NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » Race Realism » Did we come from Australasia?

Did we come from Australasia?

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 244 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

Charles Darwin

Denis Noble

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

by Phil78 3179 words

In a recent response to the MCU7  genetic admixture from Archaic, it has been argued that if this entered the Sub Saharan Genome at 145 kya, every population by OOA standards should have it.

Not necessarily, as the study noted how their findings conform to recent findings that actually ground African Origins.

Our finding agrees with recent reports of such an introgression in
sub Saharan African populations (Hammer et al. 2011; Hsieh et al. 2016), as well as the
unexpectedly old human remains (Hublin et al. 2017) and lineages (Schlebusch et al. 2017).

In other words, what I’m thinking is that this connects somewhere with the Basal human component model for West Africans and some LSA finds, though that is for another day.

Now, as for the alternative model that I’ve seen advertise by the site RedIce, we now come to a recent newcomer, Bruce Fenton.

Now, before I begin my criticism of his premise of a new “paradigm”, I like to say that the reviews I’ve seen (Amazon) he certainly seems to have talent in writing. However, reading this article, and other summaries of his model, I must say I’m not tempted to buy his book based on his confidence of his basic model “filling in holes” in OOA and treating it debunked, especially when his sources all more or less can be conformed into OOA 2.

First, let us go into how he rules out both Africa and Europe due to recent Neanderthal DNA  from Neanderthals from Spain.

Research by the geneticists Benoit Nabholz, Sylvain Glémin, and Nicolas Galtier has revealed significant problems with scientific studies that rely heavily on genetic material alone, divorced from the physical examination of fossils (especially in the accuracy of dating by molecular clocks).[i] We are however fortunate to have a 2013 research project from Indiana University, headed by well-respected evolutionary biologist Aida Gómez-Robles at our disposal: a comparative analysis of European hominin fossil teeth and jawbones. The Indiana University project concluded that all the fossil hominins in Europe were either Neanderthals or directly ancestral to Neanderthals – not ancestors of Homo sapiens. We must understand that while respective groups in Africa match European hominin populations, this revelation discounted all known African hominins as being ancestors of modern humans. The morphological research also provided further shock – the divergence between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals had apparently begun as early as one million years before present.

Odd how he made that leap when the researcher he cites actually says otherwise on Africa as a candidate.

From the new study’s results, Gómez-Robles says that “we think that candidates have to be looked for in Africa.” At present, million-year-old fossils attributed to the prehistoric humans H. rhodesiensis and H. erectus look promising.

Fenton then further mention Denisovan diverging, using DNA, as 800k and the places the ancestor of all three between 700-900.

His Response? This finding from China.

The first possible answer to this ‘where to look’ question came in July 2016 with scientist Professor Zhao Lingxiain, whose research group announced they had identified modern human fossil remains at the Bijie archaeological site ranging up to 180,000 years old.[i] Not only were they digging up fragments of modern humans, but also evidence of other mysterious hominin forms. The Chinese paleoanthropologists suspected that some of the recovered fossils might even be from the mysterious Denisovans, previously identified in Siberia.[i] Could modern humans have first emerged in East Asia? It has certainly begun to look like this might be the case. My independent investigative research carried out over the last several years, however, disagrees: my work places the first Homo sapiens in Australasia.

For the context of how this can still conform to OOA, the actual range was 112k to 178k, and while this muddies the typical 50k to 80k migration it can still fit in the 90k to 130k Migration of the Levant that was presumed to have all been wiped out.

Back in 1982, two of the most renowned evolutionary scientists of the modern age, Professor Alan Wilson and his understudy, Rebecca Cann, discovered compelling evidence for an Australasian genesis for modern humans. These controversial findings never emerged in any of their academic papers; in fact, they only appear in a short transcript included in a book published in the same year by two British research scientists, The Monkey Puzzle: A Family Tree. Silence does not change facts, and the fact remains that there is compelling DNA evidence pointing towards Australasia as the first home of Homo sapiens. Indeed, so much data exists that it eventually led to my controversial new book, The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution. My research colleagues and myself have uncovered overwhelming evidence that places the first modern humans in Australasia, and with them several other advanced hominin forms.

There might be some temptation to dismiss this matter out of hand, as it can be difficult accepting that leading academics have got it so wrong. It is, however, important to understand that in every case the opposing arguments against the current consensus position are based on, or supported by, peer-reviewed studies or statements given by consensus academics. Could it be that the year 2016 will one day be known as the year that the Out of Africa paradigm died?

If 2016 becomes associated with the end of one scientific paradigm, then 2017 may become related to the emergence of a new model for human origins, one that I am proposing and have termed ‘Into Africa’. My Into Africa theory is closely related to the ‘Out of Australia’ theory formulated by two of my Australian collaborators, Steven and Evan Strong, but goes significantly further down the rabbit hole of our evolutionary story.

I’d wish he supported this unreplicated genetic study (as far as I know) with actual archaeological continuity in Australasia because so far, pre-sapiens people there are generally  Erectus-like, his own sources on the matter supporting that view.

He summarizes both Multiregional and OOA theory (single recent origin), then proceeds to his own.

[UPDATE– Something that I pondered was exactly what pattern of migration did Cann produce? Well, based on two articles produced by Steve Strong, who I believe is an associate of Fenton, shows that my suspicions were correct.

The pattern found was Australoids- Mongoloids- Caucasians, Negroids/SSA, the opposite of Fenton’s Framework. I figured that, regardless of where Australians fit, the affinity of groups wouldn’t change. Strong has another article in which he uses a paper linking origins to Australia which was covered on this blog here as well as covering Denisovans which, as I shown in this post, to fit fine in OOA 2 aside from some complications in mapping precisely the nature of smaller migration into SE Asia.

Regarding Cain’s findings as a whole, the sample size of the study was one among many that were small and covered a week range of the Native’s populations in general, as discussed and somewhat ameliorated here.

With that realized, study after study after study places them in a 50k-55k Time Frame, more or less consistent with Archaeological dates, may LM3 (Mungo Man) be either 40k or 60k. It must also be kept in mind that Cann’s findings existed prior to the knowledge of Denisovan admixture, which possibly could’ve skewed divergence dates, as explained by Dienekes. This gives a good reason for Cann’s findings to be seen as erroneous. In regards to Strong’s citing of Vanderburg, it shows his specialty in this sort of work if “unique haplotypes” aren’t a natural result of human differentiation.

Regarding Archaeology from both articles, Strong makes the point of even earlier findings not popularly reported in Australia, ranging from 60-135k for fossils, older for tools and scorching. Not only are these younger than the currently oldest Sapiens in Africa, but also in the time frame of a currently known exodus into SE Asia discussed in the post, even if they were legit as I’ll dive into detail.

Reference of certain sites of >100k estimates has been shown to be much more recent, being originally confounded by less accurate techniques. The same could apply to cremated bones listed as well. This leaves the mysterious “Lake Eyre Skullcap” by Steve Webb which, as far as I can tell, has been only scarcely covered. However, only in that source is it reported as that old, as both newspapers and scientific newsletters reports at that time reported it as 60-80 years old using Fluorine-dating, referring specifically to Megafauna that was believed to have existed 30k-40k years ago that it may have coexisted with.

Webbs wrongly compares the Flourine dates relative to the values of the Mungo remains, when this type of dating works best for relative ages on specimens that are on the same site or comparable conditions, of similar density (he describes them as more Robust than Mungo remains), similar size (Uses Large and small animals, but logically it would also apply to mere fragment to more whole remains), and for humans particularly Ribs or Cortical bone layers should be compared.

But an even odder argument of his is how the earliest tools in Australia, being found to be less advanced than other tools of the same time frame mean people sailed from Australia. What this could more likely mean is that they were “simplified” based on Lifestyle, as covered in a previous blog post on Expertise, Brain size, and Tool complexity.]

In my model, I offer compelling evidence for three key migrations of Homo sapiens heading out of Australasia. The first migrations began around 200,000 years ago, during a period of intense climatic problems and low population numbers, with a small group making their way to East Africa.[i] The remains of some of these first Africans have been discovered close to one key entry point in the east of the continent (400km), known as the Bab-el-Mandeb straights.[i]

I then identify a second migration event 74,000 years ago, following the eruption of the Lake Toba super volcano.[i] Small groups of survivors to the north of Lake Toba, finding themselves unable to move south to safety, were then forced to head west to escape the devastating nuclear winter and toxic clouds that followed the disaster. The lucky few that could move fast enough eventually made their way into Africa and found safety in the south of the continent. I suggest that some of these few moved along the coasts of Asia, and others sailed the open ocean to Madagascar and hit the coast of South Africa – I associate these refugees with cave sites including Borders Cave, Klasies River Caves and the Blombos Cave.[i]

The problem with this is due to the previously mentioned finds in Morocco making Sapiens much older in Africa and further West. Though climate conditions, by the way, based on his link provides no reason for it to be centered at Australasia as it was described to affect Africa’s interior.

Second, the South African caves he describes contains specimens, likely to have contributed to modern South Africans, show deeper genetic roots than what he suggests when they diverged.

But the most glaring problem is that none of his sources shows Sapiens skeletons or activity prior to that in Africa, Indonesia clearly not having a confounding enough preservation problem due to its Erectus sites.

The third migration event identified in my research is arguably of greatest interest because it involved the direct ancestors of all non-African people alive today. As the global environment recovered from the Lake Toba eruption 60,000 years ago, a trickle of modern humans (calculated to be just under 200 individuals) moved out of Australasia into Southeast Asia, slowly colonising the Eurasian continent.[i] These adventurous men and women were the forebears of every non-African and non-Australian person living on Earth today. This Australasian colonisation of the world is very well supported by the study of both mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal haplogroups, and given further credence by the location and dating of several fossils.

This oddly enough goes against what we show with “180k” teeth of a modern human in China, that’s not accounted for in his sequence of African-Eurasian dispersal from Australasia.

He also goes against an earlier point he made by “relying on genetic material”, as he himself has yet to provided H.sapiens being present in the Area.

The model I offer represents a radical revision to the current evolutionary narrative, and is perhaps revolutionary. It will not be easy for academics to accept such bold claims from someone whom is neither a paleoanthropologist or an evolutionary biologist. Why, then, should one take this work seriously?

The Into Africa theory is firmly based on real-world evidence, data that anyone can freely access and examine for themselves. My argument incorporates a great wealth of peer reviewed academic papers, well accepted genetic studies, and opinions offered by the most respected scientific researchers. Indeed, rather ironically, many of my key sources derive from scientists that stand opposed to this model (being vocal supporters of the Out of Africa theories).

Well the irony doesn’t necessarily come off strong when you don’t argue in this article why the findings contradict their views, nor have the sources you provided so far actually firmly grounds your theory by placing human origin into Australasia, the two that do being an unreplicated study and a volcano incident in a vicinity with little fossil continuity with Modern humans from its early hominids.

Recent scientific studies have begun to change the landscape of paleoanthropological research. Examination of the recent conclusions associated with the analysis of Homo erectus skulls in the Georgian Republic confirms that several species of hominins in Africa are in fact nothing more than expected variance within the greater H. erectus population.[i]
That source talk about the origin of the Flores Hobbits, not the Georgian Erectus or African Hominid classification.
Elsewhere in Southeast Asia, there is growing suspicion among scientists that Homo floresiensis evolved from a lineage of hominins that lived much earlier than the immediate ancestors of Homo sapiens.[i] Detailed analysis of Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry convincingly places their founder populations in Southeast Asia and Australasia. There seems little about the currently accepted academic narrative that has not yet come under fire.

He in turns uses a source that supports his later claim of early humans (homo) in India by 3 million (actually 2.6 million based on the source, I believe I’m seeing a trend here), Though the claim he refers to shows continuity with ancestral populations in Africa and has hardly much to do with OOA as of current status hence why there was “no fire”.

[Update-3/18/19 The Indian study he uses, like I mentioned, supported African origins of Homo/Homan clade based on chronology at about 4.5 mya. However, it speculates on an alternative involving data used by “Red Ape” Schwartz. More on that in a future article soon.]

Fenton, furthermore, provided no evidence of his claims of Denisovan-Neanderthal origins in Australasia.

 As of 2016, we have finds that place early humans in India 3 million years ago (Masol), and Homo erectus populations ranging from Indonesia to the Georgian Republic 2 million years ago (Dmanisi).[i] On the Australasian island of Guinea, we find the only signature for interbreeding between Denisovans and modern humans dating to 44,000 years ago. This interbreeding occurred long after Australia’s supposed isolation, as claimed by the consensus narrative.[i] How do entirely isolated populations interbreed with other human groups?

See here.

We computed pD(X) for a range of non-African populations and found that for mainland East Asians, western Negritos (Jehai and Onge), or western Indonesians, pD(X) is within two standard errors of zero when a standard error is computed from a block jackknife (Table 1 and Figure 1). Thus, there is no significant evidence of Denisova genetic material in these populations. However, there is strong evidence of Denisovan genetic material in Australians (1.03 ± 0.06 times the New Guinean proportion; one standard error), Fijians (0.56 ± 0.03), Nusa Tenggaras islanders of southeastern Indonesia (0.40 ± 0.03), Moluccas islanders of eastern Indonesia (0.35 ± 0.04), Polynesians (0.020 ± 0.04), Philippine Mamanwa, who are classified as a “Negrito” group (0.49 ± 0.05), and Philippine Manobo (0.13 ± 0.03) (Table 1 and Figure 1). The New Guineans and Australians are estimated to have indistinguishable proportions of Denisovan ancestry (within the statistical error), suggesting Denisova gene flow into the common ancestors of Australians and New Guineans prior to their entry into Sahul (Pleistocene New Guinea and Australia), that is, at least 44,000 years ago.24,25 These results are consistent with the Common Origin model of present-day New Guineans and Australians.26,27 We further confirmed the consistency of the Common Origin model with our data by testing for a correlation in the allele frequency difference of two populations used as outgroups (Yoruba and Han) and the two tested populations (New Guinean and Australian).The f4 statistic that measures their correlation is only |Z| = 0.8 standard errors from zero, as expected if New Guineans and Australians descend from a common ancestral population after they split from East Asians, without any evidence of a closer relationship of one group or the other to East Asians. Two alternative histories, in which either New Guineans or Australians have a common origin with East Asians, are inconsistent with the data (both |Z| > 52).

Here we analyze genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism data from 2,493 individuals from 221 worldwide populations, and show that there is a widespread signal of a very low level of Denisovan ancestry across Eastern Eurasian and Native American (EE/NA) populations. We also verify a higher level of Denisovan ancestry in Oceania than that in EE/NA; the Denisovan ancestry in Oceania is correlated with the amount of New Guinea ancestry, but not the amount of Australian ancestry, indicating that recent gene flow from New Guinea likely accounts for signals of Denisovan ancestry across Oceania. However, Denisovan ancestry in EE/NA populations is equally correlated with their New Guinea or their Australian ancestry, suggesting a common source for the Denisovan ancestry in EE/NA and Oceanian populations. Our results suggest that Denisovan ancestry in EE/NA is derived either from common ancestry with, or gene flow from, the common ancestor of New Guineans and Australians, indicating a more complex history involving East Eurasians and Oceanians than previously suspected.
So it is accounted for by other genetic research.
We are finding anomalies in all areas of evolutionary studies, whether we look at the mitochondrial and Y-chromosonal data, the datings associated with human archaeological sites, or analysis of hominin morphology. Rather than continuing with the attempt to fit square pegs into a round hole, it is time to face the fact that holes are round and that our story of human origins has been significantly wrong.

Well, studies such as the ones above have reworked hypotheses on migrations theories, the paper you cite on Denisovan admixture being among the many smaller scale migration already being debated and shifting as my second link mentions. So while rethinking ideas in light of evidence is a good thing, there should be clear limits on what to discredit.

Overall I wish I could like the idea as a competing idea to OOA, but this if this paper is to serve any impression of the book, using various studies on hominids and human genetic at different scales showing no clear pattern center towards South East Asia in both Archaeology AND genetics but with just enthusiasm of creating a new idea and to fill holes, then I’m disappointed.

With that said, if anyone with better knowledge and citations from the book (Fenton mentions research from close colleagues of his) then I may be more inclined to accept new finds if they are in favor of shifting human origins from Africa to Australasia.


84 Comments

  1. Jm8 says:

    re: the homo sapiens in China claim”, the “news.com article Graham Hancock’s website links to actually absurdly and shockingly claims claims:

    “The fragments were found to be between 112,000 years and 178,000 years old.
    This is some 75,000 years earlier than the first modern human (homo sapien) fossil finds in Africa.”

    Sapiens in Africa of course being roughly 300,000-270,000 years old in Africa (previously estimated at about 200,000 years old).

    I suspect (though I am not sure about that, could be wrong) sapiens status of the Chinese remains may be uncertain (I will have to look into that). But if they are sapiens it would not be too surprising if some sapiens had made it to that part of Asia by some time within that 112,000-178,000 BC range. The Altai neanderthals of Central Asia were found to show signs of sapiens admixture, likely from a sapiens expansion occurring around 100,000 BC or so (and homo sapiens-like bone tools were reported to have been found around S. China dating ca. 70-80,000 BC, not unlike those by sapiens in Africas prior to that time—like the bone tools at Katanda E.C. Africa for instance ca. 90,000. It’s possible perhaps that sapiens groups expanded from Africa and survived in Eurasia, perhaps even absorbing and/or somewhat displacing other hominids, before the main OOA expansion later. Whether earlier sapiens expansions have surviving descendants is unknown (perhaps they mixed with the later sapiens wave when it finally arrived, and in other cases with archaics, or some combination of the two scenarios—but little (if any)of their ancestry seems to survive in modern groups as far as we know so far.

    I may comment again later. I’m a bit busy at present.

    Like

    • Phil78 says:

      Thanks, this is the weakest one in my opinion given the much more expansive continuity in Africa itself.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4920294/

      Regarding surviving descendants recently Papua New Guinea natives are believed to have 2% if their dna from the early expansion from Africa into East Asia.

      When you comment again, be sure to share your thoughts regarding the genetics which is their biggest lean.

      Like

  2. Phil78 says:

    Ron, I think by now you would know that none of the blog authors here find this amusing, especially me.

    You either discuss the topic of the article above, or you take your frustrated sexual urges for blacks and jews somewhere else.

    Like

  3. Jm8 says:

    I will comment and post some relevant links soon (on the subject of Homo finds in Africa and Eurasia).

