News

Recent Discovery Shows Humans Come from Europe

The Telegraph published an article in their Science section today claiming that scientists are rewriting human history with a brand new discovery. In what is sure to send shockwaves through the scientific and Afrocentric Kangz communities alike, anthropologists have found what tests show to be the oldest remains of human ancestors ever discovered to date.

The history of human evolution has been rewritten after scientists discovered that Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa.

You read that correctly. The long-acclaimed “Out-of-Africa” theory has been officially debunked, not via conjecture or hypothesis, but by hard evidence. Paleoanthropologists found the remains of Graecopithecus freybergi – nicknamed ‘El Graeco’ – in Greece and Bulgaria. The findings are being hailed as the latest missing link in human evolution, and although described as ape-like in appearance, its age, bipedalism, and dental anatomy tell a different story.

The researchers involved in the study of Graecopithecus’ remains used four distinct working definitions in their classifications of apes versus humans and pre-human ancestors. They define ‘hominoid’ as apes, ‘hominid’ as ‘great apes and humans’, hominine as ‘African apes and humans’, and ‘hominin’ as humans and their non-ape ancestors. After multiple tests, including computer tomography, their research placed Graecopithecus squarely within the hominin classification.

“Graecopithecus is not an ape. He is a member of the tribe of hominins and the direct ancestor of homo. The food of the Graecopithecus was related to the rather dry and hard savannah vegetation, unlike that of the recent great apes which are leaving in forests.  Therefore, like humans, he has wide molars and thick enamel.” – Professor Nikolai Spassov

“While great apes typically have two or three separate and diverging roots, the roots of Graecopithecus converge and are partially fused – a feature that is characteristic of modern humans, early humans and several pre-humans,”, Professor Madelaine Böhme of the University of Tübingen.

What’s more is that these remains date back nearly a quarter of a million years earlier than Sahelanthropus tchadensis, the next oldest hominid, found in Chad.

“Our findings may eventually change our ideas about the origin of humanity. I personally don’t think that the descendants of Graecopithecus die out, they may have spread to Africa later. The split of chimps and humans was a single event. Our data support the view that this split was happening in the eastern Mediterranean – not in Africa…If accepted, this theory will indeed alter the very beginning of human history.” – Professor Madelaine Böhme, Department of Geoscience, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Sigwartstr. 10, Tübingen, Germany

Of course, despite two different fossils dating back to approximately the same time (a tooth from Bulgaria and a jaw bone found in Greece), there are undoubtedly some who will still adhere to the single-origin, “Out-of-Africa” theory of human history. For instance, retired anthropologist Dr. Peter Andrews says of the study’s results:

“It is possible that the human lineage originated in Europe, but very substantial fossil evidence places the origin in Africa, including several partial skeletons and skulls….I would be hesitant about using a single character from an isolated fossil to set against the evidence from Africa.”

Although ostensibly leaving the door open to new research and ideas, Dr. Andrews’ reluctance to admit that these discoveries disprove the alleged “settled science” of the Out-of-Africa Theory just goes to show that Scientism is still alive and well, and will remain so until the scientific community breaks free of the political correctness that currently permeates it.

We can only hope that the very fact that this study was allowed to be published is a sign that the liberal stranglehold is losing its grip.

The Telegraph article can be found here.

The peer-reviewed study can be found here.

  • Ike35

    Well, the blecks won’t believe it but that doesn’t really matter. My dog can’t do long-division but I’m not put out by that either. So I guess we truly are Kangz now. Sorry Kings.

    • Eieio

      This will be used to justify mass migration into Europe. #WeareallEuropeans.

      • Ike35

        Dammit!!! You’re prolly right. They’re just returning home after 250,000 years goy.

  • Eieio

    We wuz ancestors ‘n sheeit.

  • Yehudah Finkelstein

    The Jew Anthropologist Milford Wolpoff, who originated the Multiregional human origins hypothesis, has been completely vindicated.

  • Felipe Rocha

    Please, all you have to do is read: “Furthermore, it shows features that point to a possible phylogenetic affinity with hominins. …, provides intriguing evidence of what could be the oldest known hominin.” Science does not work like this. No theory is dead after just one evidence against it. And after all, even if this hypothesis ir correct, it does not change the fact that current “europeans” descend from africans. If you could just live up to the cultural inheritance you claim and study a little before writing…

    • Yehudah Finkelstein

      If current Euros descend from Africans, why do we have Neanderthal genes which Africans lack?

      • Eieio

        The admixture happened after modern humans left Africa is the current theory.

        • Yehudah Finkelstein

          It doesn’t matter. Still means were different than Africans.

          • Eieio

            That goes without saying. Natural selection, over time, can create huge differences within the same species, regardless of any admixture from different species.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            No, it doesn’t go without saying. The left believes that sonehow human evolution stops at the neck and doesn’t apply to intelligence when analyzing racial differences.

