The END for the "Out of Africa" theory.

Posted in the South Africa Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Scipio

South Africa

#1 Nov 3, 2009
Just to clarify a few things before I start.

A THEORY is an hypothesis that has not been scientifically proven.

The "Out of Africa" hypothesis have never been proved as fact and was held up as the theory of the day. The theory that made the most sense.

In science however, theories adapt as new scientific information comes to the fore.

The only reason why the "out of africa" theory still gets any air time, is because it agrees with the political goal of the world order, in that it tells people that they are all the same, which the elites think will make the transition to a gobal antichrist government easier.
Scipio

South Africa

#2 Nov 3, 2009
However recent scientific research has proved that not only is the "out of africa" theory only a theory, but that it is a false one.

The mounting evidence is compelling and ranges from genetic reasearch to fossils.

Look at this site...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-s...

Now you have to take into consideration that the "out of africa" theory was founded on fossil evidence that was found, in that the oldest human ancestor that was ever found was found in Africa, hence the "out of africa" theory was born.

This is no longer the case.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-s...

they have found even older human fossils in Europe.

hahahahaha
Scipio

South Africa

#3 Nov 3, 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-s...

The conventional view of human evolution and how early man colonised the world has been thrown into doubt by a series of stunning palaeontological discoveries suggesting that Africa was not the sole cradle of humankind. Scientists have found a handful of ancient human skulls at an archaeological site two hours from the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, that suggest a Eurasian chapter in the long evolutionary story of man.

The skulls, jawbones and fragments of limb bones suggest that our ancient human ancestors migrated out of Africa far earlier than previously thought and spent a long evolutionary interlude in Eurasia before moving back into Africa to complete the story of man.

Experts believe fossilised bones unearthed at the medieval village of Dmanisi in the foothills of the Caucuses, and dated to about 1.8 million years ago, are the oldest indisputable remains of humans discovered outside of Africa.
Related articles

CONTINUED....
Scipio

South Africa

#4 Nov 3, 2009
* Steve Connor: The story of humans unravels

But what has really excited the researchers is the discovery that these early humans (or "hominins") are far more primitive-looking than the Homo erectus humans that were, until now, believed to be the first people to migrate out of Africa about 1 million years ago.

The Dmanisi people had brains that were about 40 per cent smaller than those of Homo erectus and they were much shorter in stature than classical H. erectus skeletons, according to Professor David Lordkipanidze, general director of the Georgia National Museum. "Before our findings, the prevailing view was that humans came out of Africa almost 1 million years ago, that they already had sophisticated stone tools, and that their body anatomy was quite advanced in terms of brain capacity and limb proportions. But what we are finding is quite different," Professor Lordkipanidze said.

"The Dmanisi hominins are the earliest representatives of our own genus Homo outside Africa, and they represent the most primitive population of the species Homo erectus to date. They might be ancestral to all later Homo erectus populations, which would suggest a Eurasian origin of Homo erectus."

Speaking at the British Science Festival in Guildford, where he gave the British Council lecture, Professor Lordkipanidze raised the prospect that Homo erectus may have evolved in Eurasia from the more primitive-looking Dmanisi population and then migrated back to Africa to eventually give rise to our own species, Homo sapiens modern man.

"The question is whether Homo erectus originated in Africa or Eurasia, and if in Eurasia, did we have vice-versa migration? This idea looked very stupid a few years ago, but today it seems not so stupid," he told the festival.
Scipio

South Africa

#5 Nov 3, 2009
The scientists have discovered a total of five skulls and a solitary jawbone. It is clear that they had relatively small brains, almost a third of the size of modern humans. "They are quite small. Their lower limbs are very human and their upper limbs are still quite archaic and they had very primitive stone tools," Professor Lordkipanidze said. "Their brain capacity is about 600 cubic centimetres. The prevailing view before this discovery was that the humans who first left Africa had a brain size of about 1,000 cubic centimetres."

The only human fossil to predate the Dmanisi specimens are of an archaic species Homo habilis, or "handy man", found only in Africa, which used simple stone tools and lived between about 2.5 million and 1.6 million years ago.