    Like

    • Phil78 says:

      Thanks, as far as I’m concerned the best evidence, aside from clear modern human remains, is regardless the presence of many transitional forms being more plentiful in Africa.

      I’ve always assume China was primary Erectus and Denisovan-like in it’s field, and new evidence suggest a modern presence I still have some diffuclties to some as large as a shift of origins altogether.

      A. The rather obvious craniomorphological differences between the Dali skull and approximate ambigiously statused Homo Specimen “Florisbad” in regards to Supraorbital robustness.

      B. The unique status of it’s traits pointed out by the study, as well as the position of them being on the archaic end of Levant and African Crania, could suggest a Homo Heldi-like migration.

      C. The best information we have on genetics and archaeology is that the Levant migration goes back 200k, and while that may explain the 187k Teeth, Maba (despite it’s archaicness), Jinniushian remains, and the Red Deer Cave people, it doesn’t necessarily explain the Dali finds. Rather, Dali could rather explain the Levant migration as if it preceds it it could rationalize of their DNA enede up in Altai neanderthals.

      D. With all of them mentioned, the Human remains found in Asia seem to conistsently show inital speculation of being transitional between Erectus and Sapiens.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      Jinnushian Man (frontal view compared with Dali). (200k to 260k)

      Dali (250-260k)

      Maba (130k)

      Xuchang (100k-125k)

      http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/7712bbfd24537f8ace67e238a72d29f9

      Zhoukoudian Sapiens (10k-20k)

      Herto Skull (190-200k)

      Laetoli Skull (120k)

      Omo Kibush skulls (200k)

      Skhul Qafzeh Skull (130k- similar specimens possibly going as far back as 200k))

      https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-67f1ea3c991ada1bec4c865468b58e52

      Jebel Irhoud (300k 350k)

      http://www.nhm.ac.uk/content/dam/nhmwww
      /our-science/news/2017/irhoud-fossil-cast-news.jpg

      From what I can tell, the one Sapiens Skull the chinese specimens have a Frontal arch comparability with would be Laetoli, yet Laetoli still seems to have both a smaller browridge and higher Frontal/Temporal region at the top of the Skull.

      As well, compared to Florisbad, the nasal cavity is sharper at the end of the bridge, Florisbad’s bridge is still higher and somewhat longer.

      The orbits seem to be somewhat rounder on Jinniushan yet the brows are still heavier. I have a study that suggest oribit shape is relted with cepahlic index, so this may reflect a broader skull than Florisbad.

      Click to access Michael_Masters.pdf

      Still, compared to Herto, the nasal cavity isn’t as narrow nor are the oribts rounder. To Jebel Irhoud, the skulls have less of a sharp nasal cavity (Jebel is even sharper than Herto) but the orbits seem to be rounder.

      Otherwise, the skulls seem to consistently show higher frontal lobes being in favor of the African/Middle eastern skulls, though Cranial Breadth seems to be equal, in which the parietal lobes do seem broader than you would except from Heidelbergensis types. As well the faces are smaller and less robust.

      This position seems similar to Florisbad in that regard.

      Overall, the position of Archaic Homo is at least somewhat warranted, and mainly in regard to facial features.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      How lets compare Post OOA skulls

      Red Deer Cave skull (11.5-14.5k)

      https://img.purch.com/w/660/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAyNS8zNTQvb3JpZ2luYWwvbmV3LWhvbWluaW4tc2t1bGwuanBn

      Zhoukoudian (10-20)

      Ta Pac Ling Cave skulls (63k)

      https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/tam-pa-ling-laos-hominid.jpg?w=529&h=317

      Iwo Eleru (11-13k)

      Hofmeyr skull (36k)

      Border Cave skull (35k-36k)

      Fish Hoek skull (12k)

      https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/lancasteronline.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/b8/4b810f86-38a6-11e5-82c5-5744215697b9/55bd5842b00cc.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C791

      Canteen Kopje Skull (10k-20k)

      http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0038-23532012000100017

      At First I though I could concluded that the Red Deer cave people and Iwo Eleru, due to both hacinf morphological anomalies for their recentness, were reminents to the same 100k migration.

      However, looking at the Red Deer cave people’s profile, they seem to derive their femurs and large Zygomatic arches from Asian Erectus and their small brows and frontal lobes from a Sapiens population such as shown above from Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, which based on this study is classified as recent.

      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024024

      Iwo Eleru seems to be closest to the Levant specimens in turn.

      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024024

      Border Cave, Canteen Kopje, and Fish Hoek all seem representative of ancient Bushmen.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “I’ve always assume China was primary Erectus and Denisovan-like in it’s field, and new evidence suggest a modern presence I still have some diffuclties to some as large as a shift of origins altogether.”

      I agree justified, in my opinion, there are much better explanations for the presence of those features in the Dali hominid, than a shift in origins including some you list, and some I outlined on PP’s blog)

      “B. The unique status of it’s traits pointed out by the study, as well as the position of them being on the archaic end of Levant and African Crania, could suggest a Homo Heldi-like migration.”

      Apparently many researchers have/had classified the Dali skull as heidelbergensis, and some researchers had previously also suggested that the Dali skull could Denisovan (and Denisovans are, of course as of now otherwise known for sure only from a finger bone)., which would be interesting. It (Dali) was said to cluster cranially with western Eurasian hominids (such as neanderthals and European heidelbergensis), and I believe Denisova were somewhat closer to neanderthals genetically than to sapiens (and the ancestors of Denisova—likely close to the European heidelbergensis ancestors of neanderthals) would have entered Asia from western Eurasia). It could be that certain Dali-like facial tendencies occurred as part of Denisovan variation (perhaps more in parts of the Denisovan range). Other unknown

      Perhaps the shift of Chinese hominids over time at some sites from an earlier more primitive erectus-phase, toward a slightly less primitive character (long prior to the decisive sapiens migration) over time, may have been due to gradual admixture from a hominin (or hominins) in the heidlbergensis lineage—combined perhaps with unique local adaptations

      “C. The best information we have on genetics and archaeology is that the Levant migration goes back 200k, and while that may explain the 187k Teeth, Maba (despite it’s archaicness), Jinniushian remains, and the Red Deer Cave people, it doesn’t necessarily explain the Dali finds. Rather, Dali could rather explain the Levant migration as if it preceeds it it could rationalize of their DNA enede up in Altai neanderthals.”

      Or it (remains like Dali that is) could instead be evidence of an earlier (additional) early sapiens/proto-sapiens/transitional sapiens-heidelbergensis migration of prior to 200,000 bc, that predated the Levant migration of ca. 125,000-100,000 bc. which likely contributed sapiens admixture to the Altai neanderthals (which was later followed by the demographically more important migration of ca. 70 ka) I suspect more that more than the currently known migrations are possible—though the importance of their significance and respective genetic impacts may vary greatly.

      I am perhaps (partly due to the first two reasons, A and B, that you listed above) somewhat leaning toward the idea that Dali may reflect some kind of heidlbergensis migration/admixture (with local adaptation) rather than early sapiens admixture, but on the other hand there’s no reason to rule out some degree of both as factors.

      It seems the affinity of the red deer people is debated—I’m not sure which migration they would be from (their seeming divergence within sapiens variation—many consider them within the spectrum of sapiens variation—may be from archaic admixture, or an early divergence (by they’re being derived from a very early diverged sapiens branch. they were considered by some within the known sapiens range even before the recent more secure reclassification of Jebel Irhoud as sapiens, which suggests their morphology may not be so radically divergent as to require a pre-100 ka divergence, or perhaps derived (or partly so) from an earlier sapiens migration.

      “D. With all of them mentioned, the Human remains found in Asia seem to conistsently show inital speculation of being transitional between Erectus and Sapiens.”

      As the data (some in included in links/images you have presented) show; Sapiens/sapiens traits) appear in Africa, and the oldest sapiens African sapiens/proto-sapiens remains are less archaic than dali and older, and there derivation of Dali either from an early unknown sapiens migration with local archaic admixture (likely with no recent descendants/ a dead end) or a local heidelbergensis variant (with some local erectus admixture) seems likely.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      It is unfortunate that many news sources are (irresponsibly) reporting and propagating Wu’s theory without discussing other (and more likely) possibilities, to misleading effect. But I suppose, as with many online news articles’ treatment of the Graecopithicus find, in these areas, the most radical and sensational (attention getting) interpretations tend to get more attention.

      The dailymail.co.uk article you linked did at least present other theories (which I had not noticed earlier), including some I had suspected/proposed in my comments:

      “Other theories say the Dali skull was in fact from an ‘Asian Homo erectus’ as first reported, and that these populations may have separately evolved some modern human traits.”

      and:

      “Alternative theories suggest that Homo sapiens left Africa over 100,000 years earlier than first thought, reaching China by 260,000 years ago”

      but then they add:

      “… though genetic evidence does not support this.”

      I’m not sure what the article is are claiming genetic evidence does not support, but I think the it (the article) may be confusing the idea that Homo Sapiens left Africa earlier with the idea that modern humans outside Africa are descended from such an early migration (when in fact they descend from a later one ca 70 ka. bc). the genetic evidence does not, in fact, go against or preclude the possibility of such an early migration preceding the one that lead to most modern Eurasian sapiens ancestry (just the early one as a source for that ancestry—the earlier one would have mostly died out). So the idea of a very early sapiens migration to China (with hybridization with archaics—exemplified by dali, that then left little genetic legacy (being replaced absorbed by later sapiens migration, as other archaic were), is plausible

      And it is notable that Chris Stringer also doubts the claim (of Wu and Athreya) associated with the Dali skulls.
      (from the dailymail article)

      “Professor Chris Stringer, an expert at the Natural History Museum in London, told New Scientist that while the Moroccan and Chinese finds are similar, he doubts Professor Athreya’s claims.
      ‘When it comes to the vast amount of genetic data, it becomes very difficult to give China a significant role in modern human origins,’ he said.”

      I will try to post more (if I can find more of relevance) later (unfortunately I am somewhat busy currently)

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      Edits:

      Edit 1:
      “As the data (some in included in links/images you have presented) show; Sapiens/sapiens traits) appear in Africa earlier, and the oldest sapiens African sapiens/proto-sapiens remains are less archaic than dali and older, and there derivation of Dali either from an early unknown sapiens migration with local archaic …”

      Edit 2:

      “I… still have some diffuclties to some as large as a shift of origins altogether.”

      I agree justified, in my opinion, there are much better explanations for the presence of those features in the Dali hominid…”

      The above quote should b (as below)e:

      “… I still have some diffuclties to some as large as ashift of origins altogether.”

      I agree. a shift origins IMO is not justified. There are much better explanations for the features of the Da hominidli…”

      Edit/adition 3:

      “they were considered by some within the known sapiens range even before the recent more secure reclassification of Jebel Irhoud as sapiens, which suggests their morphology may not be so radically divergent as to require a pre-100 ka divergence, or perhaps derived (or partly so) from an earlier sapiens migration.”

      The Red Deer Cave people would seem to be a relict of an early (pre-70 ka bc) migration (whether 100 ka or earlier) that survived long into a period by which Asia would have been dominated by the descendants of the 70 ka bc wave .

      (Actually the irhoud remains had been classed already as sapiens for a while prior to their recent backdating (from 100 ka to 300 ka currently, after having first/initially been incorrectly dated to only 40 ka bc), though were initially when discovered, assighnment was uncertain, some suspecting Neanderthal, .)


      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      It;s affinity with West Eurasian Hominids may give some links.

      I noticed that, when comparing Dali to the Petralona Skull (which occupied a distant assoictaion with) it had nonetheless similar Orbit shapes but different frontal lobe morphologies.

      As for the Red Deer Cave People I’m some skeptical of the idea that they come from a pre-70k migration as from their profile their Frontal lobes and browridges are rather derived in appearance.

      That, and femoral studies clustered them with Erectus Habilis, confirming admixture with local Erectus types.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “That, and femoral studies clustered them with Erectus Habilis, confirming admixture with local Erectus types.”

      Yes, that certainly seems to most strongly indicate some admixture from a quite primitive type.

      Like

  4. Jm8 says:

    Phil:

    Regarding the sources you recently linked on archaic admixture, and pop. structure in Africa:

    The admixture in Pygmies and some Khoisan groups (in the third study you linked) seems to be from some late or mid erectus type and comprise about 2% (if it is the same population detected by then earlier hammer study, a s it seems to be). I do not believe that particular admixture has been found in West Africans (it was absent in the Mandinka and Yoruba).

    That possible admixture is some West Africans (seemingly in forrest region West Africans like the Yoruba at 8% and slightly higher in the Mende of Liberia)
    I would be interested to see the admixture levels of Savannah west Africans
    —like pure Mande peoples from the savannah e.g. the Mandinka (or e.g. Sengalese, Burkinabe, Malian, North Nigerian, North Ghanaian, Nigerien ethnic groups, which were not used. The Mende, whom they tested (as opposed to the Malian Mande/Mandinka) who live deep in the forrest region of Liberia/Sierra Leone, are Mande-speaking, but like similar groups such as the Kpelle, they have heavy (and I believe usually predominant, actually) admixture from the pre-existing non-Mande natives of the region as represented by the Sherbro, Kru, etc. who are quite different genetically from Malians/Senegambians (Most Mendes may be genetically mostly local non-Mande, but I am not entirely sure). I suspect the archaic admixture may have occurred among certain West African groups in the forrest region and thus tend to be considerably less in the tribes of the Sahel/Savannah (which is closer to North Africa and the Eastern Africa Sahel/Savannah region, the likely modern human zone/range of origin), and that the recently discovered admixture would be lower (perhaps quite significantly so) in Savannah/Sahel West Africans than it is in the Yoruba or in the Mende (and likely absent-nearly so in East Africans—I would be interested to see results from the Central-South Sudan or Chad, and/or perhaps Southern Ethiopia).

    The Yoruba have a slightly lower level of the admixture than the Mende, and though they are in the forrest/savannah overlap zone (including much forest), their is some evidence that sometimes more of their ancestry is of relatively recent savannah origin (at least in north Yorubaland)/or that they may be in general somewhat savannah-shifted relative to the Liberian/Sierra Leonian Mende (they sometimes cluster genetically close to savannah groups like the Dogon), but this would vary quite a lot regionally within Yorubaland (Yorubas are probably quite varied regionally—I would also be interested to know where in Yorubaland the samples came from, I suspect the south or center), with the south having less savannah affinity and more forrest.

    I would agree with Dienekes that the recently discovered admixture (or much of it) might be closer to sapiens (less archaic) than that (the Neanderthal/Denisovan 1-2% and ca. 4-5% respectively—w/ less Denisovan in E. Asians/Amerinds) that is in Eurasians. Some of it could also be derived from a deeply diverged sapiens population (depending on how sapiens is designated) and not be quite archaic. Some, however, (perhaps a small party of the admixture) might also come from a heidelbergensis-descended population similar to Neaderthals (and Denisovans). This might explain the ambiguous suggestions of trace neanderthal admixture/genetics in Yorubas but not in East Africans like the Kenyan Luhya), which had been suggested (and I also suspected/agreed) might come from admixture with a somewhat neanderthal-related related (but native African) hominin (retaining some affinity to neanderthals/some of the same genetic diversity from before the split) that was present in West Africa but not in East Africa (or mostly not in East Africa), rather than deriving directly from neanderthals (which seems unlikely).
    (or the admixture could come—as per a similar scenario—from an archaic/quasi-archaic African group—heidelbergensis-descended of course—that was nonetheless less archaic/closer to sapiens than neanderthals/denisovans, but still retained some common affinities shared by neanderthals—)

    I believe the evidence archaic admixture was found (by Skoglund) to be lowest in East Africans (presumably such as Nilotes and other Nilo-Saharans)—and such of course is not surprising. I do not recall a precise figure (they may not have conducted the same admixture test on them, but I would expect the admixture to generally be trace-non-existent most E. African groups, though some could in some cases be present from the influence of West African African back-migrant populations; including but not limited to the Bantu—some perhaps, being much earlier than the Bantu.

    (re: the Dienekes post:)
    The origins of modern humans seem most likely to be either in North Africa (where Irhoud is), around the Ethiopia region (where Omo, Herto, and the ca. 279k bc projectiles at Gademotta likely associated with early sapiens are), or in a zone between the two regions (i.e. perhaps within the Central or Eastern Sahel and/or Central or Eastern Sahara zone: around Northernmost Chad/North Niger, Algeria/Libya, and/or Egypt/Sudan)—i.e the area between Morocco and Ethiopia and with early sapiens spreading to those nearby places very soon after—, or in some broader zone including both some of the Maghreb around Morocco and the Eastern region around Ethiopia (and some of the areas/countries listed above, most of which are within that broader zone).

    Thus sapiens likely originated in North and/or East Africa and not is Southern Africa (though sapiens seems to have arrived there fairly early: by 164k bc form the archaeological evidence at Pinnacle point, and earlier if you want to count the ambiguous Border cave evidence as sapiens) I would be interested to see how Border cave compares/clusters in “modernity” on a graph relatively to other modern/early modern and archaic skulls.
    The fact that archaics survived late in Southern ( and possibly parts of Western) Africa however, does not necessarily rule out the early presence off sapiens there, as archaics survived in China up to the mesolithic (the red deer people—though they, if archaic, would have likely been sapiens-admixed). In West Africa, the Iwo Ileru skull is also classified as sapiens with possible archaic admixture (though some dispute that it is archaic (or archaic admixed at all—see link below. It is likely either sapiens, or admixed like the red deer population)

    http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/09/claims-of-nigerian-late-archaic-human.html

    (though the presence of some/a small amount of archaic admixture in local people there suggests that Iwo Ileru may more likely have been in fact somewhat archaic-admixed though perhaps majority-sapiens as Chris Stringer believes)

    I will also try to comment (also here) on the first study you linked (on MUC7) and get back to you regarding it sometime later today—and will try to address anything else I might have missed (today is seemingly turning out to be a bit busy).

