Re-Examining the "Out Of Africa" Origin of Europeoids

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+5 more 
posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
www.academia.edu...

atlanteangardens.blogspot.com.au...

Excerpted:
Australian historian Greg Jefferys explains that, "The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still hold on to it."

It did begin the early 90’s. And the academics most responsible for cementing both the Out-of Africa theory and the complementary common ancestral African mother – given the name of “Eve” – in the public arena and nearly every curriculum, were Professors Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann.

In their defense, the authors of this paper were fully aware that genealogy is not in any way linked to geography, and that their placement of Eve in Africa was an assumption, never an assertion.

A very recent paper on Y-chromosomes published in 2012, (Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) only confirms the denial of any African ancestry in non-Africans, and strongly supports the existence of a “common ancestor” who “would not necessarily be in Africa. In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa.”



(If this is in the wrong section please move it!)

Now before anyone expects me to be able to converse in halo types excetera....well I can't. But this is a stunning find by the geneticists!
I had no idea I'd been fibbed to by the original "EVE" authors!

Right there I got hooked, mystery DNA? Unknown ancestor?
WOW!




posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

You're a racist!!


There's an agenda in academia to distort the truth by learning 'consensus science'. It's unfortunate that one requires a degree to 'get ahead' in this life ... or make it on your own.

Always interesting to stumble across a clique of folks who have immunized themselves from mainstream thought.

Early S&F

-Cheers



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Caver78



I had no idea I'd been fibbed to by the original "EVE" authors!


Keep digging!



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

I have written about this often on ATS and other places but was sometimes used as an accusation of 'racism' by some.

It isn't racism it is truthism.

I have studied genetics, genealogy, anthropology to an extent that I have known for a while that OOA isn't feasible and that there is a vast picture of genetics and migration that humanity is just touching on so far, like a few pieces of a 1000+ piece puzzle.

Theoretical science is all well and good as long as it is understood as theoretical rather than fact. All too often I have seen educational text and MSM documentaries etc that stated these and other theories as factual when they aren't, they are hypothetical.

The fact they are known for pushing particular biased hypotheses instead of giving the true picture of hypothetical possibilities confirms there is an agenda, especially when it is seen across the board in many areas of research, education and MSM.

Governments or organisations choosing which theories to push isn't a true democracy and isn't giving true picture that enables individuals to think freely on the possibilities.

Such agendas also affects the research that is done, as we know, it is paid for by organisations that are often government funded.

There is vast information being held from the public.
edit on 30-7-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth



There is vast information being held from the public.


Such as?

You do realize that the scientists* who published the report above would be 'considered a mainstream' scientists - so why are they not part of the 'agenda'?

*I have not investigated who he is but will at this time accept that he is what he claims. However, his publication was a self publication and not in a peer reviewed journal. It is also two years old so I'm wondering what the counter-arguments have been?
edit on 30/7/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Obviously I realise that most scientists and research are 'mainstream' but the point is that the information that is pushed to the public is agenda based choice instead of a broad spectrum of research, which gives a more accurate picture.

Here is an example I used in a previous thread.

Fact: water is blue

Fact: most textbooks, including many in education are still saying colourless, which is a lie, water is blue.

On the OOA subject. I know there is research that has archaeological finds older than those of the hypothetical OOA 'Eve', and that OOME has more solid possibilities based on the same presumptions as OOA.

However, MSM and edu science is pushing OOA mitochondrial 'Eve' as a 'definite', which is a falsism, it is a presumption.

Recently prof Brian Cox was on UK tv saying just that, ''we know for certain that...'' etc when he should have said '' a possibility is that..'' ''there are other possibilities..'' etc.

Another example,

It used to be sold as 'fact' in education that the Universe wasn't expanding. Then thanks to Hubble, that is was expanding, though as a constant.