"I'd have to say, if we'd found the Dmanisi fossils 40 years ago, they would have been classified as Homo habilis because of the small brain size. Their brow ridges are not as thick as classical Homo erectus, but their teeth are more H. erectus like," Professor Lordkipanidze said. "All these finds show that the ancestors of these people were much more primitive than we thought. I don't think that we were so lucky as to have found the first travellers out of Africa. Georgia is the cradle of the first Europeans, I would say," he told the meeting.

"What we learnt from the Dmanisi fossils is that they are quite small between 1.44 metres to 1.5 metres tall. What is interesting is that their lower limbs, their tibia bones, are very human-like so it seems they were very good runners," he said.

He added: "In regards to the question of which came first, enlarged brain size or bipedalism, maybe indirectly this information calls us to think that body anatomy was more important than brain size. While the Dmanisi people were almost modern in their body proportions, and were highly efficient walkers and runners, their arms moved in a different way, and their brains were tiny compared to ours.

"Nevertheless, they were sophisticated tool makers with high social and cognitive skills," he told the science festival, which is run by the British Science Association.

One of the five skulls is of a person who lost all his or her teeth during their lifetime but had still survived for many years despite being completely toothless. This suggests some kind of social organisation based on mutual care, Professor Lordkipanidze said.

the end...
Scipio

South Africa

#6 Nov 3, 2009
So a couple of years ago everyone thought that the "out of africa" theory is the most plausible one.

Now nobody is sure any longer, as the latest scientific proof disproves this.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/74...

The link above totally blows the "out of Africa" theory away.

The out of africa theory relies heavily on a specific fossil namely the Algeripithecus, which was said to be a human ancestor.

Now pay ettention.

This fossil was the ground work upon which the "out of Africa" theory rested.

BUT

Recent scientific studies have proved that is isn't a human ancestor at all.

This means that there is no longer any scientific basis at all to asume that the humans originated in Africa.

In fact it is now proven that all humans originated in Eurasia.
Scipio

South Africa

#8 Nov 3, 2009
Howzit Sid

Now keep in mind that reality is like a wall and that in order for a theory to slot into the wall, it has to fit with all the other evidence.

So what we have here is the end of the Out of Africa theory and this mountain of information fits like a hand in a glove to the fact that recent genetic studies have proved that there is a huge genetic difference between the races.

Basically the truth is very simple. Whether you are a Christian or not, if you are white and have spent a bit of time on the internet, where one has the ability to access information that has not been massaged or controlled, then you know by now that there is a huge conspiracy against the white race.

The whites are being set up for extinction. Even some black denialists should be aware of this by now. The goal is to create a NWO. A globalist, marxist empire. To do this the globalists have to create the illusion that all mankind are indentical. This is why we have seen all the lies about the "out of africa" theory and other lies such as genetic similarity.

Bring religion into it and you have to, because all this is in the book of Revelation and you see that today the focus is on multiculturalism, similar to the time of the tower of Babel.

All this to destroy the white race, because they are the Biblical Israelites and thus are hated by satan. Their goal is to eliminate the Israelites.

They will fail.

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation(G1074) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Above Jesus is talking about the end times. The word generation is translated form the Greek word "genea" (recognise the word gene)
The translation of genea to generations is incorrect.

The correct translation for the word genea is "race" as your genes determine your race. See how advanced the Bible is, if you understand the book.

Like Yahweh says, for the unbelievers the bible will be like a closed book. anyway I digress.

Thus Jesus is saying that this race will not disappear before the end times. the race that he is referring to is his own and he is Caucasian.
Nikki