    Like

    • Jm8 says:

      re: my paragraph on the origins of modern humans in general:

      The origins of the groups Dienekes calls “Afrasians” (the group/branch of sapiens that left East Africa ca. 70ka bc for Eurasia and became the ancestor of Eurasians, as well as speading elsewhere in Africa from the East or Africa around the same time to mix with others incl. with other more diverged groups of homo sapiens in the West and South of Africa , rather than the origins modern humans in general—which I discussed above—whose roots are of course older) is in my opinion, ( as the genetic evidence , both from haplotyope philogeny and autosomal studies, seems to to still supports) somewhere in East Africa (where the “east African genetic cluster” peaks—usually in Nilotes/Nilo-Saharans), and where—i.e. E. Africa—the haplolypes associated with the OOA seem to have (and be most likely to have) their roots.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      Edit: “I suspect the archaic admixture may have occurred among certain West African groups in (and/or near) the forrest region and thus tend to be considerably less (when/if present) in the tribes of the Sahel/Savannah…”

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      Edits:

      “…but I would expect the admixture to generally be trace-non-existent most E. African groups, though some could in some cases be present from the influence of West African African back-migrant populations; including but not limited to the Bantu—some perhaps, being much earlier than the Bantu

      Some like Roger blench believe that early Niger Congo populations might have mingled with at least some early Nilo-Saharan ones in early times around the early mesolithic or so. But on the other hand, the origins or Niger-Congo aka Niger-Kordfanian are believed to possibly be around East Africa as well (perhaps in the Sudan/Chad region near the present day Kordofanian languages of Central Sudan(thou I believe it is unknown whether or not Kordofanian is to some degree derived from a back migration from west of its current position).

      “(Yorubas are probably quite varied regionally—I would also be interested to know where in Yorubaland the samples came from, I suspect the south or center), with the south having less savannah affinity and more forrest (so perhaps the admixture levels found in the Yoruba are about at the same level, give or take, as those that will be found in other forrest W. African ethnic groups e.g in Nigeria, Cameroon, etc.—I will be interested to see a broader range of African populations analyzed; Eastern, Western and otherwise.

      “…—the haplotypes associated with the OOA seem to have (and be most likely to have) their roots/predecessors (in E. Africa).”

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “…seemingly in forrest region West Africans like the Yoruba at 8% and slightly higher in the Mende of Liberia—similarly I recall some, maybe most paleolithic Europeans (paleolithic European sapiens) like those at Pester Cu Oase in the Balkans I believe were about 6-9% neanderthal, before later sapiens waves into Europe from the Near East with somewhat less neanderthal DNA also including basal-Eurasian admixture which was especially low in neanderthal DNA, and also possibly with some African admixture along with it, gradually lowered neanderthal proportions in Europe.)”

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      Thanks for the commentary. Your points on the Yoruba and Mende results I find interesting as I was somewhat expecting the opposite as the Mende, to my previous knowledge, I thought were more Sudanid than the Yoruba (who in turn I figured to be more prominent guineasid).

      My logic was that Sudanids represented a more ancient East African ancestry compared to Basal African ancestry as expressed in palaenegrids. I, howeverm lacked anthropological data on the Mende compared to their neighbors (though they were mentioned) who were otherwise more sudanid.

      If they have ancestry of non Mande speakers, then their phenotype may be that mixture of the two groups anthropologists noted in the past, having long heads but otherwise stout and robudt bodies akin to guinea types.

      The similarities between the 8% and the 7.97% in two of the studies makes me curious of how it compares to the genetic material found at 2% in aborginals as it could be remainants of the Iwo Eleru population as opposed to a moree diverged archaic.

      An alternative theory is that it represents a Mid-late Erectus, but “different” from the Mid Late erectus in Khoi San and Pygmies, which I believe represents admixture >100k or so with Central African populations that preceded the LSA Ishango site.

      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084652

      However, looking at the genetics, perhaps the hominids in this era was more akin to the Naledi line, which shows no sign of introgression. In that case, I guess the Erectus Line i speak of merely shared a similar migration route as then to happen when certain geographic strips are favorable.

      Otherwise, I believe that the 8% may possibility represent a Late
      erectus” that is genetically closer to Rhodiensis or even Neanderthals (perhaps the latter as both would share the NW african entry point) but puncutated equilibrium underminded this.

      Also work noting is the early Erectus corresponding dates for the MCU7 gene. My guess is that was nonetheless retained in this line of Erectus due to not traveling outside Africa.

      Going back to the study on Niger-Kong, Khoi San, and Nilotics, it’s interesting it suggest a link with East Africa, South Africa, and particular West Africans closer to East/Central Africa by longitude like the Yoruba in their study as that would explain the low levels of khoisan like admixture that the African Genome project noticed.

      As well, it is consistent with San like people being further north in the past.

      BTW, fish Hoek, and presumbly the border Cave skulls as well, seem to be somewhat in range with Modern Khoisan in certain features but the Khatar skull is outside the range of any SSA robusticity.

      https://www.academia.edu/12994922/The_position_of_the_Nazlet_Khater_specimen_among_prehistoric_and_modern_African_and_Levantine_populations

      Carleton Coon also observed skull in East Africa that tended to diverge either to Eurasian like traits or Khoisan traits (of which Blacks, as he described, were in between and confroms with current hypothesis).

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “I was somewhat expecting the opposite as the Mende, to my previous knowledge, I thought were more Sudanid than the Yoruba”

      Most Mande-speaking peoples (from around Mali and the general Western Sahel/Savannah) would be/are more Sudan than the Yoruba (and your expectations would more likely be correct regarding them), but the Mende from Sierra Leone/Liberia in the forrest region are heavily admixed with non Sudaid non-Mande peoples (likely in many cases with only a small fraction of true Mande ancestry)—in many cases, they may be almost closer to being Mandeized natives (but I am unsure of the extent to which that is true and I would have to look more into genetic studies of that region. The longer-established Vande-speaking tribes in the Sierra-Leone/Liberia region tend to be very heavily admixed (the later arriving Mandinka who arrived there from mali more recently less so).

      “If they have ancestry of non Mande speakers, then their phenotype may be that mixture of the two groups anthropologists noted in the past, having long heads but otherwise stout and robudt bodies akin to guinea types.”

      Yes, the non-Mande types tend to have broad builds (perhaps epitomized by groups like the shortish, somewhat squat and and very stout/robust Kru) and I believe broader faces as wells well as somewhat lighter skin in general than Sudanids (the region being forested and having less direct sunlight). I suspect the forest types native to the Sierra Leonean/Liberia forrest may be a somewhat different one native to regions like southern Nigeria or Cameroon—to me they even look a bit different (or course they may just form a continuum with those of regions like Southern Ghana/South Togo etc. in between being in the middle of the continuum).

      “My logic was that Sudanids represented a more ancient East African ancestry compared to Basal African ancestry as expressed in palaenegrids. I, howeverm lacked anthropological data on the Mende compared to their neighbors (though they were mentioned) who were otherwise more sudanid.”

      I believe your logic is basically correct (I more or less thought and think the same). But the Mende are likely just not very Sudanid.

      “The similarities between the 8% and the 7.97% in two of the studies makes me curious of how it compares to the genetic material found at 2% in aborginals as it could be remainants of the Iwo Eleru population as opposed to a moree diverged archaic”

      That is what I suspect (that the 8% comes , or comes mostly, from a not very diverged archaic similar to the Iwo Ileru population (or sharing some ancestry with it).

      “Otherwise, I believe that the 8% may possibility represent a Late
      erectus” that is genetically closer to Rhodiensis or even Neanderthals (perhaps the latter as both would share the NW african entry point) but puncutated equilibrium underminded this.”

      Rhodesiensis might be a relative of the population from which the 8% came, but the 8% may have come form a derivative of Africa heidelbergensis more near to sapiens (less archaic, heidelbergensis ancestor.) Its possible minor neanderthal affinity could come form the common ancestor of both in Africa, but be comprised of genes that were lost in sapiens but retained both in Neanderthals and also perhaps in some groups of African heidelbergensis/some other groups in Africa within the heidelbergensis lineage (even possibly in some groups that may have been more close to sapiens taxonomically than neanderthals were)
      Or perhaps the 8% could also come from a hybrid of two groups: the first being a highly basal/diverged sapiens group, and second a native African heidelbergensis-descended group more similar to neanderthals (relative to its position to sapiens) which was roughly as diverged as neanderthals (and whose common ancestor with neanderthals, likely in East Africa, could have been more recent than its common ancestor with sapiens).
      It would be interesting to know precisely when (though I think the period considered likeliest is ca 500ka-600ka bc) and where in Africa (I would guess) East Africa) the common ancestor of Sapiens and Neanderthals/Deniosovans diverged.

      East African heidelbergensis-derived (other than sapiens) types (the majority of the Rhodesiensis remains we have come from East and Southern East Africa) seem likely to have died out earliest (the ones that did not evolve into sapiens) in East and North Africa (as one would expect), but apparently fragmentarily survived longer in some part(s) of West Africa (and maybe elsewhere). But perhaps the West African ghost hominid’s ancestors could have have come from the East of Africa (perhaps prior to sapiens’ divergence, but maybe not too long before).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis#Bodo_Cranium

      This has been a somewhat fast and cursory comment, but I will will likely comment again (more in depth) later when I have time.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      Edit:

      ““The similarities between the 8% and the 7.97% in two of the studies makes me curious of how it compares to the genetic material found at 2% in aborginals as it could be remainants of the Iwo Eleru population as opposed to a moree diverged archaic”

      “That is what I suspect (that the 8% may come , or come mostly/largely, from; a not very diverged, even early sapiens or proto-sapiens, group similar to the Iwo Ileru population (or sharing some ancestry with it).”

      Like

    • jm8 says:

      (Mendes are likely not so sudanid, but of course mandinkas, other Malians and senegambians etc are generally very sudanid)

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      Jm8, can you decipher partiuclar flaws regarding this new guy Shi Huang? Seems to be aquainted with known hack German when I curious about the latter’s current relavence.

      http://thegoldengnomon.blogspot.com/2017/10/mtdna-molecular-clock-not-real-wallaces.html

      http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/blog/2017/02/01/molecular-evidence-for-the-pongid-clade-and-new-world-primate-behavioral-evidence/

      http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2009/10/01/ardipithecus-we-meet-at-last/

      http://thegoldengnomon.blogspot.com/2010/02/africans-and-east-asians-are-strikingly.html

      Not only does he mirrors some loosely constructed contrarian mindset like German and Fenton, but somewhere he manages to sneak in data somehow support some vague alternative to understanding macroevolution and cladistics of primates.

      In the CS on Ardipithecus, he pretty much illustrates his illiteracy on Modern Synthesis and his blog.

      Overall, if you can point out soime major issues that weren;t already address by others mainly in his blog articles on Africans and the “Pongid” clade that would be Helpful.

      Like

  5. Anaoy says:

    Hey Phil, please where can I contact you to ask you a few questions in private outside of wordpress blogs? Thanks.

    Like

  6. Aitor says:

    It is just obvious we never came from Africa…
    I wonder who have got this idea in the first level, and why it stayed so long input in our stupid monkey brains (I men repeating a lie is not really human, we shall reconsider every single asumption).
    This admixture only present in sub-Saharans is only one more proof, but this one would be difficult to circumvect for all afrocentrists.
    I’m tired of their trying to steal each and every civilization, when we have never found not even one script in Africa south of Tamazya, which every one were outsiders. Not even a single letter.

    Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “It is just obvious we never came from Africa…”

      Evidence?

      “I wonder who have got this idea in the first level, and why it stayed so long input in our stupid monkey brains (I men repeating a lie is not really human, we shall reconsider every single asumption).”

      You could actually do research on the people who supported the idea.

      “This admixture only present in sub-Saharans is only one more proof, but this one would be difficult to circumvect for all afrocentrists.”

      Except the study itself cites contemporaneous studies that support African origins.

      “I’m tired of their trying to steal each and every civilization, when we have never found not even one script in Africa south of Tamazya, which every one were outsiders. Not even a single letter.”

      Neolithic development is irrelevant to human origins in the paleolithic. See my “African Neolithic” articles that address Neolithic development in SSA.

      Majority of cultures have their script adopted by another group (European Neolithic development in general was transmitted by ME farmers, while SSA agricultures was mostly native) , and likewise most African groups in their development never had long sedentary formations until the A.D eras to develop scripts (such as Mesotpotamia, China, or Mesoamerica).

      For those that did, you have mneumonic devices of the Baluba people or Oral histories.

      Otherwise, you do understand that the person, Fenton, using this admixture as evidence is arguing that Australian Aboriginals are the actual original people, right?

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      Evidence comes by scientific reasoning :

      -The admixture shows introgression by unknown species, only in Sub-Saharan Africans, it is maximal among Bushmen and Pygmies (by the way, there are 2 introgressions, meaning two hominins ; go check your academical proposed human ancestors and you will find out which ones).

      It happened 35000 to 50000 years ago, strangely coinciding with the arrival of moderns in East Asia and west Europa (again, go check the datations, Atlantic coast sites are older than central or east Europe).
      Negroid type is seen nowhere in the world before 45000 years ago.
      Tools found in Africa before this date are all chimp-like, none of the proposed human ancestors (Ergaster, which is not Erectus, be carefull ; Habilis or Australopithecus, very chimp-like ; Naledi – at best an hybrid far back in times ; Heidelbergensis which is not the European one – in fact a mere evolved Ergaster) can be accepted by a subtle mind.

      Just think about it : how do we lost prognathism, got higher front and a real chin? Not to mention bigger brains, smaller eyes, the list is endless.
      That is just impossible.
      Humans have always been here, but not there.
      Maybe some hominids were closer to us than chimpanzees but that is epsilon, considering the distance between us and Primates.
      Go check billy apes or hairless chimps to get a better picture of who could have been those hominids.

      “Except the study itself cites contemporaneous studies that support African origins.”

      Yes that is my point, we are so deeply possessed by the main academic point of view that it will take long time to wake up, the study can’t reach the obvious implications hidden in it, because it would be a giant step.

      “Majority of cultures have their script adopted by another group (European Neolithic development in general was transmitted by ME farmers, while SSA agricultures was mostly native) ,”

      The same asumption input in our brains over and over..
      Phenician had only 22 signs, Iberian had 27 (24 in Greek).
      Those same Iberian characters you will find in the Atlantic cave art (nothing in central Europe, and by this time middle East was full crowded with Neanderthals), between 45000 and 10000 years before present.
      They have recently find evidence agriculture was practiced in the south of Iberian Peninsula way before the wrongly named fertile crescent…
      By the way the precursors of agriculture and civilisation there were the Hittites, Indo-Euroean people, who couldn’t have exist before Iberians because Basque is an isolate but so intrically related to European languages there si only one conclusion possible ; all indo-European languages stem from Iberian-related dialects.
      The same can be said of the Beaker bell culture : it originated in south Iberia, you got to check the sites, the dates, etc.

      Agriculture appeared in south-Africa 1000 years ago, at least 10000 years after the Iberians introduced it. It was brought there by Bantu-speaking farmers, who in turn learned it from ancient Egyptians (by the way of the Nubians).

      “For those that did, you have mneumonic devices of the Baluba people or Oral histories.”

      Luba people are Bantu-speaking tibes.
      You got that everywhere on earth since times immemorials.
      The only thing it prove is that they never learnt to write by the way of the ancient Egyptians, and that they never were in contact.
      Only Meroitic civilisation developped a script from the hieratic Egyptian, you have nothing further south.

      “Otherwise, you do understand that the person, Fenton, using this admixture as evidence is arguing that Australian Aboriginals are the actual original people, right?”

      Yes thanks, I can read the title, and that is what brought me here.
      I find the theory interesting, even if I got it long before.
      By the way, I now think otherwise so I let you guess.
      But sure, the idea is no more stupid than an African origin.
      There are more language in the single island of Papuasia than in the whole african continent, so why not ?

      In conclusion, you gotta think for yourself, never follow academy, or you will be forever on the path of deceiption.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “-The admixture shows introgression by unknown species, only in Sub-Saharan Africans, it is maximal among Bushmen and Pygmies (by the way, there are 2 introgressions, meaning two hominins ; go check your academical proposed human ancestors and you will find out which ones).

      It happened 35000 to 50000 years ago, strangely coinciding with the arrival of moderns in East Asia and west Europa (again, go check the datations, Atlantic coast sites are older than central or east Europe).”

      “Negroid type is seen nowhere in the world before 45000 years ago.”

      No “modern” phenotype is seen at this date.

      “Tools found in Africa before this date are all chimp-like, none of the proposed human ancestors (Ergaster, which is not Erectus, be carefull ; Habilis or Australopithecus, very chimp-like ; Naledi – at best an hybrid far back in times ; Heidelbergensis which is not the European one – in fact a mere evolved Ergaster) can be accepted by a subtle mind.”

      No sources, so all of this can be dismissed seeing as I’ve already did a post on archaic admixture, “negroids types”, and their relative origins in respect to eurasians.

      Likewise, the 30k-50k argument doesn’t follow. Pygmies and Khoi-san are highly diverged even without archaic introgression, “Negroids” are closer related to Eurasian by comparison. These populations having a unique archaic signature tells us little about the contact of the actual OOA cluster.

      Likewise, the earliest dates of european Modern humans around 50k-30k are towards SE Europe, not SW.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian

      The oldest one in Europe period is found in Greece and is linked to Levantine sapiens.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02075-9

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1376-z

      Likewise, the latest toolkit prior to Dispersals into Europe was the Aterian, which wasn’t “chimp-like”.
      It simply doesn’t follow. None of your points are supported.

      “Just think about it : how do we lost prognathism, got higher front and a real chin? Not to mention bigger brains, smaller eyes, the list is endless.
      That is just impossible.”

      “How is it impossible?” You need to phrase things better.

      “Humans have always been here, but not there.
      Maybe some hominids were closer to us than chimpanzees but that is epsilon, considering the distance between us and Primates.
      Go check billy apes or hairless chimps to get a better picture of who could have been those hominids.”

      Yeah, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Chimp anatomy is nowhere near sufficient to understanding actual hominids outside of broad details from homology.

      “Yes that is my point, we are so deeply possessed by the main academic point of view that it will take long time to wake up, the study can’t reach the obvious implications hidden in it, because it would be a giant step.”

      Except the study itself cites that admixture event at 148k, not 30k-50k like you did. So you really just can’t read. I’ve already explained how you points on Pygmies, an isolated human group not representative of OOA humans, doesn’t say much.

      Otherwise there is evidence (that I’ve already covered) of Eurasians having archaic African DNA from the OOA group.

      “Majority of cultures have their script adopted by another group (European Neolithic development in general was transmitted by ME farmers, while SSA agricultures was mostly native) ,”

      “The same asumption input in our brains over and over..
      Phenician had only 22 signs, Iberian had 27 (24 in Greek).
      Those same Iberian characters you will find in the Atlantic cave art (nothing in central Europe, and by this time middle East was full crowded with Neanderthals), between 45000 and 10000 years before present.
      They have recently find evidence agriculture was practiced in the south of Iberian Peninsula way before the wrongly named fertile crescent…
      By the way the precursors of agriculture and civilisation there were the Hittites, Indo-Euroean people, who couldn’t have exist before Iberians because Basque is an isolate but so intrically related to European languages there si only one conclusion possible ; all indo-European languages stem from Iberian-related dialects.
      The same can be said of the Beaker bell culture : it originated in south Iberia, you got to check the sites, the dates, etc.”