Now the facts are, that the rate of expansion in the Universe is ACCELERATING. There are still some old school folks that disagreed that, even on ATS as that was their education and they wouldn't believe otherwise.



originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: theabsolutetruth



There is vast information being held from the public.


You do realize that the scientists* who published the report above would be 'considered a mainstream' scientists - so why are they not part of the 'agenda'?

*I have not investigated who he is but will at this time accept that he is what he claims.
edit on 30-7-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Thanks everyone!

Obviously due to the grant & funding process we've been bamboozled before now. I just never expected it to cut to the root of the homo sapien tree! If I had a nickel for every time I'd been preached "at" the archeological "facts" which over the last eight or so years have been reversed, or it was found out things were heavily biased I'd be in Disney World.




At this rate of discovery absolutely everything I "know" will have been proven to be a falsehood and I'm going to die dumber than I was before kindergarden.

The "mystery dna" intrigues me tho...I'm aware neanderthal skeletons have been found that can't exactly be categorized yet. Mostly they IIRC are a combination of older homo genius's. ( bad explanation but I read it in some archeology forums & googled) That currently it's flip a nickel who the unknown donator ancestor was just boggles my mind.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

How do you know this guy is right and not biased versus the other people who have put out other theories whom you seem to be saying are biased?

How do you know this?



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Hanslune I haven't had time YET to go digging for those arguments & commentary. Two years is enough time plenty of people should have weighed in by now.

You have a very valid point and usually it's something I'd of included in the OP, it's just I stumbled across this earlier and was just shocked.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Well either we came from Africa, or we were created/modified by aliens.




most textbooks, including many in education are still saying colourless, which is a lie, water is blue


Water is clear, I never heard anyone dispute it before. Just like mitochondrial DNA is pretty definitive.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Caver78

How do you know this guy is right and not biased versus the other people who have put out other theories whom you seem to be saying are biased?

How do you know this?


I don't...yet...don't ever underestimate someones 'shock" at finding out a very basic fact was an assumption. The paper on EVE placed our origins in AFRICA as a assumption out of the gate and THAT currently is what I'm flummoxed over, that the genetics conclusion of the russian paper may be accurate would be the SECOND shocker!

(may not have said that correctly but hope you get the gist?)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

There is no proof of humanity originating in Africa, all that was based on the presumed 'oldest' find, though there are more recent finds elsewhere, such as in Israel and Spain that predate these, which means, if using the same equation as the OOA theory, it would now be OOME or OOS.

Water is blue, fact. I posted links to the science articles about this on another thread recently. We see things the colour they are due to the reflection and absorption of light, water is blue in such a way.

www1.lsbu.ac.uk...


Water is very slightly blue in color [131]c as overtone and combination vibrational absorption bands (albeit far less intense, see above [130]) extend through the red part of the visible spectrum with a small peak at 739 nm and shoulder at 836 nm, plus a smaller fourth overtone of the v1:v3 stretch at 606 nm, and very small fifth overtone (at 514 nm) and combined overtone (at 660 nm) bands.
These overtone and combination vibrational bands increase and sharpen somewhat with increasing temperature [268] in line with the expectation from the two state water model. This absorption spectrum of water (red light absorbs 100 times more than blue light), together with the five-times greater scattering of blue light over red light, contributes to the blue color of lake, river and ocean waters. Colloidal silica may contribute to the outstanding blue color of certain, often hydrothermal, pools and lakes [372]. Ice is also blue [159] for similar reasons but liquid D2O does not absorb in the red region (as the absorption band is shifted into the infrared) and is blue solely because of the light scattering effect [159].
edit on 30-7-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Surprise surprise eggheads some times get egg on their face just like human beings.....
Of course we all subscribe to an artificial reality which we all agree upon and propagate.....we aren't that advanced that we can actually think for ourselves yet........
March to the current tune or be ostracised.....