Farmville, NC

#9 Nov 3, 2009
Scipio wrote:
Howzit Sid
Now keep in mind that reality is like a wall and that in order for a theory to slot into the wall, it has to fit with all the other evidence.
So what we have here is the end of the Out of Africa theory and this mountain of information fits like a hand in a glove to the fact that recent genetic studies have proved that there is a huge genetic difference between the races.
Basically the truth is very simple. Whether you are a Christian or not, if you are white and have spent a bit of time on the internet, where one has the ability to access information that has not been massaged or controlled, then you know by now that there is a huge conspiracy against the white race.
The whites are being set up for extinction. Even some black denialists should be aware of this by now. The goal is to create a NWO. A globalist, marxist empire. To do this the globalists have to create the illusion that all mankind are indentical. This is why we have seen all the lies about the "out of africa" theory and other lies such as genetic similarity.
Bring religion into it and you have to, because all this is in the book of Revelation and you see that today the focus is on multiculturalism, similar to the time of the tower of Babel.
All this to destroy the white race, because they are the Biblical Israelites and thus are hated by satan. Their goal is to eliminate the Israelites.
They will fail.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation(G1074) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Above Jesus is talking about the end times. The word generation is translated form the Greek word "genea" (recognise the word gene)
The translation of genea to generations is incorrect.
The correct translation for the word genea is "race" as your genes determine your race. See how advanced the Bible is, if you understand the book.
Like Yahweh says, for the unbelievers the bible will be like a closed book. anyway I digress.
Thus Jesus is saying that this race will not disappear before the end times. the race that he is referring to is his own and he is Caucasian.
BOY OH BOY OH BOY!!!

Is it WONDERFUL to see you again!!

Topix just got so interesting again. Nothing like "church and religion" LMAO
Scipio

South Africa

#10 Nov 4, 2009
Nikki wrote:
<quoted text>
BOY OH BOY OH BOY!!!
Is it WONDERFUL to see you again!!
Topix just got so interesting again. Nothing like "church and religion" LMAO
Thank you, thank you.

Man I miss the old days here on Topix.
I miss the debates we used to have.

Any statement I made would be met with an outraged scream of denial from the denialist corner.

Man I miss those debates. Not that the quality of boon debater was higher back then, as it was always piss poor, but the level of boon denialism was still absolute.

Those were the days. How times have changed.

Today they have all been beaten into submissiveness.

At best you find boons like BA debating about sweet nothings, idly slinging mud around, like a grade 5 school kid.

I mean look at this thread.

I boldly declared that science has proved that the "out of africa" theory is false and I return to this thread 20 hours later and what do I find.....

Absolutely nothing.

No takers at all.

The boons from 1 year ago would have responded with outrage at such impudence. Today it seems they know that resistance to scientific fact is futile.

hahahahahaha

They would much rahter prefer to keep the debate at a grade 5 level.

hahahahahaha

This is why I left Topix........boredom.
Lord Whiteman

South Africa

#11 Nov 4, 2009
Scipio wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, thank you.
Man I miss the old days here on Topix.
I miss the debates we used to have.
Any statement I made would be met with an outraged scream of denial from the denialist corner.
Man I miss those debates. Not that the quality of boon debater was higher back then, as it was always piss poor, but the level of boon denialism was still absolute.
Those were the days. How times have changed.
Today they have all been beaten into submissiveness.
At best you find boons like BA debating about sweet nothings, idly slinging mud around, like a grade 5 school kid.
I mean look at this thread.
I boldly declared that science has proved that the "out of africa" theory is false and I return to this thread 20 hours later and what do I find.....
Absolutely nothing.
No takers at all.
The boons from 1 year ago would have responded with outrage at such impudence. Today it seems they know that resistance to scientific fact is futile.
hahahahahaha
They would much rahter prefer to keep the debate at a grade 5 level.
hahahahahaha
This is why I left Topix........boredom.
Time mentioned that Ardi was the oldest common ancestor of humans,but seeing as Ardi is not a common ancestor of humans,I take it that the multiculturalists are well and truly fawked.
What are your thoughts on the multi-regional theory?

I understand they state that different races evolved from different ape ancestors,maby the jigsaws would fit better into the puzzle if they viewed the new findings from a multi-regional perspective.The out of Africa,out of Asia theories do not explain how exactly human populations managed to settle on every corner of the planet with only primitive technology.Someone care to explain how the out of Africa theory can explain exactly how it is that we find Aborigines in Australia?Or the Polenesians?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_or...
Scipio

South Africa

#12 Nov 4, 2009
Multi regionalism is the only theory that currently stands up to close scrutiny.
Lord Whiteman

South Africa

#13 Nov 4, 2009
Scipio wrote:
Multi regionalism is the only theory that currently stands up to close scrutiny.
Look at how little criticism there is towards the theory.