      Sources? None? Also, if a language is an isolate, it’s an isolate. Meaning it can’t be “intricately” related to other European Languages.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_language

      “Agriculture appeared in south-Africa 1000 years ago, at least 10000 years after the Iberians introduced it. It was brought there by Bantu-speaking farmers, who in turn learned it from ancient Egyptians (by the way of the Nubians).”

      Sources? No? Like I said, already did a post on the topic (with sources) and you are incorrect.

      “For those that did, you have mneumonic devices of the Baluba people or Oral histories.”

      “Luba people are Bantu-speaking tibes.
      You got that everywhere on earth since times immemorials.
      The only thing it prove is that they never learnt to write by the way of the ancient Egyptians, and that they never were in contact.
      Only Meroitic civilisation developped a script from the hieratic Egyptian, you have nothing further south.”
      .
      You really didn’t understand what I said, since I didn’t say mneumonic was unique, what I said the it developed once settled in a particular area. Even for a Mneumonic device, it was complex compared to other non-scripts.

      https://roundedglobe.com/html/e66869eb-0358-461c-8f45-3bfe55099a78/en/Grounded:%20Indigenous%20Knowing%20in%20a%20Concrete%20Reality/#c3a

      Likewise, the only people south of the Meroitic civilizations were mobile herders and Hunter-Gatherers with no use for it. Meanwhile, once in contact with with Arabs West Africans developed their own variant.

      Click to access AjamiCIRCRED.pdf

      “Otherwise, you do understand that the person, Fenton, using this admixture as evidence is arguing that Australian Aboriginals are the actual original people, right?”

      “Yes thanks, I can read the title, and that is what brought me here.
      I find the theory interesting, even if I got it long before.
      By the way, I now think otherwise so I let you guess.
      But sure, the idea is no more stupid than an African origin.
      There are more language in the single island of Papuasia than in the whole african continent, so why not ?

      In conclusion, you gotta think for yourself, never follow academy, or you will be forever on the path of deceiption.”

      You cite no sources for your evidence of evolution, gene flow, or fossils/tools. Comeback when you do that.

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      Ok, so Wikipedia is your source, that tells a lot…

      Obviously, starting with a false theory (OOA), you will be misguided forever.

      “In the past it was common to think that Paleolithic developements in Iberia were influenced or caused by North African arrivals. Later the opposite position became overwhelmingly dominant and the Gibraltar Strait was concieved more as a barrier than anything else.”
      (mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com)
      You are lving in the past, great for you, ignorance is bliss.

      “The recent time of introgression that we estimate (40, 000 years B.P. with wide credible intervals) suggests that archaic forms persisted in Africa till fairly recently”
      (Science Advances doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax5097)

      Get your facts check :

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      A wikipedia page with citations. Meanwhile, you cite a blog, that’s hardly any better.

      You don’t actually reference the study or topic she discusses, so it’s pointless. Furthermore, based on what i can find on her blog, the only topics this effects is North African-Iberia geneflow, not ME-Iberian Geneflow.

      From the same blog.

      https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/the-rapid-replacement-of-mesolithic-people-by-neoltihic-farmers-in-the-mediterrainean/

      “Having discounted evidence for piecemeal cultural diffusion of various elements of Neolithic economy and their selective adoption by indigenous Mesolithic populations in the western Mediterranean, Zilha˜o (61, 62) has gone on to demonstrate that, as in other parts of the Mediterranean Basin, the Late Mesolithic of the Iberian Peninsula was a period of population decline and relocation.

      Also as elsewhere, Neolithic settlements with apparently fully formed agro-pastoral economic systems suddenly appear in the Iberian Peninsula as coastal enclaves occupying limestone based soils abandoned by earlier Mesolithic peoples.

      Thus it appears that none of the earlier models for Neolithic emergence in the Mediterranean accurately or adequately frame the transition. Clearly there was a movement of people westward out of the Near East all of the way to the Atlantic shores of the Iberian Peninsula. But this demic expansion did not follow the slow and steady, allencompassing pace of expansion predicted by the wave and advance model. Instead the rate of dispersal varied, with Neolithic colonists taking 2,000 years to move from Cyprus to the Aegean, another
      500 to reach Italy, and then only 500–600 years to travel the much greater distance from Italy to the Atlantic.”

      As for the study on archaic dna, here is the full paragraph on the preprint.

      “We have documented strong evidence for introgression in four present-day sub-Saharan African populations from an archaic lineage that likely diverged prior to the split of modern humans and the ancestors of
      Neanderthals and Denisovans. The recent time of introgression that we estimate (40, 000 years B.P. with
      wide credible intervals) suggests that archaic forms persisted in Africa till fairly recently (29). Alternately,
      25 the archaic population could have introgressed earlier into a modern human population which then subsequently interbred with the ancestors of the populations that we have analyzed here. The models that we
      have explored here are not mutually exclusive and it is likely that the history of African populations includes
      genetic contributions from multiple divergent populations as evidenced by the large effective population size
      associated with the introgressing archaic population. Nevertheless, our results suggest a complex history of
      30 interaction between modern and archaic hominins in Africa.”

      In otherwords, there are still multiple scenarios that can account for it. In other words, involving multiple human populations that subsequentially interbreed. Already talked about it on this blog.

      “We find that the Ne of the introgressing lineage in YRI and MSL is larger than that in the other African populations, possibly due to a differential contribution from a basal West African branch (20).”

      Thus, this likely supports the idea that the basal Sapiens line that makes up West Africans was the sources of the first sapiens population to mix with the archaics.

      Likewise, the DNA is shared with Non Africans.

      https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/03/03/very-ancient-ghosts-in-the-african-genome/

      ” Using ABC to jointly fit the high-frequency–derived allele bins of the CSFS in CEU and YRI (defined as greater than 50% frequency), we find that the lower limit on the 95% credible interval of the introgression time is older than the simulated split between CEU and YRI (2800 versus 2155 generations B.P.), indicating that at least part of the archaic lineages seen in the YRI are also shared with the CEU (section S9.2).”

      https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/7/eaax5097.full

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      I was trying to get it simple just for you to understand.
      if you wanna get into the details, you got a developpement of th so-called Iberian culture all over France and Spain from 45000 B.P. to 11700 B.P. extending radially, the starting point being Franco-Catabrian Bassin.
      Half of the cave art in the world is here in quantity.
      In quality, it is something like 90%.
      The Gravettian sites you referred in your previous post are way after – something like 10 000 years, I hope you’ll get the picture.
      Ibero-Maurusian stemed from Atlantic, nor Africa, nor Russia.
      Gravettian is a mere continuation of Ust Ishim, 45 000 B.P.
      There you got slowly migration across Siberia.
      Ibero-Maurusian was fully form and perfect from the start.
      Magdalenian stemed from it.

      Now Mesolithic is after 11700 B.P., meaning the dramatic end-of-Pleistocene.
      Everywhere in the world it was a sad period, deprived of cave art.
      The survivors of the event that put an end to Pleistocene had to learn all over again , in other words.
      But writing was still there. Some wise people have preserved it.
      Then you get all these related people Iberians, Egytians, Sardinians, Minoans, way before Cyprus or Greece, you take the picture all the opposite.

      Concerning the introgression, the date I gave you is not by mean of MCU7, but DNA which is more reliable and give 35000-50000 years ago.
      So it’s fair to assume this coincide with the Ust Ishim migration, some went to east Europe and found Gravettian culture, others went to Africa and interbred with this yet unknown hominin.
      Of course the picture is complex, as I said in my previous you get 2 introgressions, probably one Naledi-related and another Ergaster-related.
      Then the two resultants could have mixed etc.
      All kind of interbreeding took place there.
      But human, or homo sapiens, doesn’t come from Africa.
      Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanskii.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “I was trying to get it simple just for you to understand.”

      Instead you made a bunch of unsupported points with sources that don’t agree with you.

      “if you wanna get into the details, you got a developpement of th so-called Iberian culture all over France and Spain from 45000 B.P. to 11700 B.P. extending radially, the starting point being Franco-Catabrian Bassin.
      Half of the cave art in the world is here in quantity.
      In quality, it is something like 90%.”

      • Half of the world’s art.
      • quality, something like “90%”

      Sources? Precise definitions?

      The Western european paleolithic was a thing, never disputed that. Doesn’t say much on OOA however.

      “The Gravettian sites you referred in your previous post are way after – something like 10 000 years, I hope you’ll get the picture.
      Ibero-Maurusian stemed from Atlantic, nor Africa, nor Russia.
      Gravettian is a mere continuation of Ust Ishim, 45 000 B.P.
      There you got slowly migration across Siberia.
      Ibero-Maurusian was fully form and perfect from the start.
      Magdalenian stemed from it.”

      Again, sources for the paleolithic pattern you are constructing here? Because genetically, Ust Ishim has nothing to do with Western Eurasians since they are closer to damn aboriginals or East asians.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ust%27-Ishim_man

      “Ibero-maurusian” refers to North Africa, not “Iberia”.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberomaurusian

      “Now Mesolithic is after 11700 B.P., meaning the dramatic end-of-Pleistocene.
      Everywhere in the world it was a sad period, deprived of cave art.
      The survivors of the event that put an end to Pleistocene had to learn all over again , in other words.
      But writing was still there. Some wise people have preserved it.
      Then you get all these related people Iberians, Egytians, Sardinians, Minoans, way before Cyprus or Greece, you take the picture all the opposite.”

      Yeah, none of that follows in the slightest. Sources.

      “Concerning the introgression, the date I gave you is not by mean of MCU7, but DNA which is more reliable and give 35000-50000 years ago.
      So it’s fair to assume this coincide with the Ust Ishim migration, some went to east Europe and found Gravettian culture, others went to Africa and interbred with this yet unknown hominin.”

      Except the genetics doesn’t prove that at all.

      “Of course the picture is complex, as I said in my previous you get 2 introgressions, probably one Naledi-related and another Ergaster-related.
      Then the two resultants could have mixed etc.
      All kind of interbreeding took place there.
      But human, or homo sapiens, doesn’t come from Africa.
      Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanskii.”

      Klyosov is a biochemist, not a geneticist and actually believes that Slavs are the root of Indo europeans and civilization.

      He’s a crank.

      https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_there_evidences_that_all_humans_descended_from_a_single_population_of_ancestors_in_Africa

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatole_Klyosov

      In his recent book on the subject he cites an australian anthropologist who uses outdated arguments regarding human origins, lumping neanderthals as continuous with Modern Europeans and arguing human populations domesticated themselves into their modern gracile forms.

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273751993_African_Eve_Hoax_or_Hypothesis

      Klysov also thinks OOA proponents view Neanderthals as “black africans”, which none take seriously.

      https://books.google.com/books?id=HsuBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=klyosov+out+of+africa+skin+color&source=bl&ots=8-Xnj8udBB&sig=ACfU3U250_AMuepFJNDt1jPYNbGpyA5V3g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtzIb3sufoAhVvhXIEHdooBo0Q6AEwDXoECA0QLA#v=onepage&q=klyosov%20out%20of%20africa%20skin%20color&f=false

      The only actual work that he did was on Y-Chromosome A00, whose main author apart form him still validated OOA.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2013303

      His biggest issue is with citing Rightmire that archaic traits among candidates Sapiens in Africa and ME are too “archaic”, despite the fact that Rightmore accounts for this.

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      “The Western european paleolithic was a thing, never disputed that. Doesn’t say much on OOA however.”
      Are you sure of that?
      The only cave art found in whole Africa is in the extreme north and associated with the ancestors of the Berbers, i.e. Ibero-Maurussian culture.
      Cave art is definitely a human trait, and a major step in human evolution.
      The fact that there is nothing in sub saharan Africa proves OOA is false.

      “Again, sources for the paleolithic pattern you are constructing here? Because genetically, Ust Ishim has nothing to do with Western Eurasians since they are closer to damn aboriginals or East asians.”
      Ust’Ishim was Y-K2*, like aboriginals, and unlike any European, certainly not the western (R1B associated with Cro-Magnon and RH-), and mtDNA-R which is found only in south-east Asia and you guess…in Africa.
      On his road, he interbed with Denisovan and in Africa who knpws. But he is in no way linked with any European.
      Europeans are in no-way related to aboriginals.

      ““Ibero-maurusian” refers to North Africa, not “Iberia”.”
      If you had read correctly my previous post, Ibero-Maurussian is just an offshoot (weak) of Iberian. it came much later, with less sophistication, proving Aterian is not valid, and that is why it is so much debated.
      “Latín” rock scripts in Canary Islands are ancient Iberian inscriptions (Iberian-Guanche) A story of forgotten genetics, scripts, pyramids and other prehistoric artifacts – Antonio Arnaiz-Villena

      ““Concerning the introgression, the date I gave you is not by mean of MCU7, but DNA which is more reliable and give 35000-50000 years ago.
      So it’s fair to assume this coincide with the Ust Ishim migration, some went to east Europe and found Gravettian culture, others went to Africa and interbred with this yet unknown hominin.”

      Except the genetics doesn’t prove that at all.””
      They have same mtDNA, what do you need more 45000 years after?

      I read all those papers you cite, they are bias because as I said before if you start with the false theory, you will forever be deceived.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “Are you sure of that?
      The only cave art found in whole Africa is in the extreme north and associated with the ancestors of the Berbers, i.e. Ibero-Maurussian culture.
      Cave art is definitely a human trait, and a major step in human evolution.
      The fact that there is nothing in sub saharan Africa proves OOA is false.”

      Actually cave art in Africa is oldest in South Africa, both at the border Cave and the Blombos Cave.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_the_Upper_Paleolithic#Near_East_and_North_Africa

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blombos_Cave#Pigments_and_engraved_pieces_of_ochre

      The logic that cave art equals “evolution” ( Human modernity is actually heavily revised by this point) doesn’t say anything about migration from Africa.

      “Ust’Ishim was Y-K2*, like aboriginals, and unlike any European, certainly not the western (R1B associated with Cro-Magnon and RH-), and mtDNA-R which is found only in south-east Asia and you guess…in Africa.
      On his road, he interbed with Denisovan and in Africa who knpws. But he is in no way linked with any European.
      Europeans are in no-way related to aboriginals.”

      Yet….you just said that the Gravettian was derived from it.

      -The Gravettian sites you referred in your previous post are way after – something like 10 000 years, I hope you’ll get the picture.
      Ibero-Maurusian stemed from Atlantic, nor Africa, nor Russia.
      Gravettian is a mere continuation of Ust Ishim, 45 000 B.P.
      There you got slowly migration across Siberia.

      Concerning the introgression, the date I gave you is not by mean of MCU7, but DNA which is more reliable and give 35000-50000 years ago.
      So it’s fair to assume this coincide with the Ust Ishim migration, some went to east Europe and found Gravettian culture, others went to Africa and interbred with this yet unknown hominin

      Otherwise, you have not evidence that suggest this “pattern” since you only use a single haplogroup rather than autosomal dna, which stops Ust’Ishm in it’s tracks because East Asians and Aboriginals are among the least related to Africans and both are closer to Europeans.

      That’s basic.

      ““Ibero-maurusian” refers to North Africa, not “Iberia”.”
      If you had read correctly my previous post, Ibero-Maurussian is just an offshoot (weak) of Iberian. it came much later, with less sophistication, proving Aterian is not valid, and that is why it is so much debated.
      “Latín” rock scripts in Canary Islands are ancient Iberian inscriptions (Iberian-Guanche) A story of forgotten genetics, scripts, pyramids and other prehistoric artifacts – Antonio Arnaiz-Villena”

      I read your post, the problem is that your post is incorrect. Canary Island culture isn’t Ibermaurisan, it’s neolithic.

      ““Concerning the introgression, the date I gave you is not by mean of MCU7, but DNA which is more reliable and give 35000-50000 years ago.
      So it’s fair to assume this coincide with the Ust Ishim migration, some went to east Europe and found Gravettian culture, others went to Africa and interbred with this yet unknown hominin.”

      “They have same mtDNA, what do you need more 45000 years after?”

      They don’t have the same “mtdna”, they have populations that have the mtdna R. More specific (and extensive) haplogroups and specific relations, autosomal dna, and toolkits are needed to make such a pattern your propose.

      And you fall short of the demand.

      “I read all those papers you cite, they are bias because as I said before if you start with the false theory, you will forever be deceived.”

      The problem isn’t that my studies are biased, the problem is that you clearly don’t read even the sources you provide since they contradict you.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      It is just obvious we never came from Africa…

      It’s actually very obvious we came to Africa. So obvious that Darwin inferred it.

      Like

  7. There were migrations out of Africa by gracile humans within past 100,000 years that largely (but not entirely) replaced robust humans. However, the gracile Africans weren’t a speciation event, so they were the same species as robust.

    My main issue with OOA is its proponents who treat gracile humans so-called “anatomically modern humans” as a separate species and argue humans as a species originated only in Africa. This is heavily politicised and not supported by fossil data or genomics.

    I don’t believe the human species originated solely in Africa, but a widespread area including Western Eurasia. How old is the human species? Arguably millions of years and I would sink most of the robust fossils with later gracile Africans into one (chrono) species and lineage with no speciation.

    ‘Anatomical modernity’ was never a speciation event, so if you go back millions of years it’s probable the human species originated in a larger region than just Africa.

    Like

    • Phil78 says:

      While I myself am used to thinking of Sapiens- Erectus, Neanderthals, etc. as “species”, I think of it as useful phenetic clades rather than actual biological division in the sense of lions and tigers within Panthera.

      If anything, my idea of human “species” would be more akin to thinking of North American Canis “species” or regional variations of lions in Africa and Asia. That is, the term isn’t beyond contention in light of common hybrids.

      In my article addressing Fuerle’s arguments, I bring up the generally in sync development of global hominids.

      Like

    • I consider them subspecies. The fact I recognise subspecies (races) existed in the past, doesn’t contradict I deny they now exist because population structure changed during the Holocene.