          • Eieio

            It goes without saying for anyone who’s not an idiot. There, I fixed it.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            Then most Americans are idiots.

          • Ike35

            Yeah, but it’s true of most people generally.

          • Natural selection isn’t the only mode of evolution. Genetic frustration is stronger than selection if the genes are of smaller effect.

          • ThomasER916

            >Natural selection isn’t the only mode of evolution.

            Nice strawman.

            >Genetic frustration

            Not valid scientific terminology. You’ve inflated your diction far beyond your capacity and outed yourself as a fraud and cultist.

          • That’s not a strawman. HBDers only talk about natural selection when there are other models of evolution.

            Excuse my typo. I meant “generic drift is stronger than natural selection if the alleles are of small effect.”

          • ThomasER916

            Literally a strawman.

            Literally not a typo.

          • Ike35

            Are you sure? Man, when I see a Norwegian and Papa New Guinea head shrinker, I just can’t tell the difference! I mean they’re both black and uhhhh blonde and uuhh, duhhhhhhhhhhhh!

          • Yehudah Finkelstein
          • Ike35

            Uggghhh, Barf!!!!

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            I posed that pic to Twitter on one of my accounts and said I was glad Obama settled these Refugees right before he left office. Liberals called me racist, and I responded that I saw future engineers and doctors in that pic.

          • Ike35

            LOL! Well, witch doctors anyway.

      • Interbreeding, though that too is called into question. I’ve seen lower values, around 1 to 3 percent compared to the often cited 2 to 3 percent. East Asians do have more Neanderthal admixture, due most likely to a back migration.

  • Felipe Rocha

    You are not even talking about the same issue. Look at the dates: “The ‘Out of Africa’ model is currently the most widely favoured explanation accounting for the origins of modern humans. It suggests that modern humans originated in Africa within the last 200,000 years from a single group of ancestors. Modern humans continued to evolve in Africa and had spread to the Middle East by 100,000 years ago and possibly as early as 160,000 years ago. Modern humans only became well established elsewhere in the last 50,000 years.”
    https://australianmuseum.net.au/when-and-where-did-our-species-originate

    • Yehudah Finkelstein

      Wrong. Eurasian have Neanderthal admixture, which Africans lack.

      • Felipe Rocha

        Sub-saharan africans lack. North-africans have. Again, a simple time table problem: the Plos One paper refers to ~7 million years ago. The Neanderthals lived from 400.000 to 40.000 years ago, and may well have interbred with northern H. sapiens populations but not with southern populations. One of many papers on the subject: https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/5/11/2075/652402/Apparent-Variation-in-Neanderthal-Admixture-among

        • Yehudah Finkelstein

          North Africans are completely different racially from Sub Saharans, with mostly Berber and Arab admixture.

          • Felipe Rocha

            OK. I get it. You are not willing to educate yourself before discussion. Good luck

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            No, I’m just not a liberal fucktard like you who denies the science behind racial differences.

          • Felipe Rocha

            What science? The one which says that, despite visual differences and few loci that allow tracing ancestry, most of our genome is not structured among populations? If you are into science, take a look at this “Fortunately, modern human genetics can deliver the salutary message that human populations share most of their genetic variation and that there is no scientific support for the concept that human populations are discrete, nonoverlapping entities.” http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            Explain why Australian Abos have a 65 mean IQ while Ashkenazi Jews have a 115 mean IQ.

          • Felipe Rocha

            Oh, great, the IQ debate with a twist. It is quite simple, actually: the phenotype (in this case, a given IQ value) results from the interaction between an individual’s genotype AND the environmental conditions it faces. The take-home massage is: if you take an australian aboriginal and raise he/she from the very infancy in a Ashkenazi Jew family, he/she will probably had the same IQ as a randomly chosen Ashkenazi Jew raised in the same conditions. Take a look at this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/29/upshot/money-race-and-success-how-your-school-district-compares.html?_r=0

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            Wrong. Twin studies prove nature is more important than nurture in determinism IQ. Black twins raised by huwhite parents don’t show much increase in IQ.

          • Felipe Rocha

            Could you refer to even one such study?

          • http://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/1/1/htm

            Effects seem to be much smaller, especially with East Asians scoring near the average and sometimes below it.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            Your posts sound like that John Englemann fag from AmRen.

            East Asian adoptees have Lower IQs than American East Asians because they’re stupider. Most East Asian immigrants to the Americas are the cognitive elite. Americans adopt some Han Chinese peasant girl that was almost aborted, of course their IQs are lower.

          • Your posts sound like that John Englemann fag from AmRen.

            Uhhuh, whatever. How about just stick to talking about my writing and not wasting your time writing stupid attacks.

