The human skull that challenges the Out of Africa theory

a reply to: peter vlar

Thank you for a good response.

I want to say I agree. This case is not a reason ooa would be co sidered false.

However I do think there is reason to believe we don't have enough data to say we came out of Africa at a specific time and that there was no other possibility. Even with modern mtdna advancements.

As far as studies being falsified this is a quick example though hardly the only thing I am referring to.
bigthink.com...

The lack of researchers available was in reference to srudents working on phd's. This was at UT but the lecture involved several leading research schools.

Getting the same results doesn't seem to be related to what I am referring to. I was referring to the conclusion of the results.

Again. Why was ME chosen to be in east Africa? Rather than say Israel or Turkey.

Is it possible for entire genetic lines to be erased without our knowing? Without fossil record?

What is your opinion on the Fuyan Cave fossils? Is this in line with the migration theories?

a reply to: GetHyped

What?
No evidence?
What?
What?
Either you are completely wrong or completely ignorant

46% of the US population doesn't believe in evolution according to a 2014 Gallop poll

I live in an echo chamber ok

You?

What
What

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

Thank you for a good response.

I want to say I agree. This case is not a reason ooa would be co sidered false.

However I do think there is reason to believe we don't have enough data to say we came out of Africa at a specific time and that there was no other possibility. Even with modern mtdna advancements.

I've got to disagree with your assertion that there isn't enough data indicating an African origin for our genus. All of the evidence indicates East and South Africa as our origin point. There is no data indicating older remains originating in any other area of the world. There are some remains that when taken out of context could be viewed as such. This skull from the OP is a prime example.

I spent years studying Neanderthals and potential admixture events across Europe and I can say quite definitively that the skull in the OP is not from a H. Sapiens and does in fact have features which are known to be exhibited in neanderthal, H. Erectus and H. Heidelbergensis and that the time period it is attributed to is a period of transition in which this convergence of morphological characteristics is to be expected.

Getting the same results doesn't seem to be related to what I am referring to. I was referring to the conclusion of the results.

It goes hand in hand though. If someone takes your work and tries to reproduce your results independently, they aren't guaranteed to be coming to the same conclusions set the end if it all.

Again. Why was ME chosen to be in east Africa? Rather than say Israel or Turkey.

Because it's where the genetic data indicates her origin. It was based on actual hard data and not just arbitrary.

Is it possible for entire genetic lines to be erased without our knowing? Without fossil record?

There has been a recent discovery a year or two back when the Denisovan genome had been decoded where we learned that there is in fact another member of our genus that there are no physical remains for as yet. Their existence was discovered in the genetic code and provided evidence of another admixture event between H. Sapiens and the mystery hominid so yes, it's entirely possible that there are others out there. We only know about the Denisovan Cave find from a handful of teeth and finger bones.

What is your opinion on the Fuyan Cave fossils? Is this in line with the migration theories?

This is another issue of context. Much like the article from the OP touts the skull as the first "European" face, the same can be applied to Fuyan Cave. The entire find is premised on teeth alone. One can not make an appropriate assessment on morphology based on teeth alone. Especially when you can't properly assign a specific individual as the owner of those teeth and lack a full set. Without more physical remains or genetic testing being done I can't say one way or the other how Fuyan fits into the whole picture.

a reply to: peter vlar

All what evidence? What genetic markers in mtdna place eve in east Africa? Why not Yemen? Or Persia?

How can you tell what nomadic people did 200,000 years ago from such a small sample of bones? How do you know the bones were not destroyed in areas with civilizations? Or that the bones in east Africa were not nomads from Arabia? That those people in Africa did not migrate from elsewhere and live there for 1 million years? It seems strange humans would only evolve on one contenent. Especially with archaic humans out having environmental conditions and selective breeding mutating.

What other species don't create a new species when they interbreed? If humans bread with archaic humans wouldn't their offspring be hybrids? Creating a mutation? What about other archaic humans of different species interbredding? Or an archaic human with a hybrid? It's very easy to conclude these are very real possibilities regardless of what are current understanding of DNA is. If we study cultural anthropology we know slavery, marrying outsiders for the purpose of growing aligiances and resources and many other breeding purposes happen all the time in domestic scale culture causing mutations.

What geographic information is in DNA?

Why does being able to reproduce an expirement prove the conclusion? It doesn't.
Otherwise peer reviewed findings that later are proven false would never be overturned.