      “Modern paleoanthropology and genetics are among the disciplines that have shown that there is no taxonomy in the human species below the species level. They also show that the present poorly reflects the past. Neandertal morphology and genetics, and genetic evidence of other distinct groups, suggest far more population structure in the past. It is likely that for much of the Pleistocene the human species had races. But, whether or not races appeared in the past, they did not persist. With only some exceptions, much of the Pleistocene human variation did not survive the enormous population expansions and replacements of the latest Pleistocene and Holocene.” (Wolpoff, 2013)

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      Yeah, got to agree, that at least corresponding past populations as “races”, such level of diversity in very much decreased.

      Like

    • mikemikev says:

      STFU slaphead

      Like

  8. Aitor says:

    Bomblos cave…art?? Try not to laugh, I was doing this myself at 4 year-old.
    Fact is Neanderthal “art” was quite the same as Bomblos.
    Take a look at Oldislieben (120 000 years B.P.) and bilzingsleben (350 000 years B.P.) [not to mention Kozarnika 1,2 My B.P. which totally destroy your beloved OOA], the implications are obvious :
    1 – Neanderthal never evolved.
    2 – Your south-African hominin was at the same level than Neanderthal, which is very low in comparison to west European Paleolithic cave art, which I repeat myself, were made by fully humans, maybe more than us, and there was nothing going on in Africa this whole period.

    Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki › Bilzingsleben
    Oldisleben I – Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
    Kozarnika – Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org

    Yes, you’re right, we clearly don’t have the same definition of art.

    Border cave is a much worse example, being only 35 000 years before present, and appears like a two year-old child had played with it, but could have been done by a chimpanzee (do you know Bonobos can make spear points).
    At the same time, we have figurative signs, which appear to be a script, in west European caves.
    Clearly, you don’t know what you are talking about.
    Take a look at what was done in France at the same time :

    wikipedia.org › wiki › Grotte_Chauvet

    And 7 000 years prior, in the south of Spain :

    Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki › Caves_of_Nerja

    You can’t be objective in any way, I must assume you are afrocentrist.

    “Yet….you just said that the Gravettian was derived from it.”

    Yet, K2* is only found in Australia. There is no way to prove a link between Y-R and Y-K2, please do not play the geneticist.
    Fact is, only australo-melanesians possess great amounts of Denisovan and what is between Ust’Ishim and Australia? Denisova cave…

    Available evidence suggests that I-M170 was preceded into areas in which it would later become dominant by haplogroups K2a (K-M2308) and C1 (Haplogroup C-F3393). K2a and C1 have been found in the oldest sequenced male remains from Western Eurasia (dating from circa 45,000 to 35,000 years BP), such as: Ust’-Ishim man (modern west Siberia) K2a*, Oase 1 (Romania) K2a*, Kostenki 14 (south west Russia) C1b, and Goyet Q116-1 (Belgium) C1a.[3][4] The oldest I-M170 found is that of an individual known as Krems WA3 (lower Austria), dating from circa 33,000-24,000 BP.
    (Haplogroup I-M170 – Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki › Haplogroup-I)
    Are you sure Gravettian didn’t stem from Ust’Ishim?
    Gravettian was a lower level of art (tools, etc) than western cultures, there is no way to compare. So please do not confuse the picture. It is already that complex, but you’ve got to see things with simplicity.

    “Otherwise, you have not evidence that suggest this “pattern” since you only use a single haplogroup rather than autosomal dna, which stops Ust’Ishm in it’s tracks because East Asians and Aboriginals are among the least related to Africans and both are closer to Europeans.

    That’s basic.”

    That’s totally false and stupid. Just need eyes to see East Asians and Australians look way more like Africans than west Europeans do.
    Clearly, you can’t rely to much on genetics, it is still in its infantry.

    “I read your post, the problem is that your post is incorrect. Canary Island culture isn’t Ibermaurisan, it’s neolithic.”
    Oldest Iberomaurusian site, Taforatl, is 15000 years old, Canary islands were populated way before, but that is mystery. You have no way to investigate this, as not one scientist have a clue.

    “They don’t have the same “mtdna”, they have populations that have the mtdna R. More specific (and extensive) haplogroups and specific relations, autosomal dna, and toolkits are needed to make such a pattern your propose.

    And you fall short of the demand.”

    They don’t have the same because of, specifically, this introgression.
    The interbreeding with unknown hominin obviously make the picture more complex. But the so-called fatherland of Africans, judging to what they tell us, the horn of Ethiopia, is mtDNA R…
    But that is only proving my case, not yours.
    There is no toolkit because they devolved, and hey, sub-Saharan Africa is a way from Siberia, isn’t it?

    “The problem isn’t that my studies are biased, the problem is that you clearly don’t read even the sources you provide since they contradict you.”

    I don’t think so, I think you want your ‘truth’ to be reality. Sadly for you, there is only one TRUTH.

    Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “Bomblos cave…art?? Try not to laugh, I was doing this myself at 4 year-old.
      Fact is Neanderthal “art” was quite the same as Bomblos.
      Take a look at Oldislieben (120 000 years B.P.) and bilzingsleben (350 000 years B.P.) [not to mention Kozarnika 1,2 My B.P. which totally destroy your beloved OOA], the implications are obvious :”

      None of those marks formed geometric shapes like Blombos.
      None of them debunk OOA, infact the guy you cite theorizes that ALL show symbolic thinking and he believes Sapiens isn’t superior. So he already disagrees with your point on superiority of art.

      “1 – Neanderthal never evolved.
      2 – Your south-African hominin was at the same level than Neanderthal, which is very low in comparison to west European Paleolithic cave art, which I repeat myself, were made by fully humans, maybe more than us, and there was nothing going on in Africa this whole period.”

      Neanderthals did evolve…all living things do.
      No, you didn’t prove it. all you did was show tally marks, not actual patterns. Likewise, there is the Apollo cave.

      “Yes, you’re right, we clearly don’t have the same definition of art.”

      “Border cave is a much worse example, being only 35 000 years before present, and appears like a two year-old child had played with it, but could have been done by a chimpanzee (do you know Bonobos can make spear points).”

      Bonobos can sharpen sticks, they don’t make stone points. Second, I said Apollo Cave, not Border cave. Either way, Berber cave art wasn’t even as good as Paleolithic art, but are you saying Farming, herding, and more advance tools of Berbers means nothing?

      You still haven’t proven differences in tools.

      “At the same time, we have figurative signs, which appear to be a script, in west European caves.
      Clearly, you don’t know what you are talking about.
      Take a look at what was done in France at the same time :”

      “wikipedia.org › wiki › Grotte_Chauvet

      And 7 000 years prior, in the south of Spain :

      Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki › Caves_of_Nerja

      You can’t be objective in any way, I must assume you are afrocentrist.”

      I’m not, however you are clearly bias since nowhere is there a script in these drawings.

      “Yet….you just said that the Gravettian was derived from it.”

      “Yet, K2* is only found in Australia. There is no way to prove a link between Y-R and Y-K2, please do not play the geneticist.
      Fact is, only australo-melanesians possess great amounts of Denisovan and what is between Ust’Ishim and Australia? Denisova cave…”

      You actually are wrong. K2 actually exists in South Asia, not just Australia.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K2a_(Y-DNA)

      Also, how do you tell me not to play geneticist when that’s exactly what you are doing? Likewise, Ust’Ishim is closest to Tibetans, not Australians.

      “Available evidence suggests that I-M170 was preceded into areas in which it would later become dominant by haplogroups K2a (K-M2308) and C1 (Haplogroup C-F3393). K2a and C1 have been found in the oldest sequenced male remains from Western Eurasia (dating from circa 45,000 to 35,000 years BP), such as: Ust’-Ishim man (modern west Siberia) K2a*, Oase 1 (Romania) K2a*, Kostenki 14 (south west Russia) C1b, and Goyet Q116-1 (Belgium) C1a.[3][4] The oldest I-M170 found is that of an individual known as Krems WA3 (lower Austria), dating from circa 33,000-24,000 BP.
      (Haplogroup I-M170 – Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki › Haplogroup-I)
      Are you sure Gravettian didn’t stem from Ust’Ishim?

      Gravettian was a lower level of art (tools, etc) than western cultures, there is no way to compare. So please do not confuse the picture. It is already that complex, but you’ve got to see things with simplicity.”

      Here’s simplicity, none of those Europeans specimens belong to Gravettian Culture.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravettian#Genetics

      “Otherwise, you have not evidence that suggest this “pattern” since you only use a single haplogroup rather than autosomal dna, which stops Ust’Ishm in it’s tracks because East Asians and Aboriginals are among the least related to Africans and both are closer to Europeans.

      That’s basic.”

      “That’s totally false and stupid. Just need eyes to see East Asians and Australians look way more like Africans than west Europeans do.
      Clearly, you can’t rely to much on genetics, it is still in its infantry.”

      You just relied on genetics of fossils to reassert your point. It’s common fucking knowledge that Non Africans are all closer related to each other than to Africans.

      “I read your post, the problem is that your post is incorrect. Canary Island culture isn’t Ibermaurisan, it’s neolithic.”
      Oldest Iberomaurusian site, Taforatl, is 15000 years old, Canary islands were populated way before, but that is mystery. You have no way to investigate this, as not one scientist have a clue.”

      No, scratch that, Neolithic is too early.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Islands_in_pre-colonial_times

      More like Bronze age.

      “They don’t have the same “mtdna”, they have populations that have the mtdna R. More specific (and extensive) haplogroups and specific relations, autosomal dna, and toolkits are needed to make such a pattern your propose.

      And you fall short of the demand.”

      “They don’t have the same because of, specifically, this introgression.
      The interbreeding with unknown hominin obviously make the picture more complex. But the so-called fatherland of Africans, judging to what they tell us, the horn of Ethiopia, is mtDNA R…
      But that is only proving my case, not yours.
      There is no toolkit because they devolved, and hey, sub-Saharan Africa is a way from Siberia, isn’t it?”

      MTDNA doesn’t change with introgression, changes due independent mutations.
      African R is the most Basal R, which doesn’t fit a migration towards Africa

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)

      South African toolkit UP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibudu_Cave

      “The problem isn’t that my studies are biased, the problem is that you clearly don’t read even the sources you provide since they contradict you.”

      “I don’t think so, I think you want your ‘truth’ to be reality. Sadly for you, there is only one TRUTH.”

      Bro, early you criticize me for using wikipedia. most of you links in your response is wikipedia. You aren’t even consistent with your own standards.

      Like

  9. Aitor says:

    BRO… Jajai!!!
    You are not only Africentrist, you are African, as I see.
    It is only typical of your ethnicity (race? specy?) to get the last word, so O.K., you GOT IT : we all came from South Africa looool

    Like

    • Phil78 says:

      Not an Afrocentrist. The problems are

      1. You fail to fully logically prove OOA is debunked by West European Paleoart, whether or not it is indeed superior.
      2. Your arguments on diffusion (Egyptians, Western Europeans. Bantus, etc) are up not to snuff.

      3. The sources you use to debunk OOA (Rednarik or Klyosov) disagrees with you contentions of Western Euro art being superior or that Humans originated in Western Europe.

      4. Your haplogroup logic and assertions are bunk. On that note, the specimens you listed that actually were found in central Europe were not K2a except for Oase. The specimen wasn’t even Gravettia.

      https://books.google.com/books?id=Za0RAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT296&lpg=PT296&dq=Pe%C8%99tera+cu+Oase+(+gravettian&source=bl&ots=US2_581JHv&sig=ACfU3U2lTrtZknTdxXuTK88JrsaSxCshbQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjH1YXnqO_oAhWehHIEHSY4Dg4Q6AEwEHoECAwQKQ#v=onepage&q=Pe%C8%99tera%20cu%20Oase%20(%20gravettian&f=false

      1. Your logic of Africans, East asians, and Australians being closer related is bunk and unsupported.

      If you have sources, use them and be specific.

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      One funny man once said “judge not, before you have judged yourself”, even if he was one kind of amusing pranker, on this he was right.
      One must get higher intelligence to get back trought the mists of time, and please do not take it for granted, but that is absolutely not your case…
      Bantu expansion is a mere two thousand years old, and as I have said before, Paleolithic art was done 11 712 years, when Paleocene got an end.
      As Oliver D. Smith told you, there was replacement of population at this moment, you even replied as you have understood, but I can clearly see you haven’t.
      What does it mean ? Simply that you’re confusing space and time.
      All this have nothing in common.
      Here we use to say “do not talk to idiots, it instructs them”, but only for you :
      1 – Negroid type came from Europe (look “Grimaldi cave”.
      2 – South African “superior” hominin (Hofmeyr) has got only parallels with Cro-Magnon, so he came from Europe too (if you think Bantu people have invented agriculture, you’re really funny).
      3 – Ancient Chinese script is at least 8000 years old, as proto Iberian-Berber and proto-Egyptian, Minoan and Luwian.
      4 – Not one African can explain the name Africa. I can.
      Need more?

      Like

    • Bednarik debunks the OOA hypothesis (which he calls “African Eve hypothesis”) since he’s only talking about a model that equates the gracile Africans that migrated out of Africa with a speciation event with no interbreeding. The problem is there were always less strict OOA hypotheses, that for example allowed for negligible/minimal interbreeding. Bednarik however disagrees and considers all the latter to be variants of multiregionalism. He’s completely mistaken, nevertheless he’s correct that the OOA hypothesis that equates “anatomical modernity” with a speciation event has been falsified.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      You got to be joking.

      1.” One must get higher intelligence to get back trought the mists of time, and please do not take it for granted, but that is absolutely not your case…
      Bantu expansion is a mere two thousand years old, and as I have said before, Paleolithic art was done 11 712 years, when Paleocene got an end.”

      I’ve only mentioned the Bantu because you brought them up first and somehow connected their agriculture to the Egyptians which you do not prove.

      African Agriculture below the Sahara from West to South Africa uses Crops not native to the middle east or Egypt. I’ve already did an article covering it.

      “As Oliver D. Smith told you, there was replacement of population at this moment, you even replied as you have understood, but I can clearly see you haven’t.
      What does it mean ? Simply that you’re confusing space and time.”

      No, you are, because you are being non-specific so i have no idea what you are referring to as for a “replacement”.

      1. Grimaldi isn’t negroid, it simply has robust features.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimaldi_man#Physical_characteristics

      To argue that it actually was would be afrocentric.

      1. I know how old scripts are, the problem is that is a non sequitor regarding genetic origins.
      2. The Hofmeyr skull shares similarities to EUP skulls, but the relationship isn’t close.

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6582217_11_Grine_FE_Bailey_RM_Harvati_K_Nathan_RP_Morris_AG_Henderson_GM_Ribot_I_Pike_AWG_2007_Late_Pleistocene_human_skull_from_Hofmeyr

      In otherwords, as the study stated, it is consistent with the idea that the EUP descended from African populations.

      As you can see, EUP phenotypes are distant from modern Eurasian phenotypes.

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6582217_11_Grine_FE_Bailey_RM_Harvati_K_Nathan_RP_Morris_AG_Henderson_GM_Ribot_I_Pike_AWG_2007_Late_Pleistocene_human_skull_from_Hofmeyr/figures

      And as I’ve outlined here, much of the reason why it doesn’t align with SSA is due to it’s more archaic nature.

      https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/06/25/richard-fuerle-and-ooa-morphological-and-genetic-incongruencies/

      Hofmeyr aligning with EUP doesn’t say much when Modern Europeans barely resemble them.

      The only official study that alludes to the idea is this one, but it dates the U^ haplogroup to 20k when the skull is much older than that.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062890/

      Also, do you nor realize how backwards your argument is? Grimaldi in Europe has “negroid” specializations, but Hofmeyr in Africa doesn’t?

      The answer is that neither have these features due to ancestry, but because of lack of specialization at that time.

      Your argument on “Africa” makes no sense because

      1. No “Asian” referred to the continent as Asia prior to Europeans.

      2. In truth, there is no agreed upon criteria for a continent. Hence why different schools of thought are taught across the world.

      3. Europeans calling the whole continent Africa due to Northern Roman Colonies using the term isn’t challenged. It’s just that has little bearing on genetic origins.

      Like

    • @Phil78

      I debated this on Anthroscape in 2016 [I was posting as TombRaider]:

      https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/anthroscape/cro-magnon-were-not-caucasoid-t59620.html

      “We examined a sample of 35 European Upper Palaeolithic crania (EUP) using multivariate statistical methods and found 19 of these specimens display a closer affinity to a sample of non-European recent skulls (out of seven samples from all over the world, including Europe, ten were closest to the Australian sample, three to Mokapu (Hawaii), two to San, two to Zulu, and two to the sample from Japan).” – Van Vark et al. (2005), see also (2003)

      Craniometric means of individual EUP crania show huge variability; 19/35 (54%) show closest affinity to non-European population samples, but most (10) of those were to the Australian aborigine skull sample in Howell’s cranial collection. Only 4 showed closest similarity to African populations (San and Zulu), so yes it’s an inaccurate claim and Afrocentrist fantasy to claim EUP’s on average looked “Negroid”.

      Unfortunately, the idiots didn’t understand what I was telling them there:

      “Kostenki 14 has closest craniometric affinity with Australian Aborigines (Van Vark et al. 2003). However, PCA shows the opposite.”

      As I further tried to explain:

      “The discrepancy in these results (morphometrics vs. genetics) is explained by the fact morphological affinity is a poor indicator for the determination of ancestral-descendant relationships between the Upper Palaeolithic and Holocene because there were significant craniofacial changes. The so called “Caucasoid” [“and Negroid”] morphology is a lot more recent than the Upper Palaeolithic.”

      I should clarify I don’t believe in the utility of “Caucasoid”/”Negroid” etc., hence why I highlight them. I would prefer like Howells (1995) to just focus on local populations like San, Zulu, Mokapu, Norse etc.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      I remember seeing the “australoid argument being used specifically for the Grimaldi skull. The same seem to apply for paleoamerican skulls as well, which is what you would expect from long term tropical latitude specialization.

      Likewise, I hate using the term “Negroid”, Caucuasoid”, etc. I’m pretty sure I’ve read since Darwin and and certain studies that skull shape varies considerably within populations.