            East Asian adoptees have Lower IQs than American East Asians because they’re stupider.

            Since people don’t read papers, relevant quotes:

            After a more sensible adjustment, the Korean adoptees’ true mean VIQ and PIQ were between 99 and 103, both less than 105. By Frydman and Lynn’s logic this would suggest a genotypic Korean IQ disadvantage.

            Rushton and Jensen [3] (p. 259) implied that this widening was a genetic effect: “although the shared-family environmental component of true-score IQ variance can be quite large at age 7, by late adolescence it is the smallest component. After that age, genetic and within-family (nonshared) environmental effects account for the largest components”. To convince the reader, they pointed to their Figure 3, a plot estimating the proportions of IQ variation “attributable to genetic and environmental (shared and nonshared) effects” with respect to age (p. 252). However, as Richard Nisbett realized, that diagram indicates that “a greater genetic contribution to IQ occurs only after the age of 20” [24] (p. 308), because it shows virtually constant heritability from age 6 to age 20. Rushton and Jensen contradicted their own cited graph.

            Adjusting the final mean IQs accordingly (Table 2) implies smaller racial differences of 3.5 points (White vs. BW adoptees) and 11.7 points (White vs. Black–Black adoptees) in the study’s final wave. The former is only 1 point wider than the corresponding initial difference, and the latter is 3 points narrower. Hence, allowing for attrition, the IQ differences between the White and the Black adoptees were no larger at age 17 than at age 7, a sign that the apparent enlarging was an artifact and not a genetic effect.

            http://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/1/1/htm

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            Who the hell cares about your lame, irrelevant facts? Want to talk about how great Jew geniuses are and how diverse Africans genomes are? There’s always Amren.

          • Who the hell cares about your lame, irrelevant facts? Want to talk about how great Jew geniuses are and how diverse Africans genomes are? There’s always Amren.

            AmRen is full of Creationists and Christian Identists.

            You’re saying ‘who the hell cares about your lame, irrelevant facts’, yet you’re implying that this article is ‘a fact’. I showed why it’s wrong. I showed the strength of the OoA model. But you’re too emotionally attached to an idea and so you cannot believe something to the contrary, despite the strength of the evidence provided.

            Just like a leftist.

          • Siberian

            Poor whites outperform rich blacks.

            P.S.: The New York Times is an unreliable Bolshevik newspaper, and no person who wants to be taken seriously presents it as a source in deciding matters of controversy.

          • Felipe Rocha

            If you had just read the article you would find that the newspaper cites a peer-reviewed study. Read, just read, but not just this type of crap

          • if you take an australian aboriginal and raise he/she from the very
            infancy in a Ashkenazi Jew family, he/she will probably had the same IQ
            as a randomly chosen Ashkenazi Jew raised in the same conditions.

            That is hysterical, pure Lysenkoism. You apparently don’t understand the concept of “environment” when used in the context of gene expression.

          • Felipe Rocha

            Yeah, probably I should return my PhD in Evolutionary genetics. Unfortunately, you all seem to be hopeless: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

          • Cynic

            >An australian aboriginal raised by ashkenazi jews will have a high-iq

            And you’re calling us ignorant?

          • Felipe Rocha

            Yes, in fact I am

          • Siberian

            If a statement stars with fortunately, it is not scientific; it is, rather, normative, and therefore not to be taken as fact without proper scrutiny.

          • Felipe Rocha

            Perhaps you should warn Nature that they do not know wha is scientific

  • Felipe Rocha

    Wikipedia, Google Scholar, many and many Museum websites available… knowledge is just a few clicks and short paragraphs aways, but people prefer to repeat this bullshit

    • Vincent Law

      >spanish comments in profile history
      >non-white talking about whites.

      every. time.

      • Felipe Rocha

        I am not talking about whites or blacks. I am talking about science. If you want to be a moron, this is your right, but do not try to use science as a disguise for your choice to remain ignorant.

        • Herr Treblinka

          Using Wikipedia as an academic source. Good job with that.
          Otherwise, more research is needed on this one.

          • Felipe Rocha

            Since explanation is needed: even Wikipedia is better than an article that mixes a matter that concerns millions of years ago with a hypothesis referring to thousands of years ago… Please, try harder. This article is indefensible.

      • Ike35

        You’re not insinuating that a mestizo is trying to drag us down into the mud while his co-racialists flood our country are you?

    • Ike35

      Yeah it’s a damn shame. Well, see ya later then.

  • Bruce Regael

    I see you’ve taken the Atlantean pill. Now it’s time to get real and consider the Extra-Terrayran pill.

  • Ike35

    Hey fam., just a heads up, apparently you can’t spell out the word sh#t, it’s getting sent to moderation, i really hate that sheeeit.

  • 1) You’re basing this claim off of, literally a singular mandible.