I could smash a rock conclude it is solid matter made up of tightly packed molecules with no space between them, look in an optical microscope and say look its true. It could be repeated. But I would be incorrect and future knowledge would prove that. It would also prove why I couldn't explain a lot of things. Like the changing of states of matter.

I am saying its the best theory we have but hardly a slam dunk. I just don't think the data poins are in a large enough scale to say its definitive.


I read about Fuyan in Nature. Not an obscure conspiracy site. It had a lot of interest from academics who think it's a game changer. Actual archaeologists.

Did you read the link about the inaccuracies of Modern scientific research?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
The OOA theory is kinda... well stupid and ignorant.

You say this but offer no evidence of why. Yeah it's so stupid and ignorant to claim hominids evolved in Africa and spread out in waves to the rest of the world when the fossil evidence shows exactly that. Please explain why the earliest fossils for each species are found in Africa if they didn't originate there? I just find it comical how people just blindly dismiss science because they don't like it. I swear 90% of the attacking of OOA is done for racial reasons, rather than scientific ones. Even the alleged skull in the OP has no evidence behind it.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
The OOA theory is kinda... well stupid and ignorant.

You say this but offer no evidence of why. Yeah it's so stupid and ignorant to claim hominids evolved in Africa and spread out in waves to the rest of the world when the fossil evidence shows exactly that. Please explain why the earliest fossils for each species are found in Africa if they didn't originate there? I just find it comical how people just blindly dismiss science because they don't like it. I swear 90% of the attacking of OOA is done for racial reasons, rather than scientific ones. Even the alleged skull in the OP has no evidence behind it.

I never said i don't like science, i support science as a matter of fact, What i don't support at all are the institutes that direct multiple branches of science.
Racialism could be one of reasons why some don't support the OOA theory, but this is neither the case for me (I live in a multicultural family if you like to know).

Why i find it irrational and ignorant is easy unless you close your eyes to all the proof we found on ancient civilizations that don't fit this theory.
I believe the evidence we found on the earliest humanoids is just the beginning of a new era after a worldwide natural catastrophe and it could well be that it wasn't the first time an extinction event happened. There are many archaeological finds which don't get recognized because they don't fit into the official establishment record of how life on earth evolved.

Maybe I should stop looking into the work of Graham Hancock, Carl Munck, Scott Creighton, Michael Cremo, Randall Carlson, J.A. West, Plato,....and start listening to Zahi Hawass??

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
Why i find it irrational and ignorant is easy unless you close your eyes to all the proof we found on ancient civilizations that don't fit this theory.

Which proven ancient civilizations don't fit the theory?

I believe the evidence we found on the earliest humanoids is just the beginning of a new era after a worldwide natural catastrophe and it could well be that it wasn't the first time an extinction event happened. There are many archaeological finds which don't get recognized because they don't fit into the official establishment record of how life on earth evolved.

Even if that is true, it does not conflict with out of Africa. When talking about OOA, we're talking about going back some 3-4 million years, it's not just about the homo sapiens. Homo Erectus was the first to leave Africa. I just don't see how an ancient civilization would conflict with that or evolution. Couldn't hominids have migrated out of Africa and started a civilization at any point during that timeline? Couldn't this new civilization be a possible reason for migrating? Either way, it doesn't change the fact that the fossil record clearly shows our origins in Africa both as a species and as genus. This could change if they find fossils outside of the African continent that date earlier than the members of the species found in Africa, but thus far it hasn't happened.

Generally it's the best practice to try to see how an idea fits with the science rather than automatically thinking that it's all wrong or a giant conspiracy. I don't see the conflict here and I'm one of the folks that does actually lean to the existence of Atlantis/Lemuria. 2 million years is a long time, spanning multiple glacial periods. Civilizations can come and go within a single century. Imagine the possibilities when analyzing millions of years instead of thousands.

a reply to: Barcs

The conflict would be in how much interbreeding was done between species of archaic humans amongst themselves and how much they interbread with modern humans. The hybridization process creating mutations in the genes (or rather having genes from both species). For instance its been found the Masai have neaderthal genes and Asians having more neaderthol genes than expected.

I think as we trace mtdna and y chromosome DNA we are going to find modern humans were a result of interbreeding. We haven't unlocked all the genetic coding of these species and don't have a large same base.

Right now ooa is the best theory. I don't know that it is nearly set in stone. For instance they recently foundneaderthal fossils in Siberia dated 100,000 years ago with modern human DNA. That certainly is puzzling.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

All what evidence? What genetic markers in mtdna place eve in east Africa? Why not Yemen? Or Persia?