      Like

  10. Aitor says:

    “Bednarik debunks the OOA hypothesis (which he calls “African Eve hypothesis”) since he’s only talking about a model that equates the gracile Africans that migrated out of Africa with a speciation event with no interbreeding. The problem is there were always less strict OOA hypotheses, that for example allowed for negligible/minimal interbreeding. Bednarik however disagrees and considers all the latter to be variants of multiregionalism. He’s completely mistaken, nevertheless he’s correct that the OOA hypothesis that equates “anatomical modernity” with a speciation event has been falsified.”
    Oliver D. Smith :
    To me, this look like a confession he was wrong all along, but much like our dear fellow, Phil78, he couldn’t admit it fully and all at once.
    Gracile and robust specimen were variations in a same species we can call Ergaster evolved, or Bodo-Kabwe-Elandsfontein-Rhodosiensis-Helmei-Naledi (Heidelbergensis is more misleeding since it refers to ancestors of Neanderthals and/or Denisovans, who were eurasians specimen, nonetheless it is not deprived of any good sense, since similarities are striking, but that explain the lack of Neanderthal DNA in sub-saharan specimen, since the separation predated the apparition of Neanderthal).
    There you can see the variation : Omo and Helmei brain capacity were twice that of Naledi, and somewhat could be put in comparison with chinese (Jinniushan) specimen and Neanderthals
    So, were is lying the great lie on which rely every good afrocentrist?
    It is Omo (Kenya) ans Herto (Ethiopia), in two words.
    The major problem, for those mongrels, is that Herto and Omo are not Ergaster-Naledi related, they share much greater similarities with Israel or Greek specimen of the same time-space, namely Myslia ans Apidima respectively.
    Herto didn’t stem from Bodo, as anthropolists put it ; Bodo was a monster, it looked like Aegyptopithecus, 34 millions years older according to Geology (which is more than 10 Millions years in reality).
    Herto was an outsider and came from Israel, here is THE GREAT LIE.
    For each afrocentrist, Herto is the cornerstone. But, hey, little brain, this one was in Ethiopia, do you know where Ethiopia is?
    In the Levant, in this time the red sea was practicable, and those washed-up brains can not figure this out.
    And for all anthropologists who put out La Ferassie stemmed from Bodo, it is as saying Chimps stemmed from Gibbons, this is pure non-sense.
    Yes, La Ferrasie and Herto look somewhat similar, but that only mean Herto stemmed from Myslia-related specimen, not the other way round.
    Omo is controversial, giving the changing in datation and the debatable reconstitution, and look like some OOA morrons tried to lie once again ; however, it doesn’t change anything.
    Moreover, Skhul and Qafzeh are not humans in any way, they were the typical Neanderthal.
    Dar-es-Soltane was a regional variation of Neanderthal too.
    The implications are huge : humans never were here until 67 000 years ago (Liujiang, China), and that is why we got this introgression from Neanderthal, because we never stemmed from them.
    The fact that we find Ergaster and Naledi types all over Africa means they were the culprits of ths introgression. Was it forced-sex like it seems to be the case for us and Neanderthals, no one knows for sure but it happened.
    Now Naledi was related to Australopithecus Sediba, that is just obvious, so you have got chimp-like introgression in many africans, that is not nothing.
    The time of introgression being the same as the first time we see “moderns” (i.e. humans, simply put) in the fossils prove their migration was correlated with us in some way.
    Iwo Eleru is much recent but it appears really archaïc. This probable forebearer of all Niger-Congo people was maybe one half Ergaster-like.
    The most interesting is Jebel-Irhoud, because it is at the edge of the continent, it was dated at 300 000 years B.P. (Y-A00 is 340 000 years B.P.), and appears to be a perfect hybrid between “humans” (but not from Africa, I repeat myself) and African hominin, which is, Ergaster.
    By the way, Castenedolo skull is at least 2,6 millions years old (geological age, which means one million year ago) and was found in Liguria, destroying all of OOA nonsense.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Phil78 says:

      To me, this look like a confession he was wrong all along, but much like our “dear fellow, Phil78, he couldn’t admit it fully and all at once.”

      If you think what Smith wrote is a “confession” that I’m wrong, your reading comprehension is worst then I thought.

      He said that OOA wasn’t speciation, not that it wasn’t an accurate for of genetic patterns and migration.

      “Gracile and robust specimen were variations in a same species we can call Ergaster evolved, or Bodo-Kabwe-Elandsfontein-Rhodosiensis-Helmei-Naledi (Heidelbergensis is more misleeding since it refers to ancestors of Neanderthals and/or Denisovans, who were eurasians specimen, nonetheless it is not deprived of any good sense, since similarities are striking, but that explain the lack of Neanderthal DNA in sub-saharan specimen, since the separation predated the apparition of Neanderthal).
      There you can see the variation : Omo and Helmei brain capacity were twice that of Naledi, and somewhat could be put in comparison with chinese (Jinniushan) specimen and Neanderthals
      So, were is lying the great lie on which rely every good afrocentrist?”

      You aren’t really making much of a point, since Homo naledi is only signficant in it’s retention.

      That’s not surprising, since Asia also has the red Deer Cave people that are also very archaic.

      I’ve discussed Archaic, Modern, and other fossil affinities here.

      https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/06/25/richard-fuerle-and-ooa-morphological-and-genetic-incongruencies/

      I”t is Omo (Kenya) ans Herto (Ethiopia), in two words.
      The major problem, for those mongrels, is that Herto and Omo are not Ergaster-Naledi related, they share much greater similarities with Israel or Greek specimen of the same time-space, namely Myslia ans Apidima respectively.”

      That doesn’t mean anything. In the same areas as where the Levant and Greek specimens are, you have Neanderthals that have no similarities.

      Modern coexisting with Archaic doesn’t prove anything.

      Using samples in Africa going back to 300k-200k, older than the greek fossil, you have human origins understood in African.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11213-w

      “Herto didn’t stem from Bodo, as anthropolists put it ; Bodo was a monster, it looked like Aegyptopithecus, 34 millions years older according to Geology (which is more than 10 Millions years in reality).”

      Citation.

      “Herto was an outsider and came from Israel, here is THE GREAT LIE.
      For each afrocentrist, Herto is the cornerstone. But, hey, little brain, this one was in Ethiopia, do you know where Ethiopia is?”

      Not Israel. See the abive study that doesn’t support a Middle Eastern source.

      “In the Levant, in this time the red sea was practicable, and those washed-up brains can not figure this out.
      And for all anthropologists who put out La Ferassie stemmed from Bodo, it is as saying Chimps stemmed from Gibbons, this is pure non-sense.
      Yes, La Ferrasie and Herto look somewhat similar, but that only mean Herto stemmed from Myslia-related specimen, not the other way round.
      Omo is controversial, giving the changing in datation and the debatable reconstitution, and look like some OOA morrons tried to lie once again ; however, it doesn’t change anything.
      Moreover, Skhul and Qafzeh are not humans in any way, they were the typical Neanderthal.”

      Skhul and Qafzeh are speculated to be mixed with Neanderthal, but they are Humans.

      See the context of the Greece Specimen.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02075-9

      “Dar-es-Soltane was a regional variation of Neanderthal too.”

      They are not.

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241685281_Morphological_Continuity_of_the_Face_in_the_Late_Middle_and_Late_Pleistocene_Hominins_from_Northwestern_Africa_A_3D_Geometric_Morphometric_Analysis

      “The implications are huge : humans never were here until 67 000 years ago (Liujiang, China), and that is why we got this introgression from Neanderthal, because we never stemmed from them.”

      None of that follows from the evidence.

      Regarding the Liujiang fossil, see here.

      https://donsmaps.com/liujiang.html

      https://aeon.co/essays/new-evidence-about-the-human-occupation-of-asia-is-cascading-in

      https://research.umn.edu/inquiry/post/fossil-teeth-point-early-exodus-africa

      https://www.axios.com/growing-theory-is-humans-left-africa-early-437dc3b6-651f-4663-b9c3-81d93363350d.html

      “The fact that we find Ergaster and Naledi types all over Africa means they were the culprits of ths introgression. Was it forced-sex like it seems to be the case for us and Neanderthals, no one knows for sure but it happened.
      Now Naledi was related to Australopithecus Sediba, that is just obvious, so you have got chimp-like introgression in many africans, that is not nothing.
      The time of introgression being the same as the first time we see “moderns” (i.e. humans, simply put) in the fossils prove their migration was correlated with us in some way.”

      Except there is no evidence of Naledi admixture. Likewise, naledi is closest to Early Homo like Habilis, not Australopithecus.

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284798160_Estimating_the_age_and_affinities_of_Homo_naledi

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841730427X

      “Iwo Eleru is much recent but it appears really archaïc. This probable forebearer of all Niger-Congo people was maybe one half Ergaster-like.”

      While Archaic, it is closest to Laetoli. Likewise in terms of skull features it was noted of NOT resembling recent population in the area.

      So a “forbearer” is unlikely.

      “The most interesting is Jebel-Irhoud, because it is at the edge of the continent, it was dated at 300 000 years B.P. (Y-A00 is 340 000 years B.P.), and appears to be a perfect hybrid between “humans” (but not from Africa, I repeat myself) and African hominin, which is, Ergaster.”

      Actually the “archaic” features puts it with Neanderthals in terms of similarity, an the most contemporanous Sapien specimen was found in South Africa.

      See my first link.

      “By the way, Castenedolo skull is at least 2,6 millions years old (geological age, which means one million year ago) and was found in Liguria, destroying all of OOA nonsense.”

      You resorted to a creationist talking point.

      https://ncse.ngo/are-there-human-fossils-wrong-place-evolution

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      Phil78 :

      Creationist argument? I could say the same of each and every African fossils.
      I call this “suppressed evidence”.
      Saying human is much older in his modern form than currently believed is not crationnist, it is revolutionnist.
      Yes, while apemen roamed all over Africa, there were “modern” humans elsewhere, that is called counter-OOA and certainly much more real than your dubious hypothesis.
      I told you Ergaster was an hybrid, that means there were humans at the same time and before.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “Creationist argument? I could say the same of each and every African fossils.
      I call this “suppressed evidence”.”

      That requires evidence of “suppression”. regardless, i say creationist argument because only creationists actually take that date serious. If you actually did believe in that date not only does that Contradict your Atlantic theory, that also contradicts your point on the Liujiang skull (also contradicting your atlantic theory).

      “Saying human is much older in his modern form than currently believed is not crationnist, it is revolutionnist.”

      Learn to spell. Falling for creationist hokum without critical thinking is hardly “revolutionary”, that’s laziness.

      “Yes, while apemen roamed all over Africa, there were “modern” humans elsewhere, that is called counter-OOA and certainly much more real than your dubious hypothesis.”

      Except you don’t prove that. Herto, Omo Kibish, Florisbad, Guomode, Nazlet Khater, Lukenya Hill, Blombos Cave, and border cave all overlap with other Sapiens outside of Africa.

      “I told you Ergaster was an hybrid, that means there were humans at the same time and before.”

      That makes no sense. “Ergaster” isn’t shown to be a hybrid, what may be are examples like Laetoli, Iwo Eleru, and other modern-archaic mixes like those in Asia.

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      Learn to read.

      Of course Castenedolo makes sense.
      As I told you, radiometric errors put it one million year ago ago.
      Human is far much older than that.
      We never came from Arica, that is just at one point in time 350 000 years ago or 700 000, whatever, your forebearers went down the sink.
      They were humans but they interbred with Ergaster / Habilis, creating Naldi-type monsters.
      We never found human-looking skull in Africa :
      Paranthropus – an alien looking monster
      Australopithecus – a chimp-like cannibal
      “Homo” habilis – a chimp like mute ugly dwarf
      “Homo” gautengensis – a small-brai,ed big-toothed low forehead outsider
      “Homo” rudolfensis – closer to Australopithecus and Habilis than anything else
      Pitecanthropus ergaster – an half human brain, deprived of forehead, with huge eyebrows and monstruous prognathism, much like later “africans” – At best the thing was an hybrid

      All your “examples” are hoaxes :
      – Bombos : not one fossil has been found
      – Herto : White demonstrated it was ouside of human variations, that means not human at all
      – Omo Kibish : controversial, and typically negroid
      – Florisbad : a south radiation of homo Neanderthalensis, dated 100 000 years B.P. in reality (radiometric errors)
      – Guomode : an hoax. Not one scientist put this one forward right now
      – Nazlet Kather : not 38 000 years old, but 14 000 (always the same radiometric errors), not an African at all, and ancestor of ancient Egyptians. Please stop stealing other cultures glorious past
      – Lukenya Hill : 23 000 years B.P., meaning 10 000 years before present at best. Are you for real ? How does it proves anything for OOA when you’ve got 180 000 years old modern jaw in Israel?
      – Border cave / Lebombo : the monster look quite like a human without chin, and with low forehead and proeminous arcads, but is much younger than israel fossils and much more archaic. There were Middle Stone Age in Eurasia too, it doesn’t prove anything.

      So STOP SPREADING LIES.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      Not even going to bother with your first list, since you don’t even deal with my specimens. All I will say is that you better find proof reasserting that the skull is indeed that old.

      Teeth were found at blombos, and while I can’t find detailed descriptions of those studies, a cave just as old and in the region, Sibidu, place them at 60k-70k and modern.

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330355760_Human_teeth_from_securely_stratified_Middle_Stone_Age_contexts_at_Sibudu_South_Africa

      Herto’s features from White’s study.

      “The Herto crania are thus not Neanderthals. They exhibit none of
      the notably derived features that are common to those Eurasian
      specimens attributed to a Neanderthal lineage9 represented by a
      multitude of fossils of successive ages, and culminating in the
      ‘classic’ Neanderthals. The Herto hominids are contemporaneous
      with obvious antecedents of the ‘classic’ Neanderthals, but do not
      resemble them. The Herto hominids also have derived characters
      not seen in Homo erectus and in other apparently older African
      specimens such as Bodo, Saldanha and Kabwe, and so cannot be
      assigned to those groups.”

      “The morphology of the Herto crania falls between the more
      primitive morphology of the earlier African specimens (such as
      Bodo and Kabwe) and the more derived morphology of later AMHS
      (such as Klasies and Qafzeh). The Herto crania are intermediate,
      metrically and non-metrically, in an African series spanning about
      600,000–100,000 years ago, although they are not the only such
      intermediates in the series. They sample a population that is on the
      verge of anatomical modernity but not yet fully modern (Fig. 4).
      This conclusion is supported by comparative anatomical, metric
      and cladistic considerations, and has profound evolutionary and
      taxonomic implications.”

      What does this mean in the context of theories? He is clear.

      “Some genetic studies have concluded that populations whose
      contributions quantitatively dominate the modern human gene
      pool were located in Middle Pleistocene Africa. However, fossil
      confirmation of these predictions has been lacking. This has
      prompted some to assert that the sparse African record did not
      falsify the ‘multiregional’ evolution of AMHS in Europe and the Far
      East15–17. The Herto crania fail to confirm such ‘multiregional’

      speculation and conform more closely to most molecular predictions14,18–20. They add direct fossil evidence about the anatomy of the
      populations ancestral to modern humans. The many morphological
      features shared by the Herto crania and AMHS, to the exclusion of
      penecontemporanous Neanderthals, provide additional fossil data
      excluding Neanderthals from a significant contribution to the
      ancestry of modern humans.”

      The intermediate position being being between Kabwe (Broken Hill) and Qafzeh 6 is the same as found in the apidima skull.

      https://www.academia.edu/39824083/Apidima_Cave_fossils_provide_earliest_evidence_of_Homo_sapiens_in_Eurasia

      Click to access White-TD-et-al-2003-Nature-Herto.pdf

      Omo isn’t controversial. Present data showing otherwise. If Hofmeyr is more archaic than “negroids” as I’ve shown, than Omo isn’t even close.

      Florisbad has little affinity to Neanderthals, see my earlier links mentioning the specimen in relation to others.

      Evidence of Guomde “ER 3884”.

      http://fossilized.org/Human_paleontology/_sites_expanded.php?primy_key=149

      https://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16046

      Nazlet Khater was never shown to be redated or show links with Egyptians.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863481/

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10964529

      You are really fucking stupid, you know that? 23,000 year B.P means 23,000 before present, meaning onverting it to B.C means subtracting 2000 years, not 10,000 years.

      The Jaw in Israel is younger than Omo and Florisbad, enough said.

      Border Cave specimens actually have a high forehead from the crania specimen, and modern mandibles even with the chins.

      https://books.google.com/books?id=5TRHOmTUTP4C&pg=PA435&lpg=PA435&dq=border+cave+skull+chin&source=bl&ots=WC4gpz74Bs&sig=ACfU3U1j1i2j1rUVXoO7p62i32XjGl7XHA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl3_3ft_ToAhXYlnIEHc8YAE04ChDoATABegQIDBAu#v=onepage&q=border%20cave%20skull%20chin&f=false

      You’re the only one spreading lies.

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      “Not even going to bother with your first list, since you don’t even deal with my specimens.”

      Yes, of course, you prefer to ignore the ugly truth… That is very scientific from you, and that doesn’t surprise me at all.

      “All I will say is that you better find proof reasserting that the skull is indeed that old.”
      Yes of course, it is a hoax.
      Sadly for you, it was found with coral cemented onto it with blue clay.
      Do you know the last time Liguria was under the sea?
      Who are you to judge?
      One thing is sur, it is not like your African fossils, found on the ground, with all datation debatable.
      That tells much about your honesty.

      “Teeth were found at blombos, and while I can’t find detailed descriptions of those studies, a cave just as old and in the region, Sibidu, place them at 60k-70k and modern.”
      Yes, you have said everything.
      There are no published studies because the teeth were found to be outside any modern variations. Everything falling out of place with OOA is supressed, for obvious reasons.

      “Herto’s features from White’s study.

      The intermediate position being being between Kabwe (Broken Hill) and Qafzeh 6 is the same as found in the apidima skull.”

      Kabwe was Ergaster, Qazfeh Neanderthal, meaning Erectus-evolved. What is in between? Fact is, there is nothing human about it, so stop your lying around.

      “Omo isn’t controversial. Present data showing otherwise.”

      The datation is. Either way, it is not human neither.

      “If Hofmeyr is more archaic than “negroids” as I’ve shown, than Omo isn’t even close.”

      Hofmeyr is “modern” (36 000 years ago) and no more archaic than many “negroids” of today, can you tell one thing right ? I think you’re lost in the sink.

      “Florisbad has little affinity to Neanderthals, see my earlier links mentioning the specimen in relation to others.”

      M. R. Drennan thought otherwise.

      “Evidence of Guomde “ER 3884”.”

      O.K. if you don’t know how to spell right, how would I see.
      Those are only fragments recovered from an area of unconformity.
      Again the smell of one dirty soul trying to prove OOA by all ways possible, as you seems to be dying to prove, but you will only crash into the wall.

      “Nazlet Khater was never shown to be redated or show links with Egyptians.”