    Here’s what I think: Paleoanthropology must move past the point where a mandibular fragment is accepted as sufficient evidence.

    http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/miocene/graecopithecus/graecopithecus-fuss-2017.html

    2) News articles are notorious for embellished titles, and this is just that.

    The findings are being hailed as the latest missing link in human evolution

    Scientists don’t talk about “missing links .

    Out of Africa is a fact. A mountain of evidence attests to this fact.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/09/out-of-factfrica/

    • Frontierland

      Out of Africa is a fact. That’s why it’s still referred to as a hypothesis.

      “Out of Africa is a fact.” (White Genocide can continue uninterrupted, insinuated the Anti-White.)

      • The totality of evidence points to an African origin for mankind. Multiregional models don’t make sense with the mountains of evidence that attest to OoA. Read the linked article.

        White Genocide can continue uninterrupted, insinuated the Anti-White.

        Why are you attributing a position to me that I never took? Your idiotic appeal to emotion doesn’t matter; facts do, not feelings, unless they contradict views that you yourself personally hold, right?

        • Yehudah Finkelstein

          If Out of Africa is a fact, why do Eurasians have Neanderthal genes that Africans lack?

          • why do Eurasians have Neanderthal genes that Africans lack?

            Interbreeding events around 40-30 kya. As I said elsewhere, typical cited values are between 2 and 3 percent with a more recent analysis showing 1 to 2 percent. East Asians, however, have 20 percent higher Neanderthal admixture due to more intebreeding with them.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3632468/

            Oh yea, some Africans,—such as the Khoisan—do have some Neanderthal admixture, this was from a backmigration into Africa around 3 kya.

            https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24988-humanitys-forgotten-return-to-africa-revealed-in-dna/

            You should get up to speed on population genetics before you talk about it.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            I don’t really care to waste my time reading reams of genetic data. I’m not a geneticist. So, why are you offended that Out Of Africa is being debunked?

          • I don’t really care to waste my time reading reams of genetic data. I’m not a geneticist.

            “I make claims. I get directed to papers showing that my claims are wrong. I say I’m not a geneticist, I don’t really care.” Why make any claims in the first place then if you don’t care that your unfounded claim got rebutted and won’t care to read the information that rebuts you?

            why are you offended that Out Of Africa is being debunked?

            I’m not “offended that the Ouf Of Africa” theory is being debunked; I’m offended that the ignorance of this article and the people who misinterpret it, because the totality of evidence says otherwise.

            You literally just said that you “don’t rally care to waste” your “time reading reams of genetic data”, so why should I take anything you say seriously? You’re speaking from emotion; I’m backing my claims with evidence, something you’re clearly lacking.

          • Frontierland

            The ‘totality of evidence’… collected to date.
            Based on the ‘totality of evidence’ at the time, people also thought the planets revolved around the earth.

            For someone who is obviously, personally committed with getting everyone to agree with his opinion he is asserting as fact, you sure are right there to point out that anyone who disagrees with you or your Anti-White position is ’emotional’

          • The ‘totality of evidence’… collected to date.
            Based on the ‘totality of evidence’ at the time, people also thought the planets revolved around the earth.

            Science isn’t based on ‘what ifs’. If you’re going to talk about science and cite this article (laughably) in a scientific manner, I suggest you learn what ‘science’ is first.

            For someone who is obviously, personally committed with getting everyone to agree with his opinion he is asserting as fact

            Rebut my ‘opinion’ then instead of your emotionally charged assertions.

            ou sure are right there to point out that anyone who disagrees with you or your Anti-White position is ’emotional’

            You’ve yet to respond or rebut my arguments and have only provided emotional garbage.

            Try again.

          • Frontierland

            I’m not making assertions, like you.
            I’m stating my opinion, but unlike you, I don’t make claims that a hypothesis is a fact. This isn’t Science, it’s Sciencism.
            You’re just mad I’m not addressing what you want me to.

          • You can’t address it. I’m stating that OoA is a fact. You can’t rebut it, so you call back to emotional arguments. The multiregional model doesn’t hold up against the model today. Fact. The totality of evidence points to Africa as the origin of Man. Fact. See above.

            You can’t address these simple things.

          • ThomasER916

            You’re autistic, but not in a good way.

          • Ah, another armchair psychologist. I noticed no one here fan converse with me about this and can only throw baseless insults.

          • ThomasER916

            You’re completely and utterly cucked, believing that Negroes are the “original human” and thus sanctifying them in your pathological apologetics for Out of Africa. Your emotional garbage, repeating “fact” over and over again like Dustin Hoffman in “Rainman” despite your crippling inability to distinguish the difference between fact and theory. So no, it’s not “baseless” at all. You really are autistic, and utterly cucked.