Ancient mitochondrial DNA sequence, extracted from 37,000 years old Neanderthal specimen, and mitochondrial DNA from present day humans have different sequence. However, the largest example of sequenced Neanderthal nuclear DNA comprised 1 million base pairs compared to a human nuclear genome size of roughly 3 billion base pairs. This amounts to a comparison of only 0.033% of the genomes.

In other words if the entire genome of the Neaderthal is mapped and there DNA is still of different sequence ie hinting at different paths of regional evolution,then the Multi-Regional theory is valid and true,however lets also note that unlike the Out Of Africa theory which has not found common sequence amongst Neaderthals[Common DNA sequence is required to prove the out of Africa theory]Multiregional theory actually has genetic proof added to its credibility.
Scipio

South Africa

#14 Nov 4, 2009
Let's put it in boon friendly terms. Look at the hundreds of different types of monkey that evolved in different regions.

Now superimpose that development on humans and you have human multi-regionalism.
Lord Whiteman

South Africa

#15 Nov 4, 2009
Scipio wrote:
Multi regionalism is the only theory that currently stands up to close scrutiny.
A4 you will find this funny as hell

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd...
I guess the people in Hawai[area B] must have flown to their location

Check this out
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20012/0514011.h...
Harding et al.(in Evidence for Variable Selective Pressure at MC1R, Amerian Journal of Human Genetics, 66:1351-61, 2000) studied the MC1R gene, which influences the pigmentation of eyes, hair, and skin. They found that all Africans, and tropical indigenes in general, had an ancestral form of the gene: there were NO non-synonymous alleles. Thus, they contend that MC1R is tightly constrained in the tropics; this implies that any indigenous population radiating 'Out of Africa' would have been black. By contrast, there were several alleles, at various frequencies among European populations, accounting for the observed ubiquity of white skin, and substantial frequency of light hair and eye colors. These alleles could ONLY have arisen in populations that left the tropics a very long time ago, or never lived there to begin with. It would have taken a long time for the mutations in these alleles to occur and then rise to the observed distribution. Harding et al. calculate that at least a hundred thousand years, and possibly more than twice that long, might be required for one of these alleles to reach its current frequency. I defy any population geneticist to produce a credible model of genetic mutation and diffusion that turns an all-black African population into an all-white European population in the 50 to 70 thousand years that current Out of Africa models permit!

THERE IS EVEN EVIDENCE THAT HOMO ERECTUS BRED WITH AFRICANS!
Nikki

Farmville, NC

#16 Nov 4, 2009
Scipio wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, thank you.
Man I miss the old days here on Topix.
I miss the debates we used to have.
Any statement I made would be met with an outraged scream of denial from the denialist corner.
Man I miss those debates. Not that the quality of boon debater was higher back then, as it was always piss poor, but the level of boon denialism was still absolute.
Those were the days. How times have changed.
Today they have all been beaten into submissiveness.
At best you find boons like BA debating about sweet nothings, idly slinging mud around, like a grade 5 school kid.
I mean look at this thread.
I boldly declared that science has proved that the "out of africa" theory is false and I return to this thread 20 hours later and what do I find.....
Absolutely nothing.
No takers at all.
The boons from 1 year ago would have responded with outrage at such impudence. Today it seems they know that resistance to scientific fact is futile.
hahahahahaha
They would much rahter prefer to keep the debate at a grade 5 level.
hahahahahaha
This is why I left Topix........boredom.
There isn't that many real boons to debate these days. When I first came to topix, these threads were hopping.
Mainly it's BA/Felix causing a charade on the threads.
Your posts are very interesting.
I don't know much about the "Out of Africa" debate. Tell me more about it if you would and how it fits in with the NWO. or does it not.
I need some mental stimuli that will make me "pace my kitchen"
LMAO
Scipio