The haplogroups tell us an approximation of the geography based on calculations of the mutation rate for MtDNA

How can you tell what nomadic people did 200,000 years ago from such a small sample of bones?

Because it's not all about bones. It's also about genetics, the molecular clock for calculating mutation rates, haplogroups and the degree of genetic diversity within a sample.

How do you know the bones were not destroyed in areas with civilizations?

I don't,that's why the fossil record isn't the only source of data. Just like we didn't know anything about H. Altaiensis or H. Floresiensis until a few years ago and the Red Deer Cave people, until recently. Lack of physical remains will always be an issue. But the genes can tell us so much more in some instances that nobody relies on just one data source.

Or that the bones in east Africa were not nomads from Arabia?

Because the genetics did not exhibit haplogroups or types associated with Arabia

That those people in Africa did not migrate from elsewhere and live there for 1 million years?

The oldest remains for any member of our genus are from E. Africa. There are not older hominids located anywhere on Earth, in older stratigraphic layers. All evidence shows that they stayed in Africa until ~ 1.8 MA which is when we find H. Erectus remains in the Caucuses. Prior to that there are no humans anywhere else on Earth. We then see several version of humanity pop up across Europe and Asia over the next million+ years. Neanderthal are of entirely European origin before making their way into W. Asia and the Middle East. Denisovans likewise, contributed their genetics to many people and likely back and forth with Neanderthals and H. Erectus as well.

What other species don't create a new species when they interbreed? If humans bread with archaic humans wouldn't their offspring be hybrids? Creating a mutation?

The offspring would be hybrids who would share genetics from both contributing parties. That's not a mutation though.

What about other archaic humans of different species interbredding? Or an archaic human with a hybrid? It's very easy to conclude these are very real possibilities regardless of what are current understanding of DNA is.

We KNOW that there were multiple episodes of genetic admixture starting with H. Sapiens and Neanderthal in the Levant and Iraq and moving into Europe. We know that H. Altaiensis(Denisovans) had admixture episodes with Asians and Melanesians. It's also extremely likely that all of us or at the very least, Neanderthal and Denisovan, had admixture episodes with H. Erectus as well since there were at one point a minimum of 5 or 6 extant species living contemporaneously across the globe. We also know that we have genetic markers residing in some people that belong to another type of human from Central Africa and that there are no physical remains from these people discovered as yet. Admixture is a known factor and not disputed in the Anthropological community.

If we study cultural anthropology we know slavery, marrying outsiders for the purpose of growing aligiances and resources and many other breeding purposes happen all the time in domestic scale culture causing mutations.

I find it interesting that you more or less chastised me at the beginning of your reply, stating that I couldn't really know what the migration patterns were for Pleistocene H. Sapiens but here you are attributing cultural aspects to them with no evidence leading to such a conclusion.

What geographic information is in DNA?

Haplogroups and genetic diversity are very clear indicators of geographical locus.

Why does being able to reproduce an expirement prove the conclusion? It doesn't.
Otherwise peer reviewed findings that later are proven false would never be overturned.

If your work can be independently reproduced and the same conclusions are reached, then not only is the data solid but it hasn't been overturned via peer review. It has instead been substantiated.

I could smash a rock conclude it is solid matter made up of tightly packed molecules with no space between them, look in an optical microscope and say look its true. It could be repeated. But I would be incorrect and future knowledge would prove that. It would also prove why I couldn't explain a lot of things. Like the changing of states of matter.

And when peer reviewed, the methodology would be heavily criticized and the paper would not be very likely to be published unless you were submitting to a "pay to play" publication that just publishes any paper if you're willing to fork over the cash and forgo peer review. Please see the quoted portion from your link at the bottom of my reply...

I am saying its the best theory we have but hardly a slam dunk. I just don't think the data poins are in a large enough scale to say its definitive.

You're certainly entitled to believe that but the fact remains that all of the data points to an African origin for all members of the genus Homo. H. Erectus made it to Europe nearly 2 MA and spread across the globe from there. The group of people with the highest degree of genetic diversity hail from Southern Africa, the Khoi-San. They didn't emigrate there from Yemen or Arabia or Persia and their genetic diversity gives us access to the only genomes in the entire world devoid of any admixture. This isn't true for all members of this population, there was a back migration from Europe back into Africa 3 KA +/- that did introduce a limited degree of Neanderthal genes into the population but the vast majority have no admixture at all. Please show me some evidence from Asia, Arabia, Europe or N. America that shows remains with "newer" morphology that is located in older strata and there's a definite conversation to be had. Right now though, the physical evidence and the genetic evidence are very clear that our genus has its origins in Africa.

originally posted by: peter vlar

I read about Fuyan in Nature. Not an obscure conspiracy site. It had a lot of interest from academics who think it's a game changer. Actual archaeologists.