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I'm not seeing any proof what-so-ever, just vague allusions to a vast scientific coverup and preemptive 'I'm not a racist, but...' type responses. It's difficult not to question the motives behind something like this.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
David Icke claims "whites" came from Mars and settled in the Caucasus Mountains (thus called Caucasians), started the Sumner Civilization, migrated to India, Egypt, and Europe. Then again he also claims were ruled by shape shifting reptilians... I think the nazis claimed whites came from Antarctica.

I wonder if we will ever truly know?

Wasn't Eve(from Africa) proved to be related to everyone?
edit on 30-7-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Monger
I'm not seeing any proof what-so-ever, just vague allusions to a vast scientific coverup and preemptive 'I'm not a racist, but...' type responses. It's difficult not to question the motives behind something like this.


I think it's simply ego. The, "I'm right, unless you you can prove me wrong" thingy ... followed up by, "Oh yeah!! Well give me a better theory, and I'll shoot holes in yours too!!"

It's usually the last idiot willing to argue who 'wins'. There's your (our) conspiracy. You want to shut 'em down? Tell 'em to prove it in the lab or STFU. It just doesn't work easily in academia ... and you will be ostracized the moment those words pass your lips.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

The OOA theory was pushed to the public at the displacement of the Multiregional hypothesis, which includes factoring in such archaics as Neanderthal, Denisovan etc (there is recent proof of this).

OOA mt Eve theories aren't supportive of these ancestry factors and are based on flimsy, flawed interpretations of genetics and time lines.

I suggest reading this article, from an anthropologist.

www.livinganthropologically.com...


In introductory classes to biological anthropology, both instructors and the authors of numerous textbooks have been tempted to present the origin of modern humans as two equally plausible, mutually exclusive evolutionary scenarios: the Out of Africa hypothesis and the Multiregional Evolution hypothesis. These models can be expressed succinctly on a single PowerPoint slide, have historically been both suggested and supported by influential scholars in the field, and can be massively simplified for undergraduate consumption and, hopefully, comprehension. The good news is this: we can stop doing this now. The bad news is that a more current representation of the consensus that most researchers have reached is likely to be more complex and convoluted. In addition, it can likely only be represented by models of human evolution destined to befuddle introductory students everywhere, complete with multiple slides, wandering migration arrows, question marks, and unapologetic blank spaces. (One Year in Biological Anthropology: Species, Integration, and Boundaries in 2010, 214)

The 2010-2012 studies could have been a boon to anthropology if we had defended the multiregional model, but they now put some standard anthropological accounts in an awkward position. Embracing the replacement hypothesis and Mitochondrial Eve–without further developing the multiregional model–leaves anthropology needing to reconfigure a response.

In retrospect, embracing the replacement hypothesis and Mitochondrial Eve was very problematic for anthropology. Although these problems should have been more obvious earlier, they are painfully clear in 2012:




Kathleen Fuller, PhD • 2 years ago
This is a good overview. I am among the small group of anthropologists who never succumbed to the lure of mtEve. It made no sense, and I am glad that further genetic analysis has supported the inclusion of so-called archaics into modern human diversity. I lost respect for Gould when he came out in support of mtEve; mtEve was clearly a 'creation' event, not an example of speciation, and, therefore, not scientific. I was shocked when so many anthropologists jumped on board the mtEve, recent out-of-Africa bandwagon. Fortunately, my current and former students will not have to re-learn that Neanderthals were part of modern human heritage since that is what I've always taught.
edit on 30-7-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Monger

The first link in the OP is the science abstract, read the first paragraph....it's pretty straightforward.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Thanks AbsoluteTruth for explaining things, I've read some about the new finds in Spain and was just transfixed. Wish they'd release more info faster.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
RACIST!!!


No just kidding


It only makes sense that there would be a common ancestor but white and black people are as different as well white and black, were all humans but obviously there are major differences.

i am 29 and all in high school and some collage i heard the EVE story told as gospal truth, and i believed it. the time and way it was presented seemed logical.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join