the evopsych fags at this point?
>>16951931Are you going to attempt to make an argument or are you going to just demonstrate your ignorance to everyone?
>>16951989>Are you going to take my fake science seriously?No, now go ask Grok for a counterargument.
>>16952001You're too retarded to even understand what's being claimed. Got it.
>>16952023Your pilpuling doesn't work.
>>16952048>pilpulingYou don't understand what that means.
>>16952067Yeah you would know, schlomo.
>>16952070>muh joosYou're not a based Aryan chad. You're a moron opining on things you don't understand.
>>16952100>"Cognition" (i.e. IQ pseudoscience) inductively reducibed to allele frequencies is how you prove grain eating cucks were more intelligent than hunter-gatherers!!!BAHAHAHAHAHA