I never said it wasn't interesting. I only stated that based on dentition alone, its very difficult to make any concrete assertions regarding the find.

Did you read the link about the inaccuracies of Modern scientific research?

Yes, I did. I thought that this section was fairly pertinent...

Thankfully science is self-correcting. Over time, findings are replicated or not replicated and the truth comes out in the wash. This is done through a process of replication involving larger, better controlled trials, meta-analyses where the data from many trials are aggregated and analyzed as a whole, and systematic reviews where studies are assessed based on predetermined criteria — preventing the cherry picking that we're all, whether we like it or not, so naturally inclined to.

Replications, meta-analyses and systematic reviews are by their nature far more useful for portraying an accurate picture of reality than original exploratory research. But systematic reviews rarely make headlines, which is a good reason the news is not the best place to get an informed opinion about matters of science. The problem is unlikely to go away any time soon, so whenever you hear about a new piece of science news, remember the principles above and the simple rule of thumb that studies of studies are far more likely to present a true picture of reality than individual pieces of research.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Barcs

The conflict would be in how much interbreeding was done between species of archaic humans amongst themselves and how much they interbread with modern humans. The hybridization process creating mutations in the genes (or rather having genes from both species). For instance its been found the Masai have neaderthal genes and Asians having more neaderthol genes than expected.

And conversely, its been found that the majority of Khoi-San have absolutely no evidence of admixture along with the highest degree of genetic diversity of any group of people on the planet. This shows us what "pure" HSS genetics look like.

I think as we trace mtdna and y chromosome DNA we are going to find modern humans were a result of interbreeding. We haven't unlocked all the genetic coding of these species and don't have a large same base.

There's no question at all that we are the product of admixture with any of several archaic human species. It's why humans of today are Homo Sapiens Sapiens, not H. Sapiens.

Right now ooa is the best theory. I don't know that it is nearly set in stone. For instance they recently foundneaderthal fossils in Siberia dated 100,000 years ago with modern human DNA. That certainly is puzzling.

do you have a citation for 100KA Neanderthal sequencing with HSS contribution? The klast I had heard, the oldest HN DNA that had been sequenced was only ~48KA

a reply to: peter vlar

how do haplogroups show geographic region?

Entire genomes of archaic humans have not been deciphered. We continue to find evidence that we don't have close to the whole story.

Bones may not be the only dating and locational tools but that's not exactly true is it? If we don't have bones to study we can't place geographic location of species or study the genome.

I was not chastising you at all. I value your knowledge quite a bit and can learn plenty from you. I just don't believe modern humans were created in Africa per SAE. I think it was the hybridization of archaic humans. I don't believe the whole story of admixture and even what it truly means for the mutation and hybridization of Modern humans is.

My referral to cultural anthropology was that nomadic people are hard to define a geographic location to. Neanderthals having influenced genomes across thousands and thousands of miles is amazing. The replacement theory has some issues IMO. Tribal people used a form of eugenics to breed traits into their cultures. The Mandingo for instance.

The 100ka example I was referring too was this.news.discovery.com...

Why didn't the dna show this before? Because we hadn't found the fossils to examine.

Theoretically the oldest bones in the world could be from say Thailand. Have not been found yet and deteriorate because of climate. I understand it is unlikely.

I disagree with many of your statements maybe out of ignorance and certainly don't mean disrespect though it may seem so since my education is limited to a 101 physical anthropology class and a few years of cultural anthropology.

I personally have a theory we don't know all that much yet and are only at the very beginning of genetic understanding. I think as more bones are found and more DNA studied we will have a better understanding.

I just read a very interesting article on a study of African american s from South Carolina and the study of the y chromosomes. I will try and find it and post it.

Also you missed my point about replicating data. 175 years ago I would have been correct about matter. When we invented the electron microscope all that changed. The hypothetical expirement was provable and the conclusion was valid until it wasn't. Sometimes scientists present things as fact. Or people who like science do.