      “related” not “redated” jajai.
      Yet it is, mining activities started at the same time in Egypt, and for sure ancient Egypt didn’t appear out of nowhere, try use your brain instead of believing avery pranker here and there.
      Either way, I don’t see the point of using moderns. Find one which predate upper Paleolithic if you want to defend your point.

      “You are really fucking stupid, you know that? 23,000 year B.P means 23,000 before present, meaning onverting it to B.C means subtracting 2000 years, not 10,000 years.”

      No, you are. I never said B.C..
      If you’d knew how to read, I exposed in many posts before how radiometric datation is not to be relied much upon, and you got to divise by 2 or 3 every time. It was shown by eminent geologists.
      Don’t insult when you can’t understand.
      If I am stupid, what are you? A rat?

      “The Jaw in Israel is younger than Omo and Florisbad, enough said.”

      Yes and than? This jaw is modern, Omo and Florisbad are not.

      “Border Cave specimens actually have a high forehead from the crania specimen, and modern mandibles even with the chins.”

      Not really, the skull is much more archaic than Cro-Magnon one, it have no chien and the upper skull is very archaic, with remains of sagittal crest (the famous bump, typically negroid).

      The conclusion is that you have failed.
      OOA id DEAD.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      More on the Liujiang Skull.

      If accurate, based on the teeth also found to corroborate the age and species, it would seem to be connected as well with the Old teeth from China likely associated with an early exodus from Africa.

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S104061821400425X

      https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.4137/EBO.S33489

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339846853_A_demographic_history_of_Late_Pleistocene_China

      The last one is by a Chinese scientist himself.

      Like

  11. Aitor says:

    Phil78 :
    “I know how old scripts are, the problem is that is a non sequitor regarding genetic origins.”
    Of cours it is. Script is one of those things that make us humans ; have you ever seen a bird write? Do you imagine chimpanzees writing?
    Furthermore, art, ideology and writing are related.
    African children are well known for their inability to learn this in school, they can form correctly the letters and have real problem with association of the ideograms.
    Nsibidi is a mere thousand year ols and is not a script proper.
    Vai was created in the 1830s.
    Ajami was developped using arabic scripts.
    Nonetheless, afrocentrists devils teach those are the oldest script on earth, even pretending egyptian hieroglyphs came from them.
    I don’t think you’re realizing the problem caused by this nasty ideolody everywhere on earth.
    I hope someday those people will be judged and law pursuits engaged against them.
    This is a crime, and the need to steal others history and identity is a proof their history is void.
    I really hope you don’t fall into this, otherwise you are lost.
    Proto Saharan script is a afrocentrist hoax, the same kind of people who have the same-counter arguments you have, trying to steal other civilizations history, because the truth is Africa never had any civilization, it had always been a place of savagery, unrestraines sex and counter-evolution.

    “In otherwords, as the study stated, it is consistent with the idea that the EUP descended from African populations.”
    Absolutely not, it is a proven fact that the maority of Europeans are descended from this population, which mean they had nothing to do with your beloved african progenitors.
    At least, the separation is 350 000 years before present, but as A00 was an hybrid, it is more like 700 000 years, which means you are distant from us as were Neanderthals. Point.
    Neanderthal looked much more Negroid than any other fossil, except his ancestor Erectus, of course.

    “No “Asian” referred to the continent as Asia prior to Europeans.”
    You sound so tupid, Asia is a Birman word, if I were you I would shut up right now.

    “Europeans calling the whole continent Africa due to Northern Roman Colonies using the term isn’t challenged. It’s just that has little bearing on genetic origins.”
    It is so much older than the fucking romans, you just don’t know what you are talking about.

    I won’t reply to your other points, cause it is so stupid it is not worse a look.

    Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “Phil78 :
      “I know how old scripts are, the problem is that is a non sequitor regarding genetic origins.”
      Of cours it is. Script is one of those things that make us humans ; have you ever seen a bird write? Do you imagine chimpanzees writing?”

      “Script” is exclusive to humans. It doesn’t follow that Script indicates the origin of humans, that’s asinine.

      “Furthermore, art, ideology and writing are related.
      African children are well known for their inability to learn this in school, they can form correctly the letters and have real problem with association of the ideograms.”

      Source?

      “Nsibidi is a mere thousand year ols and is not a script proper.
      Vai was created in the 1830s.
      Ajami was developped using arabic scripts.
      Nonetheless, afrocentrists devils teach those are the oldest script on earth, even pretending egyptian hieroglyphs came from them.
      I don’t think you’re realizing the problem caused by this nasty ideolody everywhere on earth.
      I hope someday those people will be judged and law pursuits engaged against them.
      This is a crime, and the need to steal others history and identity is a proof their history is void.
      I really hope you don’t fall into this, otherwise you are lost.
      Proto Saharan script is a afrocentrist hoax, the same kind of people who have the same-counter arguments you have, trying to steal other civilizations history, because the truth is Africa never had any civilization, it had always been a place of savagery, unrestraines sex and counter-evolution.”

      None of this contradicts what i’ve said about the diffusion and origin of scripts.

      Scripts primarily are spread. I’ve already given reasons why African settled populations are so recent and why this limits script making.

      Nsibidi eventually was created, whether it’s young or not.

      “Absolutely not, it is a proven fact that the maority of Europeans are descended from this population, which mean they had nothing to do with your beloved african progenitors.”

      If you mean European descended from EUP, that doesn’t contradict African origins.

      If you mean Europeans descending from Hofmeyr, that’s isn’t proven.

      “At least, the separation is 350 000 years before present, but as A00 was an hybrid, it is more like 700 000 years, which means you are distant from us as were Neanderthals. Point.”

      No, it doesn’t at all.

      See the phylogenetic trees here.

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259386999_The_complete_genome_sequence_of_a_Neandertal_from_the_Altai_Mountains/figures?lo=1&utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic

      https://www.nature.com/news/evidence-mounts-for-interbreeding-bonanza-in-ancient-human-species-1.19394

      https://phys.org/news/2013-03-german-publish-full-neanderthal-genome.html

      “Neanderthal looked much more Negroid than any other fossil, except his ancestor Erectus, of course.”

      Except for the fact that even Hofmeyr is more archaic than modern SSA. See my previous link.

      “You sound so tupid, Asia is a Birman word, if I were you I would shut up right now.”

      Projection. You should take your own advice.

      “It is so much older than the fucking romans, you just don’t know what you are talking about.”

      I do know actually, since that is the most straightforward connection of the word with the continent.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

      Anything else is speculative by comparison.

      “I won’t reply to your other points, cause it is so stupid it is not worse a look.”

      More projection.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      What do proto-scripts signify, Aitor?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      What are the original writing systems and what does it say about the people who conceptualized them?

      Like

  12. Aitor says:

    Oliver D. Smith :
    “Craniometric means of individual EUP crania show huge variability; 19/35 (54%) show closest affinity to non-European population samples, but most (10) of those were to the Australian aborigine skull sample in Howell’s cranial collection. Only 4 showed closest similarity to African populations (San and Zulu), so yes it’s an inaccurate claim and Afrocentrist fantasy to claim EUP’s on average looked “Negroid”.”

    Thanks to clarfy this point, on this I couldn’t agree more.
    The fact that they are not identical to European moderns is easily explained, by, as I said, the Holocene arrival (i.e., Indo-Europeans).
    Anyway, Cro-Magnon man looked more European than African, isn’t it?
    San and Zulu are the only succesfull Africans south of Cancer Tropic line, so that doesn’t surprise me at all.

    Like

  13. Aitor says:

    Phil78 :

    You’re loosing your Latin, man!

    If you think Nature knows more about the subject than I do, you are still funny…
    I don’t read their crap sorry…
    All they do is taking “the News” (which is purely unscientific) in “science” and sadly making their own asumptions where they shall never be allowed to do so.

    Clearly, you never saw Liujiang skull or you are still deeply in your afrocentrist fantasy, since it looks clearly 100% south-east asians (modern), and there is not one african fossil close to it in all Africa inventory…

    I got nothing to gain here, I’m not Asian at all, you know, and I don’t think Chinese people would like your comment this one stemmed from Africa. This is clearly proving your deceiving faith.

    Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “You’re loosing your Latin, man!”

      ? This has to be one of the most incomprehnsible things you said so far.

      “If you think Nature knows more about the subject than I do, you are still funny…
      I don’t read their crap sorry…”

      Well they have actual sources so I’m going to go with them.

      “All they do is taking “the News” (which is purely unscientific) in “science” and sadly making their own asumptions where they shall never be allowed to do so.”

      This was written by an actual scientist on the subject.

      “Clearly, you never saw Liujiang skull or you are still deeply in your afrocentrist fantasy, since it looks clearly 100% south-east asians (modern), and there is not one african fossil close to it in all Africa inventory…”

      You seem very confused. You seem to have this idea of near static phenotypes when my point, using a chinese source on the matter of Sapiens origins in East Asia, is that this is part of ancient population that arrived from Africa during an early dispersal.

      https://www.academia.edu/3389091/The_brain_morphology_of_Homo_Liujiang_cranium_fossil_by_three-dimensional_computed_tomography

      While definitely modern, it is outside the range of modern Chinese morphology. I’m not “deceiving” anyone, since Chinese actually don’t deny African origins of Sapiens, they typically just want more emphasis on their fossils.

      See here.

      https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/05/14/cranks-in-anthropology/

      I got nothing to gain here, I’m not Asian at all, you know, and I don’t think Chinese people would like your comment this one stemmed from Africa. This is clearly proving your deceiving faith.

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      Science. 2017 Nov 3;358(6363):652-655. doi: 10.1126/science.aao6266. Epub 2017 Sep 28.
      Southern African ancient genomes estimate modern human divergence to 350,000 to 260,000 years ago.
      Schlebusch CM1,2, Malmström H1,2, Günther T1, Sjödin P1, Coutinho A1, Edlund H1, Munters AR1, Vicente M1, Steyn M3, Soodyall H4, Lombard M5,6, Jakobsson M7,2,8.
      Author information
      Abstract
      Southern Africa is consistently placed as a potential region for the evolution of Homo sapiens We present genome sequences, up to 13x coverage, from seven ancient individuals from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The remains of three Stone Age hunter-gatherers (about 2000 years old) were genetically similar to current-day southern San groups, and those of four Iron Age farmers (300 to 500 years old) were genetically similar to present-day Bantu-language speakers. We estimate that all modern-day Khoe-San groups have been influenced by 9 to 30% genetic admixture from East Africans/Eurasians. Using traditional and new approaches, we estimate the first modern human population divergence time to between 350,000 and 260,000 years ago. This estimate increases the deepest divergence among modern humans, coinciding with anatomical developments of archaic humans into modern humans, as represented in the local fossil record.

      Who is confused?
      As I said, you are hybrids so that is two times 350 000 years, which is around 700 000 years.
      Same time of divergence than your cousins Denisovan-Neanderthals diverged from us.
      At the same level of these hominins, you shall be considered a subspecy.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “Who is confused?
      As I said, you are hybrids so that is two times 350 000 years, which is around 700 000 years.
      Same time of divergence than your cousins Denisovan-Neanderthals diverged from us.
      At the same level of these hominins, you shall be considered a subspecy.”

      Aitor, you are the one you is confused. it says “we estimate the first modern human population divergence time to between 350,000 and 260,000 years ago.” Meaning that the splited in an interval between 260k and 350k, not “700k”.

      You need better math skills

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      Once more, you didn’t understand.
      Helmei/Florisbad was an hybrid, this is obvious.
      It got sloped front, huge occular apertures, massive eyebrows.
      The migration to south Africa was made by boat, only males could have reach it, so they interbred with local females, your dear “homo” ergaster.
      Isn’t 350 000 * 2 = 700 000?
      It is up to you to do the Maths again.
      It is as separated from us as are Neanderthals and Denisovan, hence the MtDNA L which is found only in sub-saharan Africa (and Y-A00, waiting for a deeper one).
      Fact is, he is the ancestor of ALL Africans outside Tamazya and the Horn (“of Africa”), nonewithstanding the introgression we’ve been talking about, coming a little later later, and best showed by Naledi.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      You said florisbad was neanderthal, not a Hybrid, which is it?

      You can’t read what the Khoi-san study said about “350k”. Nowehere do you multiple it, it’s the higher end of a interval.

      Won’t even bother with the Haplogroup nonsense you just pushed.

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      Are you stupid or what?
      Neanderthal didn’t appear in the fossil record until 100 000 years ago at best, and never made his way to Africa.
      How can Florisbad be Neanderthal when it is found in the bottom of Africa and dated 260 000 years ago?

      What nonsense? A00 is 275 000 years B.P., so it fits well with Florisbad.
      That is not because nobody had thought of it before me, that it is not the case.
      There is nothing human-related in Africa before Florisbad, he was the first colonist of Africa. So he was A00, that is perfectly clear. From this time “Africans” have been separated from the rest of the world until a few thousand years ago.
      And they stayed in stone age, they never improved because they have regressed, notably with this introgression, which means sex with natives (not humans, the estimation of the time of separation being 2 millions years old).

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “Are you stupid or what?
      Neanderthal didn’t appear in the fossil record until 100 000 years ago at best, and never made his way to Africa.
      How can Florisbad be Neanderthal when it is found in the bottom of Africa and dated 260 000 years ago?”

      You ask me, you were the one who said that Florisbad was a neanderthal. Re-read your own comments.

      “What nonsense? A00 is 275 000 years B.P., so it fits well with Florisbad.
      That is not because nobody had thought of it before me, that it is not the case.
      There is nothing human-related in Africa before Florisbad, he was the first colonist of Africa. So he was A00, that is perfectly clear. ”

      Florisbad may’ve had that haplogroup, but we don’t know that for sure. In anycase, A00 is 260k at best, more likely 200k not, not 275k.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4135414/

      Eitherway, he wasn’t a “colonist” and you have no evidence.

      “From this time “Africans” have been separated from the rest of the world until a few thousand years ago.
      And they stayed in stone age, they never improved because they have regressed, notably with this introgression, which means sex with natives (not humans, the estimation of the time of separation being 2 millions years old).”

      Stone age accusation incorrect.

      https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/07/02/african-neolithic-part-1-amending-common-misunderstandings/

      and nowhere is 2 million year separation shown.

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      No, the interval for A00 goes up to 340 000 years ago.
      Either way, we can be confident Florisbad man was A00.

      Concerning the ancestrality of the introgression you’ll find it there :

      Tracking human population structure through time from whole genome sequences – March 2019

      The genetic separation profile in pairs involving Mbuti and San is, beyond the extraordinary time depth, not compatible with clean population splits or simple scenarios of archaic admixture, but instead shows evidence for multiple periods of gene flow between populations.
      Between Mbuti and other African populations except San, we find three distinct phases of gene flow.
      The first peaks around 15,000 years ago, compatible with relatively recent admixture between Mbuti and other African populations.
      The second phase spans from 60 to 300 thousand years ago, reflecting the main genetic separation process, which itself looks complex and exhibits two peaks around 80 and 200 thousand years ago.

      The third and final phase,including a few percent of lineages from around 600,000 to 2 million years ago, likely reflects admixture between populations that diverged from each other at least 600,000 years ago.

      In pairs that include San, the onset of gene flow with other populations is more ancient than with Mbuti, beginning at around 40,000 years ago and spanning until around 400,000 years ago in the main phase, and then exhibiting a similarly deep phase as seen in Mbuti between 600,000 and 2 million years ago.

      So, you see, it happened 41 000 years ago, involving a deep ancestrality, the mean being 1,2 mya but clearly 2 millions years ago is certainly the reality because it is the time were arose Erectus/ergaster.
      2 mya is enought for speciation.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “No, the interval for A00 goes up to 340 000 years ago.
      Either way, we can be confident Florisbad man was A00.”

      My study was conducted as a response to your study.
      No, we can’t without actual DNA.

      “Concerning the ancestrality of the introgression you’ll find it there :

      Tracking human population structure through time from whole genome sequences – March 2019

      The genetic separation profile in pairs involving Mbuti and San is, beyond the extraordinary time depth, not compatible with clean population splits or simple scenarios of archaic admixture, but instead shows evidence for multiple periods of gene flow between populations.
      Between Mbuti and other African populations except San, we find three distinct phases of gene flow.
      The first peaks around 15,000 years ago, compatible with relatively recent admixture between Mbuti and other African populations.
      The second phase spans from 60 to 300 thousand years ago, reflecting the main genetic separation process, which itself looks complex and exhibits two peaks around 80 and 200 thousand years ago.

      The third and final phase,including a few percent of lineages from around 600,000 to 2 million years ago, likely reflects admixture between populations that diverged from each other at least 600,000 years ago.

      In pairs that include San, the onset of gene flow with other populations is more ancient than with Mbuti, beginning at around 40,000 years ago and spanning until around 400,000 years ago in the main phase, and then exhibiting a similarly deep phase as seen in Mbuti between 600,000 and 2 million years ago.

      So, you see, it happened 41 000 years ago, involving a deep ancestrality, the mean being 1,2 mya but clearly 2 millions years ago is certainly the reality because it is the time were arose Erectus/ergaster.
      2 mya is enought for speciation.”

      Where to begin? First of all, they pointed out that the contribution of the 1 MYA population is small.

      “Following the interpretation of M(t) as discussed above with the archaic-admixture simulation scenario, we can infer that in pairs involving San or Mbuti, at least around 1% of ancestry can be attributed to lineages of ancestry that have diverged from the main human lineage beyond 1 million years ago (see also Fig 7, discussed further below).”

      Second of all this pertains specifically to HG populations, not West African Farming populations, who divergences in this study are shown to be similar to other populations.

      “Apart from the deep structure seen with Mbuti and San, we find the second-most deep divergences between the West African Yoruba, Mandenka and Mende on the one hand, and French on the other (Fig 5A, S4 Fig, Fig 7 discussed further below), based on the time when M(t) reaches 99%. This might be consistent with recent findings of archaic ancestry in West-Africans [15,16], although it is not clear why the signal is primarily seen with French, and less consistently with Asian populations (Yoruba/Han have deep divergences, as well as Mende/Dai and Mandenka/Dai, but not other West-African/Asian combinations). Finally, pairwise analyses among Mende, Mandenka and Yoruba (Fig 4A, S4C, S4E and S4F Fig) exhibit a very recent migration profile, which appears to span up to about 20kya but not older, which is at odds with a recent finding of basal African ancestry present to different degrees in Mende and Yoruba [17]. However, that signal may be too weak to be detected in our method, which is based on only two individuals per population.”