South Africa

#17 Nov 4, 2009
Lord Whiteman wrote:
<quoted text>
A4 you will find this funny as hell
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd...
I guess the people in Hawai[area B] must have flown to their location
Check this out
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20012/0514011.h...
Harding et al.(in Evidence for Variable Selective Pressure at MC1R, Amerian Journal of Human Genetics, 66:1351-61, 2000) studied the MC1R gene, which influences the pigmentation of eyes, hair, and skin. They found that all Africans, and tropical indigenes in general, had an ancestral form of the gene: there were NO non-synonymous alleles. Thus, they contend that MC1R is tightly constrained in the tropics; this implies that any indigenous population radiating 'Out of Africa' would have been black. By contrast, there were several alleles, at various frequencies among European populations, accounting for the observed ubiquity of white skin, and substantial frequency of light hair and eye colors. These alleles could ONLY have arisen in populations that left the tropics a very long time ago, or never lived there to begin with. It would have taken a long time for the mutations in these alleles to occur and then rise to the observed distribution. Harding et al. calculate that at least a hundred thousand years, and possibly more than twice that long, might be required for one of these alleles to reach its current frequency. I defy any population geneticist to produce a credible model of genetic mutation and diffusion that turns an all-black African population into an all-white European population in the 50 to 70 thousand years that current Out of Africa models permit!
THERE IS EVEN EVIDENCE THAT HOMO ERECTUS BRED WITH AFRICANS!
You're right, it is funny as hell.

The thing with these crackpot theories, such as the out of africa theory, is that the establishment want you to belief in these theories. They do not actually want you to test the water so to speak. Under scrutiny these theories fall apart.

Essentially they want you to belief what you're told and not to question.
Uncle Rukus

South Africa

#18 Nov 4, 2009
Scipio wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, it is funny as hell.
The thing with these crackpot theories, such as the out of africa theory, is that the establishment want you to belief in these theories. They do not actually want you to test the water so to speak. Under scrutiny these theories fall apart.
Essentially they want you to belief what you're told and not to question.
The Out of Africa theory is called the Afrocentric Theory of evolution by the multiregionalists.Oddly enough multiregionalism is the dominant view of evolution in India.
Morris

Manchester, NH

#19 Nov 5, 2009
Scipio wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, thank you.
Man I miss the old days here on Topix.
I miss the debates we used to have.
Any statement I made would be met with an outraged scream of denial from the denialist corner.
Man I miss those debates. Not that the quality of boon debater was higher back then, as it was always piss poor, but the level of boon denialism was still absolute.
Those were the days. How times have changed.
Today they have all been beaten into submissiveness.
At best you find boons like BA debating about sweet nothings, idly slinging mud around, like a grade 5 school kid.
I mean look at this thread.
I boldly declared that science has proved that the "out of africa" theory is false and I return to this thread 20 hours later and what do I find.....
Absolutely nothing.
No takers at all.
The boons from 1 year ago would have responded with outrage at such impudence. Today it seems they know that resistance to scientific fact is futile.
hahahahahaha
They would much rahter prefer to keep the debate at a grade 5 level.
hahahahahaha
This is why I left Topix........boredom.
It just means the Ground Apes have been put in their place.
All Ground Apes really care about is tight visblek, loose shoes and a warm place to kak.
Anonymous

Adamsville, AL

#20 Apr 4, 2012
Scipio, it also turns out that our ancestors actually came from the middle east! This also proves the Bible correct because the Garden of Eden was located in the area of the middle east (namely around Iran).

Also, the Bible does make it clear that we're all related, it says God hath made "one blood of all nations" (Acts 17:26)(i.e. we're all related). We came from Adam and Eve, and later from Noah and his family.
But, what you're saying is that how they ("scientists") believe that we're all African is a illusion. That is correct, it is an illusion and the Out-of-Africa theory is not even provable. We're not all Africans! We came from the Garden of Eden (which is located in the middle east)!

Uh, Jesus wasn't white, Jesus was Jewish. His skin may have been olive colored.
messeupnegroes

Cape Town, South Africa

#22 Apr 7, 2012

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

South Africa Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Women's abortion clinic 0742638163 in midrand,h... 10 min dr drake 1
Dr. Drake 0742638163 Abortion clinic in vryburg... 18 min dr drake 1
Know your worth- Sugar daddy dating (Mar '14) 19 min loveeeeee 76
IBHENTSE/KUKU YASE Mtata (Jun '12) 45 min whatsapp me 07977... 1,310
thabo 1 hr JUNIOR 1
Women's abortion clinic 0742638163 in vosloorus... 1 hr dr drake 1
ikuku yasemonti (Dec '11) 1 hr Ma Ojays 4,571
More from around the web