          • You’re completely and utterly cucked, believing that Negroes are the “original human” and thus sanctifying them in your pathological apologetics for Out of Africa

            Emotional assertion. Apologetics? Nope. It’s truth. Which you can’t rebut.

            Your emotional garbage, repeating “fact” over and over again like Dustin Hoffman in “Rainman” despite your crippling inability to distinguish the difference between fact and theory. So no, it’s not “baseless” at all. You really are autistic, and utterly cucked

            Where did you receive your psychology doctorate to make this assessment?

            I made arguments and provided citations for my arguments. You’ve yet to do the same. Wonder why…

            You’re an ideologue. That’s why.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            The original out of Africa hypothesis said We were all descended from Homo Sapiens who left Africa. Because of Neanderthal admixture in Eurasians, OUT OF AFRICA IS UNTENABLE. Remember, for years, the out of Africa proponents said it was IMPOSSIBLE for Homo Sapiens to have Neanderthal admixture, because we were all from Africa! I don’t need to cite lame facts or read your scholarly articles because Out of Africa has already been proven to be a lie.

            So, why do you care so much about about so much about Out of Africa?

          • Because of Neanderthal admixture in Eurasians, OUT OF AFRICA IS UNTENABLE.

            No it’s not. Read this.

            http://www.genetics.org/content/203/2/881

            Refutes your contention. Try again.

            Remember, for years, the out of Africa proponents said it was IMPOSSIBLE for Homo Sapiens to have Neanderthal admixture, because we were all from Africa!

            The admixture occurred between 40 and 30,000 years ago before the Neanderthals died out.

            I don’t need to cite lame facts or read your scholarly articles because Out of Africa has already been proven to be a lie.

            So you speak from emotion like a leftist.

            So, why do you care so much about about so much about Out of Africa?

            You say that I cite ‘lame facts’. You say that I’m ‘anti-white’. You make all these baseless claims, yet don’t address the arguments and citations I provide. I wonder why….

            I care about the truth. This article distorts scientific findings; I showed why the claims made here are retarded. But you’re too emotionally blinded to see that.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            Nice cherry picking. So why did the Out of Africa proponents say that it was an impossibility for humans to have Neanderthal admixture? Because their theory was wrong! You completely ignored that. I’m not arguing about lame facts and specific dates, the out of Africa anthropologists were on record trying to say we all had pure Homo Sapien DNA from Africa. That’s been proven to be false. Now, you’re moving the goalposts.

          • Nice cherry picking.

            Says the ignorant man who cannot rebut things contrary to his wrong beliefs.

            So why did the Out of Africa proponents say that it was an impossibility for humans to have Neanderthal admixture?

            It’s not true. I just showed it isn’t.

            Because their theory was wrong!

            Theories become modified with the availability of new evidence that either strengthen or weaken it. This strengthened it. The admixture didn’t occur until after Man migrated OoA about 70 kya.

            out of Africa anthropologists were on record trying to say we all had pure Homo Sapien DNA from Africa.

            Source?

            That’s been proven to be false. Now, you’re moving the goalposts.

            There is a lot of introgression from archaic African hominids as well. What’s your point? You clearly don’t understand this conversation which is why your comments to me are absolutely nothing of substance.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            I’m not going to cite scholarly articles for you so you can masturbate to DNA genomes. This is an Alt Right comment board, not a Geneticist List serv. Multiregional hypothesis proponents like Milford Wolpoff were ostracized for years for just suggesting that humans may have had Neanderthal DNA. The Out of Africa proponents said that was all balderdash and nonsense, we were ancestors of humans from Africa. This is all available for you to peruse and confirm by reading anthropological books available with a local library card.

            Clearly, you have some weird obsession with this Out of Africa scientific theory and are heavily invested in it.

          • This is an Alt Right comment board, not a Geneticist List serv.

            Articles make claims. I rebut the claims. I show you that you’re wrong. “Th-this is an Alt Right comment board”.

            The Out of Africa proponents said that was all balderdash and nonsense, we were ancestors of humans from Africa. This is all available for you to peruse and confirm by reading anthropological books available with a local library card.

            I go by genetics buddy.

            Clearly, you have some weird obsession with this scientific theory and are heavily invested.

            I enjoy this little thing called ‘the truth’, maybe you’ve heard of it?

            Fact of the matter is, you can’t refute anything I’ve said. You can only provide emotional ‘arguments’.

            Just like a leftist.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            No scientist claims to know the “truth.” Like I said, you have a very personal reason for advocating Out of Africa. Care to say what it is?

            “Muh Genetics” doesn’t cover up the fact that Wolpoff was right about Neanderthal DNA, and Out Of Africa proponents were wrong.

            Calling me a leftist, Sick Burn, what’s next, Dems are the real racists?

          • No scientist claims to know the “truth.” Like I said, you have a very personal reason for advocating Out of Africa. Care to say what it is?