The article about false data was very disturbing because these things have to do with drugs, psychology, and things more important to get right for the safety of patients and consumers than DNA of ancient humans. It also goes on to say some individuals do it knowingly.

You are right though and my opinion is in 30 years we won't be calling this a replacement theory or ooa.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Barcs

The conflict would be in how much interbreeding was done between species of archaic humans amongst themselves and how much they interbread with modern humans. The hybridization process creating mutations in the genes (or rather having genes from both species). For instance its been found the Masai have neaderthal genes and Asians having more neaderthol genes than expected.

I think as we trace mtdna and y chromosome DNA we are going to find modern humans were a result of interbreeding. We haven't unlocked all the genetic coding of these species and don't have a large same base.

Right now ooa is the best theory. I don't know that it is nearly set in stone. For instance they recently foundneaderthal fossils in Siberia dated 100,000 years ago with modern human DNA. That certainly is puzzling.

I still don't see how any of that conflicts with OOA. Can you please explain how? The fact that they interbred in the first place is evidence FOR OOA. It clearly shows a group of hominids leaving Africa, evolving to adapt to the new environment, and then eventually another group leaves Africa and breeds with the originals. Thus far both your posts support OOA more than they conflict, but you seem sure it's a stupid ignorant idea. I'm not honestly sure why folks are so adamant that OOA is wrong despite all evidence pointing to it and no evidence of the contrary.

Also, why would it be a surprise to find modern human DNA, 100,000 years ago? Homo sapiens date back 200,000 years and Neanderthals 200,000-400,000.

You gotta do better than, "we might not know the whole story". That's pretty much a given in most fields of science and it's a huge leap from "OOA is ignorant and stupid". I haven't read anything anywhere to suggest that OOA hypothesis is ignorant OR stupid. I agree it's not the whole story.

Personally the only thing that don't fully agree with in OOA is the idea that there were a few big migrations. I think the migrations were almost constant, however there was definitely a big one around 70,000 years ago when the Toba super volcano blew. This would have affected a large amount of Asia and Africa. It's Likely the cause of the homo erectus extinction, the homo sapien genetic bottleneck, and possibly even what drove the future eskimos and native americans north toward the arctic.

a reply to: Barcs

Ooa says modern humans came out of Africa and replaced the archaic humans. It states that the mutation was soley in africa from archaic humans to modern man. I think your saying early man came out of Africa. I don't despute that at all.

What I am saying is a I don't think modern humans came out of Africa in waves 70,000 years ago. I am not sure modern humans came out of Africa is what I am saying. I also am suggestion mutations and interbreeding of archaic humans could be the cause of Modern humans and didn't necessarily happen in Africa. I dont understand why Africa would be the place this happens when archaic humans already were interacting outside of Africa and that enviornmental changes and breeding habits create mutation so why only in Africa did archaic humans evolve into modern man?


io9.gizmodo.com...

Also ad the article I just gave of homosapien DNA in a 100ka neaderthal from Siberia.

See now you are losing me with the terminology. What is a modern human? What is an archaic human? Are you saying homo sapien vs neanderthal? You really need to clear that up because human is a very broad term. It can mean the entire homo genus, or it can just mean homo sapiens. Some also use modern human to strictly refer to humans within the last 30,000 years.

originally posted by: luthier
It states that the mutation was soley in africa from archaic humans to modern man.

The mutation? What mutation? Homo sapiens are born with about 100 genetic mutations per individual per generation. There wasn't some sudden big mutation that changed the species, they adapted to a different environment over tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. I don't think OOA says anything about a single mutation happening in Africa only. Obviously the ones that left Africa experienced mutations outside of Africa and adapted (evolved) to the different environment.

What I am saying is a I don't think modern humans came out of Africa in waves 70,000 years ago. I am not sure modern humans came out of Africa is what I am saying.

It wasn't just 70,000 years ago. It happened numerous times, with numerous species.

I also am suggestion mutations and interbreeding of archaic humans could be the cause of Modern humans and didn't necessarily happen in Africa.

Nobody said that mutations and interbreeding only happened in Africa. Evolution happens no matter where they were. The common ancestor of Neanderthals and humans left Africa hundreds of thousands of years before homo sapien. Erectus left more than a million years prior. Nobody is suggesting that they only evolved in Africa, just that the earliest homo sapien fossils were found there, so that's the origin (unless you mean something else by modern human).

I dont understand why Africa would be the place this happens when archaic humans already were interacting outside of Africa and that enviornmental changes and breeding habits create mutation so why only in Africa did archaic humans evolve into modern man?

