Why do people seem to have an emotional stake in the out of africa theory? If its the most evidenced hypothesis then cool, but if contrary or otherwise unsupporting stuff comes out then no big deal either. Stuff like graecopithicus cant just be dismissed cuz raycism
>>16978168Most theories that people are quick to write off as schitzobabble are because they involve subjects that schitzos keep babbling about. consider some of the retarded schitzophrenic ranting you've heard in your life and it tends to hyper-focus on a few specific subjects that they won't shut up about. They love their zero-point energy, they love to talk about flouride, they're obsessed with religion, they're obsessed with any chemical substance that they might be exposed to, they're obsessed with cosmology, etc, and of course they obsess endlessly over race. Schitzos are OBSESSED with race. That's not to say that these topics aren't reasonable and worth talking about, but you just need to pay the schitzo tax when talking about those subjects because they have poisoned the well with their stupidity.
>>16978168>Why do people seem to have an emotional stake in the out of africa theory?It's mostly the people trying to debunk it that seem emotionally motivated because "niggers bad!" Those supporting the theory tend to get frustrated when the same talking points that have already been refuted get hammered on over and over by people who are fixated on racial implications.Exhibit A:>graecopithicusGraecopithecus was a non-human ape. That apes existed in Europe prior to human development does not affect the claims Out of Africa is making in any way. There is legitimate scholarly research into the possibility that Graecopithecus, or one of its descendants, migrated into Africa before diversifying to include the homo lineage. That a certain group of people tout Graecopithecus as if it's some smoking gun against OOA despite having zero knowledge of what it was or how its existence actually fits into the broader picture is genuinely frustrating.
Who cares? No one can prove anything. Archaeology is pseudoscience.
>>16978168>graecopithicusWeird shit happened to the Mediterranean if you go back that far. There were undoubtedly a lot of Hominidae going back and forth, and going a lot farther. Out of Africa is about a far more recent migration which doesn't exclude an older migration into Africa. Why would they want to go into Africa? Changing climate. Everything gets oversimplified to fit into some kind of narrative.
>>16978168Polish kook
>>16978168political ideology
>>16978168They don't. People accept Out of Africa the same reason why people accept Germ Theory or Big Bang Theory, there is a lot of solid evidence behind it. The only people who have an emotional take behind it are people think Out of Africa is apart of some revisionist agenda, even though biologists have been speaking about this idea since the 19th century.