            The truth is my ‘personal reason’. Care to stick to the facts and stop going off on unrelated tangents?

            “Muh Genetics” doesn’t cover up the fact that Wolpoff was right about Neanderthal DNA, and Out Of Africa proponents were wrong.

            Your ignorance of the scientific method and how theories are modified in light of new evidence is why it’s so hard for you to grasp this.

            I told you when the interbreeding event occurred between AMH (AMH and not Europeans because modern-day Europeans are ~6500 yo, see below). So you’re denying scientific facts. Good job.

            What does any of this have to do with non-scientific things? I don’t really know. My interest in population structure is intellectual, not personal. But a certain type of person should probably stop talking about how white people have been in Europe for 40,000 years. First, the ancestors of modern Europeans 40,000 years ago were almost all residing outside of Europe. An assertion that holds until 15,000 years ago. And most would still be resident outside of Europe 8,000 years ago as depending on how you count/calculate* And, perhaps more importantly, the typical phenotype of Northern Europeans probably really coalesced only around ~5,000 years ago.

            http://www.unz.com/gnxp/our-magnificent-bastard-race/

            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130423-european-genetic-history-dna-archaeology-science/

            http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

            Sorry to burst your bubble.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            Unz Review? G-D you read some lame sh!t. Now you’re making an argument about the Scientific method. The point is, Multiregional hypothesis was proven correct. One tenet of Out Of Africa held we had ONE FEMALE ANCESTOR, Eve, who was the mother of all humans. Obviously not possible with Neanderthal ancestors in the human genome. You can continue to post long winded, meandering posts in an attempt to defend a theory that is grasping at straws to stay relevant. Your motivations for doing so remain highly suspect.

        • Frontierland

          Is ‘Out of Africa’ a hypothesis or isn’t it.
          Don’t get all emotional, I just exposed the intent behind your fervent counter-signaling.

          • I didn’t ‘get all emotional’, you attributed a false position to me. Stick to what I write, not what your imagination.

            I just exposed the intent behind your fervent counter-signaling.

            You’ve still not addressed anything I’ve said in this comment thread. Good job.

          • Frontierland

            You repeatedly claim ‘Out of Africa’ is a ‘fact.’

            Is ‘Out of Africa’ a hypothesis or isn’t it.

            I did respond to what you believe in, don’t get mad that I didn’t respond in the way you want me to.

          • Is ‘Out of Africa’ a hypothesis or isn’t it.

            Genetic evidence attests to the appearance of AMH in Africa. Nei (1995) provides evidence that AMH arose 100-200 kya with all humans alive today being descendants of migrations that began ~100 kya (around 70 kya). Further, since genetic diversity decreases as the distance from Africa increases shows the OoA hypothesis to be true. Bottlenecks and founder effects reduce genetic diversity. There is also recent data that suggests that the population bottleneck coming OoA along with deleterious alleles that introgressed from Neanderthal to Eurasians caused a 1 percent decrease in historic fitness respectively (Harris and Nielson, 2016). This is further evidence that AMH began in Africa; the main piece of evidence is the population bottleneck and the subsequent genetic diversity in African populations (see below). Population bottlenecks and founder effects reduce genetic diversity, and the further you go from Africa, more and more populations show less and less genetic diversity from Africans, this is one major clue.

            Africans have the highest level of genetic diversity amongst humans on the planet (Campbell and Tishkoff, 2008; Gomez, Hirbo and Tishkoff, 2014; Ashraf and Galor, 2014). Surely, I don’t need to tell you what this means.

            Isn’t the alt-right all about facts? You will have no rebuttal to this, won’t respond to this, and will continue with your emotional responses.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            Great, Africans have higher genetic diversity. So what good did it do them? Your facts are lame.

          • Great, Africans have higher genetic diversity. So what good did it do them? Your facts are lame.

            The fact that Africans have the highest genetic diversity in the world, along with that genetic diversity decreasing as you g away from Africa lends credence to OoA. The Multiregional hypothesis is not tenable.

            The fact that you said that my facts are ‘lame’ shows your cog ability.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            “The Multiregional hypothesis is not tenable.”

            I doubt it. Otherwise Anthropologists wouldn’t suppress an idea. This discovery and others in the past few years call into question Out of Africa. So, Why are you getting upset that Out of Africa is being called into the question? Got a dog in this fight?

            “The fact that you said that my facts are ‘lame’ shows your cog ability.”

            Dude, this isn’t the Amren comments board where nerds circlejerk over Jews and Asians having high IQs. Africans who were too stupid to travel and interbreed with others being cited as “genetic diversity” is a lame and dumb factoid no one cares about.