Again, the terminology is a little vague, but if you're talking Neanderthal, homo sapien did not directly evolve from them. They are more like a cousin or sister species. They left Africa more than 100,000 years before homo sapiens did. They branched off from their genetic line. They then later met back up and bred with them. It doesn't matter where they bred, the origin of BOTH Neanderthal AND Homo sapien (their common ancestor) is Africa.

There are also several sub Saharan tribes in Africa that never migrated out and hence never bred with Neanderthal. They are more homo sapien than the rest of us, but keep in mind; Neanderthal DNA only makes up 2-5% of the genome. You basically have homo sapien sapien and homo sapien neanderthal. Interbreeding definitely played a role getting us to where we are today, but that doesn't make OOA wrong or mean the origin isn't Africa.

The article you posted mentions the teeth from Siberia, but I thought that those teeth ended up being a different species, Denisovan. Either way it doesn't make OOA wrong, it would just mean that homo sapiens left Africa earlier than originally thought, not that they originated somewhere else. The article title is VERY misleading. It only slightly modifies the evolutionary timeline, it doesn't undermine the theory.

a reply to: Barcs

Just one mild correction I need to point out. Neanderthal were never in Africa. They evolved solely in Eurasia. Some eventually migrated to the Levant and Middle East but like H. Sapiens, they evolved from earlier H. Heidelbergensis. We did so in East and South Africa whereas Neanderthal did so in Eurasia. We are separated from HN by bat 600-700 KA Everything else was pretty spot on though. To me, when referring to humans, I'm typically using it to refer to the entire gamut of our genus unless I'm being more specific. With that in mind, "humans" have been leaving Africa for nearly 2 MA. H. Georgicus is dated to 1.8 MA in the Caucuses so H. Erect us had to have left Africa before 1.8 MA

a reply to: peter vlar

How is neaderthal DNA in Masai tribes and East African tribes?

Obviously if they found a neaderthal from 100kawith human DNA the timeline is wrong.

The ooa is the timeline of homosapien exit from Africa. It's wrong. And chances are the whole theory is quite off.

I can't believe that was the response from both of you when I presented as being false already.

Sure we came out of Africa millions of years ago but that's not the ooa theory now is it.

There is more correlating data showing we exited more than 100ka which puts the theoryat odds with its hypothesis. Not to mention how much more interbreeding is being found in the last decade as we decipher parts of archaic man's genome

a reply to: peter vlar

Thanks, I went back and edited the post to reflect that it was the common ancestor of Neanderthal and human that had the earlier migration out of Africa.

The way I see it, the only way to disprove OOA would be to find fossils in Europe or Asia that date earlier than the oldest hominid fossils in Africa, or to prove that another human-like species evolved separately from the homo genus in Europe, then they somehow bred together, but that doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. I doubt the DNA would be compatible and something like that would be obvious in the genome.

a reply to: Barcs

Homo sapien and neaderthal are two different species and we know they interbread. As well as other archaic humans and homo sapiens and archaic humans amongst themselves.

Also we don't actively look for bones for the most part. They are found by farmers, builders, explorers, etc. Some countries don't even allow international paleontology groups.

The whole concept I am saying is we don't have very much data considering the amount of time we are studying. Homosapiens mist likely did not just spring out of East Africa IMO.

I still haven't heard an explanation as to how or why that happened. I believe a hybrid version of the multi regional theory and ooa was responsible for the change into homo sapien sapiens. Moat likely homo sapiens as well.

a reply to: luthier

Altering the time line by 30,000 years doesn't make the whole thing wrong. Evolutionary timelines are modified all the time. No matter how you look at it, the earliest fossils have been found in Africa. That is direct hard proof. You need to show evidence of a homo sapien fossil that is older and found outside of Africa in order to counter OOA.

You weren't specific enough in your terminology, because science has broken it down into OOA1 and OOA2 now. OOA1 refers to the homo genus, and OOA2 refers only to homo sapiens. I'm not sure why you assumed that OOA only referred to homo sapiens, but either way you did NOT present that as being false, and both 1 and 2 are backed by hard evidence.

I still haven't heard an explanation as to how or why that happened. I believe a hybrid version of the multi regional theory and ooa was responsible for the change into homo sapien sapiens. Moat likely homo sapiens as well.

I still haven't seen you present any evidence that counters the theory. What do you need an explanation for, specifically? Your terminology is incredibly vague and it's hard to decipher.