          • This discovery

            Literally a single mandible. Read the article from John Hawks above,

            and others

            Academic citations please.

            call into question Out of Africa

            I’m open to it being discarded, theories and hypotheses get disproved all the time. This isn’t the time though, and you’re horribly misreading this.

            Why are you getting upset that Out of Africa is being called into the question?

            I follow the science. The totality of evidence shows that Man originated in Africa. Why do you keep attributing positions to me that I don’t hold? Can you have a serious conversation?

            Dude, this isn’t the Amren comments board where nerds circlejerk over Jews and Asians having high IQs.

            Dude, I’m literally saying the opposite but you don’t read so you don’t get it.

            Africans who were too stupid to travel and interbreed with others being cited as “genetic diversity” is a lame and dumb factoid no one cares about.

            Who said anything the contrary? You can’t discuss what I’m talking about so you devolve to the same old talking points. Typical.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            There’s something else at work here. Most people don’t care too much about a scientific theory like Out of Africa. Clearly you have something invested in it.

          • There’s something else at work here. Most people don’t care too much about a scientific theory like Out of Africa. Clearly you have something invested in it.

            You clearly don’t know what a ‘theory’ is. You can’t rebut anything.

            I like the truth. Don’t you? You may say you have ‘the truth’, yet can’t provide evidence, nor can you refute evidence that refutes your assertions.

          • Frontierland

            ‘Provides evidence for’, ‘lends credence to’ and ‘suggests’ does not conclusively make a hypothesis a fact, like you claim it does.

            Your making a false claim and you’re motive is just Anti-White, that’s my point.

          • Your making a false claim and you’re motive is just Anti-White, that’s my point.

            Appeal to emotion. You once again did not address what I wrote. Try again.

            does not conclusively make a hypothesis a fact, like you claim it does.

            You’ve yet to rebut anything. You keep making emotional claims, as if they mean anything to the facts and arguments I’ve presented.

            Try again. You keep attributing false positions to me because you know you can’t address what I’m saying.

          • Frontierland

            It’s pointless to roll in the grey goo of genetics with an ideologically committed Anti-White who believes a hypothesis is a fact.

            The sum of your opinion is predicated on you asserting a hypothesis is a fact.
            That’s my address to what your saying.

          • It’s pointless to roll in the grey goo of genetics with an ideologically committed Anti-White who believes a hypothesis is a fact.

            I provided evidence and arguments. You provided emotional retorts, seen above. You cannot reply to the strength of the OoA model so you devolve to stupid attacks.

            The sum of your opinion is predicated on you asserting a hypothesis is a fact.

            I am providing arguments and citations for my ‘opinion’—which is based on scientific findings. Something you don’t understand.

            Continue appealing to emotion.

          • Frontierland

            As I have stated, I’ll reply to the overarching intent of your very obvious, obsessive compulsion towards asserting a general hypothesis is a fact.

            You do this, not because you are interested in ‘truth’, you do this because you are austically Anti-White.

            For the record, Pro-White’s are less interested in debatable, subjective ‘Truth’ as we are in Securing the Existence of Our People and a Future for White Children.

          • LyovMyshkin

            The only thing I have a problem with is the significance people place in the idea that AMH happened to have emerged in the continent we now call Africa. It was always a big ‘so what’ on my part.

            I have a question as you seem to be on top of the data. Sometimes when I get into race discussions and people bring up OoA I’ve noticed that the tendency is for many is to associate sub-Saharan Africans with somehow being the ‘original’ people. Now I rebut this by saying that groups like Europeans and Africans share a common ancestor who was, necessarily, unlike either of us. It always seemed to make sense to me but I’m just interested to know if that makes sense to you — or is indeed accurate.

            Are Africans the prototype and we the aberration?

          • Are Africans the prototype and we the aberration?

            Pretty much. Human variation is due to largely genetic drift with some sexual selection thrown in with mutation and slight natural selection.

            I wouldn’t say ‘aberration’. This implies a type of ‘superiority’ which does not exist in biology. Species adapt to climates and novel areas genetically, and traits further get enhanced by sexual selection.

            The common ancestor arose about 200 kya, as seen above.

          • LyovMyshkin

            OK, I think I understand. So the African population, because it remained in the area where AMH arose, wasn’t subjected to that other pressure. Thanks for clearing that up. One question though: wouldn’t they have just, due to random mutation, have changed quite significantly anyway without the pressures that the migratory pops were exposed to?

            Or is the load of change so severe with the bottlenecks and climate etc that it just outpaced the random drift in Africa?

          • OK, I think I understand. So the African population, because it remained in the area where AMH arose, wasn’t subjected to that other pressure.

            Correct.

            One question though: wouldn’t they have just, due to random mutation, have changed quite significantly anyway without the pressures that the migratory pops were exposed to?

            Yes. Modern day Africans are different from AMH.

            Or is the load of change so severe with the bottlenecks and climate etc that it just outpaced the random drift in Africa?

            Do you mean in regards to phenotypic change? That’s correct as well.

          • LyovMyshkin

            OK, so I was kind of right but what you’re saying is that after AMH emerges and the migration period begins you more or less have a population that resembles modern sub-saharan Africans present in Africa?

          • I wouldn’t claim they would ‘resemble’ AMH as I am not sure so I cannot make that claim. But it is likely, yes.

          • LyovMyshkin

            Thanks. Appreciate the info.

          • ShikokuPrincess91

            Khoisan are older than Congoids and are physically very different.

            They are medium-brown and their skulls show similarities with us (Japanese). For example they have significant epicanthal folds like in East Asia.

            To most westerners “Africans” means Congoids with prognathic jaws, large, flat noses, extremely coiled and course hair, black-brow skin, sloping brow ridges, and pointed skull shapes. This is because it was Congoids who were taken to the new world, instead of say, pygmies or Khoisan.
            Look up “Kung Bushmen” and you’ll see they look as different from Congoids as Europeans and East Asians do.

            I strongly suspect that the 1-2% of nonhuman DNA in Congoids is due to a late era cross breeding between Khoisan-like Homo sapiens and Homo Erectus or Homo Ergaster.

            Congoids have clear Homo Erectus traits. It must be explored further no matter how painful it is.

    • ThomasER916

      >Out of Africa is a fact. A mountain of evidence attests to this fact.

      No, you’re just a dipshit cultist.

      • And you can’t respond to data so you go to name-calling.

  • spahnranch69 .

    I’m surprised this study was allowed to see the light of day, but then again it was conducted by the Greeks and Bulgarians, who obviously do not have their academic institutions controlled by the (((you know whos))).

  • Cam

    Does it even matter? At this point, Western Europe’s on track to being overrun anyway. Why waste our time on endless speculative nonsense?

  • LyovMyshkin

    I can’t wait for the narrative to change from “We’re all from Africa originally so don’t have prejudice” to “We’re all from Europe originally so let us back in”. 😉

    • Yehudah Finkelstein

      All Humans looked like Rutger Hauer once upon a time.

      • Bill Cosby

        Weird, I’m watching Blade Runner right now.

      • Jack Burton

        He makes the best B-movies.

    • Or “Therefore Europeans are more primitive. Africans (and everyone else) are further down the line of development and therefore more advanced.”

      Or both.

      • Too bad what you’re saying has no basis in evolutionary biology.

  • Yehudah Finkelstein

  • ThomasER916

    Just a cursory glance at the teeth arrangement, size, and quantity of the Out of Africa hominid is not very convincing. The roots of afarensis are different from humans but similar to chimps. The rows are parallel, like chimps. What’s missing is comprehensive DNA tests to illustrate their relationship to humans.

    http://science-at-home.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Chimp-afarensis-human-teeth.jpg

  • Chadwick D. Prestington

    Can anyone explain why we would want to debunk the Out-of-Africa theory? My laymen’s understanding was always that Caucasians are descendants of a migration out of Africa roughly 100k years ago and were subjected to a harsher environment that required greater cognitive skills and a more complex social structure for survival, hence the different traits we see in Northern Eurasian people.

    This narrative seems to fit our objectives in showing that we are fundamentally different and that Western Civ comes from our unique group traits. Why rock that boat?

    • Jack Burton

      “Out-of-Africa” doesn’t mean we were all sub-Saharan Negroes like modern dindu. If that were true that would mean dindus haven’t evolved for at least 100k years. I see dindu claiming this nonsense and they’re too stupid to figure out that they’re actually insulting themselves.

      We know that early Europeans as a recognizable race have existed for at least 44k years from anthropological evidence. They say we actually had larger bodies and brains back then. From population genetics we know that all indigenous Europeans had blue eyes, 100%.

      From population genetics we know that modern Europeans are a combination of three ancient stocks: indigenous Europeans, Neolithic invaders and north Eurasians. The third being a minor contribution. So these buffoons saying whites are inbreeding if they don’t race-mix are talking nonsense. Europeans have plenty of heterosis already.

    • ShikokuPrincess91

      This is better because it will better allow us to investigate “the hunch,” which is that Congoids are the result of Homo Sapiens moving into West Africa at a relatively late date and creating a hybrid subspecies with the last significant population of Homo Erectus/Homo Ergaster.

      In Japan Out of Africa is laughed at precisely because Congoids clearly retain a significant amount of Homo Erectus’ traits. They have to be a later divergence.

  • Sieg

    News just broke that the oldest known human fossils now originate in Morocco (north Africa) some 300,000 years ago, further destroying the east African “Cradle of Mankind” hypothesis: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-oldest-known-human-fossils-have-been-found-in-an-unusual-place/529452/