      “Compared to the separation profiles between San or Mbuti and other populations, separations between other Africans and non-Africans look relatively similar to each other, with a main separation phase between 40 and 150kya, and a separate peak between 400 and 600kya (Fig 5 and S4 Fig). The first, more recent, phase plausibly reflects the main separation of Non-African lineages from African lineages predating the “out-of-Africa” migration event, and coinciding with the major population size bottleneck observed here (S6 Fig) and previously [3,4] around that time period. Signals more recent than about 60kya likely reflect the typical noisy spread of MSMC-estimated coalescence rate changes observed previously [4]. The second peak of migration, between 400 and 600kya likely reflects Neandertal and/or Denisovan introgression into non-Africans. The age of that peak appears slightly more recent than, although overlapping with, previous split time estimates of those two Archaic groups from the main human lineage at 550-765kya [14]. However, our simulation with archaic admixture with bottleneck (Fig 2D), shows that our model tends to underestimate the archaic split time in the presence of population bottlenecks as is the case for non-African populations [18–20]. In favor of the hypothesis that this second peak is caused by archaic lineages that have contributed to non-Africans is the fact that in all pairs of Papuans/Australians vs. Yoruba/Mende/Mandenka or Dinka, the second peak is particularly pronounced. This fits the archaic contribution hypothesis, since Papuans and Australians are known to have among all extant human populations the highest total amount of ancestry related to Neanderthals and Denisovans.”

      And third, that 40k date is for Geneflow in general, not for when the archaic dna arrived specifically.

      “In pairs that include San, the onset of gene flow with other populations is more ancient than with Mbuti, beginning at around 40,000 years ago and spanning until around 400,000 years ago in the main phase,”

      Based on the time frame, this more likely means the shared geneflow between South and East African populations as explained in Skolgund.

      “and then exhibiting a similarly deep phase as seen in Mbuti between 600,000 and 2 million years ago.”

      This is the phase where the archaic dna mostly occurred.

      Otherwise, the younger divergences within Pygmies and Mbuti is consistent with Schelbusch and Skolgund on Pygmy and Khoisan divergences and geneflow between Farmers and Pygmy ancestral populations.

      https://www.pnas.org/content/105/5/1596.abstract

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30827499

      https://genome.cshlp.org/content/genome/26/3/279.full.html

      https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/28/2/1099/1221651

      Click to access S0092-8674(17)31008-5.pdf

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      No, every single sub-tropical-line African have it, it is not specific of Pygmies and Khoisan, even if effectively they have higher level.
      It was measured to be 10 % in Yorubas for instance.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      I don’t deny that all Africans have archaic dna, but as you study shows, Yoruba and Mandenka populations overall were more comparably in splits and divergences to the french sample.

      The deep splits discussed in the study were particular to the HG populations.

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      That is because they stemmed from the same population, thus proving Yorouba went to Africa 41000 years ago, and not French came from Africa at this time, otherwise they would have the introgression, and of course that is not the case.
      Thus proving my point, they went to Africa, but we don’t come from it.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “That is because they stemmed from the same population, thus proving Yorouba went to Africa 41000 years ago, and not French came from Africa at this time, otherwise they would have the introgression, and of course that is not the case.”

      That 41 date has nothing to do with the yoruba or french, bu the San.
      While I already shown you that Non africans to have introgression from African archaics, it doesn’t need to be the case if the archaic introgression occurred after OOA.

      https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/7/eaax5097

      Given the uncertainty in our estimates of the time of introgression, we wondered whether jointly analyzing the CSFS from both the CEU (Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry) and YRI genomes could provide additional resolution. Under model C, we simulated introgression before and after the split between African and non-African populations and observed qualitative differences between the two models in the high-frequency–derived allele bins of the CSFS in African and non-African populations (fig. S40). Using ABC to jointly fit the high-frequency–derived allele bins of the CSFS in CEU and YRI (defined as greater than 50% frequency), we find that the lower limit on the 95% credible interval of the introgression time is older than the simulated split between CEU and YRI (2800 versus 2155 generations B.P.), indicating that at least part of the archaic lineages seen in the YRI are also shared with the CEU (section S9.2).

      https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1008204

      We estimate that an unidentified, deeply diverged population admixed with modern humans within Africa both before and after the split of African and Eurasian populations, contributing 4 − 8% genetic ancestry to individuals in world-wide populations.

      “Thus proving my point, they went to Africa, but we don’t come from it.”

      Actually, it doesn’t.

      Like

    • Aitor says:

      That 41 date has nothing to do with the yoruba or french, bu the San.
      While I already shown you that Non africans to have introgression from African archaics, it doesn’t need to be the case if the archaic introgression occurred after OOA.

      This date is given by some many studies, and so precise, than one have to assume it is really 41 000 years old (by the way, I gave you 44 000 to 45 000 since the beginning).
      You didn’t show anything, I stand to my point : chances of OOA being right are 0,00 %.
      As we have talked about many times, you have a first arrival 260 000 years ago, proven by Florisbad.
      He was A00 and talked proto-Khoï-San-Hadza ; he is the one that brought this non-bantu substrate in Zulu-Xhosa-Tswana-Sesotho.
      He mixed with the natives and gave rise to Naledi, the ancestor or Pygmies.
      That is the deep introgression, namely A (Habilis/Ergaster).

      The arrival of 44 000 years ago is indeed another introgression, for example Yoruba got it by mixing with the locals, issued from the population I talked just above.
      That is why Pygmies have around 20 %, and Yorouba 10.
      It is not difficult to understand when you think of it in the right way, meaning human nver came from Africa.
      Human was never black, he became it thanks to this introgression : everywhere you have blacks you had Erectus in remote times, that is not a coincidence. Erectus/Ergaster/Habilis was black.

      Now if you wanna say “Black people came Africa,” you’re maybe even wrong, because the oldest Erectus are found in China, and Dmanisi could have predated Habilis. This is a matter of contention. Now the second introgression (Australopithecus) is probably from Africa, as Chimps are.

      That is the main reason of the discrepancy between Australians and Africans. one century ago, everybody thought they were related.
      But Australians had mixed with Neanderthals, Erectus and Denisovan.
      Africans have miwed with Australopithecus and Ergaster (maybe Erectus related, but probably not the same).

      “We estimate that an unidentified, deeply diverged population admixed with modern humans within Africa both before and after the split of African and Eurasian populations, contributing 4 − 8% genetic ancestry to individuals in world-wide populations.”

      That is because Neanderthal is descendant of Erectus.
      Europeans have 1 to 4 % Neanderthal, and Yorouba is the African population which possess the higher level Neanderthal introgression in the whole Africa, along with San. Coïncidely Yorouba and San are the lighter of whole Africa (excepting Berbers), and what about this one : Yorouba – Europa.
      So yes, it proves my point.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “This date is given by some many studies, and so precise, than one have to assume it is really 41 000 years old (by the way, I gave you 44 000 to 45 000 since the beginning).”

      Just because other studies gave that date for archaic introgression, that doesn’t mean you can distort what the date means in the context of this specific study.

      “You didn’t show anything, I stand to my point : chances of OOA being right are 0,00 %.
      As we have talked about many times, you have a first arrival 260 000 years ago, proven by Florisbad.”

      I did show it, you simply didn’t retort and evaded it. You still didn’t prove florisbad “arrived” there.

      “He was A00 and talked proto-Khoï-San-Hadza ; he is the one that brought this non-bantu substrate in Zulu-Xhosa-Tswana-Sesotho.
      He mixed with the natives and gave rise to Naledi, the ancestor or Pygmies.
      That is the deep introgression, namely A (Habilis/Ergaster).”

      1. No Haplogroup study was done of Florisbad.
      2. no language study traces language 260k ago.

      3. Naledi isn’t related to Florisbad or Ergaster, but Habilis. Each are distinct hominids.

      “The arrival of 44 000 years ago is indeed another introgression, for example Yoruba got it by mixing with the locals, issued from the population I talked just above.
      That is why Pygmies have around 20 %, and Yorouba 10.
      It is not difficult to understand when you think of it in the right way, meaning human nver came from Africa.
      Human was never black, he became it thanks to this introgression : everywhere you have blacks you had Erectus in remote times, that is not a coincidence. Erectus/Ergaster/Habilis was black.”

      1. No skin color study was done on ancient hominids like Habilis.
    • Pygmies do not have “20%”, most recent studies place it at 1%-6%.

    • Yoruba have been reported to have 8%, not 10%.

    • Mixing with “locals” doesn’t debunk OOA, and I’ve already shown that Eurasian have archaic african ancestry as well.

    • “Now if you wanna say “Black people came Africa,” you’re maybe even wrong, because the oldest Erectus are found in China, and Dmanisi could have predated Habilis. This is a matter of contention. Now the second introgression (Australopithecus) is probably from Africa, as Chimps are.”

      The oldest is in Africa at 1.9 million, older than the ones on georgia.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26190282

      Habilis is 2-2.5 mya, Dmansi is just 1.85.

      “That is the main reason of the discrepancy between Australians and Africans. one century ago, everybody thought they were related.
      But Australians had mixed with Neanderthals, Erectus and Denisovan.
      Africans have miwed with Australopithecus and Ergaster (maybe Erectus related, but probably not the same).”

      Australopithecus dna has never been recovered. Just a MCU7 haplogroup that is 4.5 million years old that introgressed at 140k-150k, but that doesn’t say anything about the autosomal dna.

      “We estimate that an unidentified, deeply diverged population admixed with modern humans within Africa both before and after the split of African and Eurasian populations, contributing 4 − 8% genetic ancestry to individuals in world-wide populations.”

      “That is because Neanderthal is descendant of Erectus.
      Europeans have 1 to 4 % Neanderthal, and Yorouba is the African population which possess the higher level Neanderthal introgression in the whole Africa, along with San. Coïncidely Yorouba and San are the lighter of whole Africa (excepting Berbers), and what about this one : Yorouba – Europa.”

      “Yoruba” is a term that doesn’t originate from the Yoruba themselves, it was a label explorers use. Such as “Japan” verses “Nipon”.

      The dna predated the Neanderthal split, so it isn’t neanderthal DNA. The San have skin alleles similar to Europeans, but that is due to a back migration during the Holocene.

      Genetically speaking, as the 260k and 300k study shows as well as the “tracking” study, Most of pygmy and Khoisan dna comes from lineages older than Europeans or other africans, but younger than neanderthals.

      As both studies shows, that agrees with deep lineages of human origins in Africa.

      Yoruba don’t have any large amount of European DNA. Yoruba are “light” because they are closer to the forest. the same has been said of Pygmies.

      http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/552-Egon-von-Eickstedt-s-quot-Das-negride-Afrika-Krperformgruppen-quot

      https://books.google.com/books?id=4r1nAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=wolof+cephalic+index&source=bl&ots=PktHC–0fM&sig=ACfU3U37eYOauyYOt72q8rg0YUdB_-hkgw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQktP3hPfoAhWZlnIEHaj3BTYQ6AEwEHoECA0QOQ#v=onepage&q=yoruba&f=false
      So yes, it proves my point.

      Like

  • Aitor says:

    You are not objective because you want so much your theory being real, but as I’ve said to you, there is only one truth.
    History have always been tampered by biggot-centrists.

    “Just because other studies gave that date for archaic introgression, that doesn’t mean you can distort what the date means in the context of this specific study.”

    It is not “other studies”, all studies give this date.
    Nonetheless it is very well documented, but the methodology is right, for one time, and it fits with both arrivals of Humans (real ones) in Europe and Asia (assuming Liujiang was a dead end, as you pointed it).

    “I did show it, you simply didn’t retort and evaded it. You still didn’t prove florisbad “arrived” there.”

    Isn’t my methodology good?
    Florisbad is 260 k, Yorouba’s introgression is 260 k, A00 is 260 k.
    The specimen is male, what do you need more?
    3 ways reasonning is a proof in itself, unless you invented a time machine.

    “No Haplogroup study was done of Florisbad.
    no language study traces language 260k ago.

    Naledi isn’t related to Florisbad or Ergaster, but Habilis. Each are distinct hominids.”

    Are you for real? Actual theories are that language arose 200 k years ago, but as you know Neanderthal and Denisovan had one, so 700 k years ago, our common ancestor did possess at least one language.
    Khoi-San languages retained primitive features (e.g. clitics), which are observed at lesser point in Xhosa, so yed it fits with Florisbad.

    Habilis was totally ape-like, while Naledi was half ape, half man, so yes we have to consider he was an hybrid. I’m not the first to advance this hypothesis, you know. He was low in stature, like Habilis, so that fit with pygmies.

    Obviously they are distinct, but Ergaster is seen nowadays as an African variant of Erectus, not the other way round.

    “No skin color study was done on ancient hominids like Habilis.
    Pygmies do not have “20%”, most recent studies place it at 1%-6%.

    Yoruba have been reported to have 8%, not 10%.

    Mixing with “locals” doesn’t debunk OOA, and I’ve already shown that Eurasian have archaic african ancestry as well.”

    Many studies point to Erectus being black-skinned.
    As for Habilis, I inferred it because all pygmies are black-toned.
    You will never see a pale pygmy.
    Mbuti have 15% introgression, I’ve seen studies where Yoruba’s one is estimated at 20%.

    What?? Archaic african ancestry in Europeans?
    No, archaic ancestry is real (Neanderthal, but in fact his ancestor because Upper Paleotlithic Europeans never mixed with Neanderthals, nor their ancestors), but “African” is not objective.
    It is based on the fact scientists assume like you OOA to be real, so the conclusion is false.
    If they don’t have the level to understand, how could you?

    “The oldest is in Africa at 1.9 million, older than the ones on georgia.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26190282

    Habilis is 2-2.5 mya, Dmansi is just 1.85.”

    Again, this is false, Habilis can be anywhere 1,8 to 2,5 Mya, so I assume it is 1,8 Mya.
    Dmanisi can be up to 1,85 Mya, so it may be older.and I’m pretty sure it is.
    The oldest in Africa is Habilis, so 1,8 Mya.
    The oldest Asian specimen are 2 MYa (Mohui, Longuppo), so they clearly predated every african hominin (by the way, Habilis was shown to be related to Australopithecus, these asians specimens are erectus-like, so more evolved when they are older).
    Once again you are not objective, you’re changing the datae in order to fit with your story, that is not scientific at all.

    “Australopithecus dna has never been recovered. Just a MCU7 haplogroup that is 4.5 million years old that introgressed at 140k-150k, but that doesn’t say anything about the autosomal dna.”

    We can’t recover DNA older than 1 Mya, but as you point it, there is great chance its DNA (chimp-like) introgressed at great level in every african.

    ““Yoruba” is a term that doesn’t originate from the Yoruba themselves, it was a label explorers use. Such as “Japan” verses “Nipon”.

    The dna predated the Neanderthal split, so it isn’t neanderthal DNA. The San have skin alleles similar to Europeans, but that is due to a back migration during the Holocene.

    Genetically speaking, as the 260k and 300k study shows as well as the “tracking” study, Most of pygmy and Khoisan dna comes from lineages older than Europeans or other africans, but younger than neanderthals.

    As both studies shows, that agrees with deep lineages of human origins in Africa.

    Yoruba don’t have any large amount of European DNA. Yoruba are “light” because they are closer to the forest. the same has been said of Pygmies.”

    No, it was the Hausa name for the Oyo people, and it doesn’t sound Hausa at all, you’ve got to assume it was the name the Oyo gave themselves.

    Of course it isn’t Neanderthal. Neanderthal was a dead end, but giving the date (at least 700000 years old), it was shared by Neanderthal too, that’s why you have this “ghost Neanderthal DNA” in Yorubans and Sans.

    You’re being ridiculous : back migration ?
    Where do you find evidence of this “back migration” between Europa and south Africa ? Just nowhere.
    This funny story was used by die-hard OOA proponents who couldn’t accept the truth.
    No one came from Africa, except 20 % of the African genome, which is found nowhere else on earth. That is your “deep lineage”, it’s not human.

    Like

  • Phil78 says:

    “You are not objective because you want so much your theory being real, but as I’ve said to you, there is only one truth.
    History have always been tampered by biggot-centrists.”

    I’m not objective? Really? Your dumbass is saying the Yoruba, one of the clearly “typical” sub-saharan ethnic groups genetically speaking, are “eurasian affiliated” due to “lighter skin” and their name being vaguely similar to “europa”, when neither skulls or dna supports such a conclusion. When by comparison, much darker Somolians and Masai have more Eurasian ancestry.

    You’re the dumbass who is reaching.

    “Just because other studies gave that date for archaic introgression, that doesn’t mean you can distort what the date means in the context of this specific study.”

    “It is not “other studies”, all studies give this date.
    Nonetheless it is very well documented, but the methodology is right, for one time, and it fits with both arrivals of Humans (real ones) in Europe and Asia (assuming Liujiang was a dead end, as you pointed it).”

    “All studies”, that doesn’t mean anything, all studies as in what? All studies looking for archaic ancestry in Africans? That’s semantics.

    My point is that the 41k date in the studies doesn’t correspond to the date’s meaning in other studies, it simply means in the case of the San in particular geneflow is older than in the pygmies. In the context of the study, geneflow with older arhcaic populations is given an older date.

    “I did show it, you simply didn’t retort and evaded it. You still didn’t prove florisbad “arrived” there.”

    “Isn’t my methodology good?
    Florisbad is 260 k, Yorouba’s introgression is 260 k, A00 is 260 k.”

    “The specimen is male, what do you need more?”

    The actual dna extracted from Florisbad itself.

    “3 ways reasonning is a proof in itself, unless you invented a time machine.”

    Wait, you said 40k what the date of introgression? That only shows you “methodology” sucks.

    “Are you for real? Actual theories are that language arose 200 k years ago, but as you know Neanderthal and Denisovan had one, so 700 k years ago, our common ancestor did possess at least one language.
    Khoi-San languages retained primitive features (e.g. clitics), which are observed at lesser point in Xhosa, so yed it fits with Florisbad.”

    Proof of language studies going back that far. Otherwise you can’t make the assertion/

    “Habilis was totally ape-like, while Naledi was half ape, half man, so yes we have to consider he was an hybrid. I’m not the first to advance this hypothesis, you know. He was low in stature, like Habilis, so that fit with pygmies.”

    Pygmies’ low stature isn’t a primitive retention, it’s actually an example of dwarfism made to adapt to their environment.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/06/25/richard-fuerle-and-ooa-morphological-and-genetic-incongruencies/

    We know this because growth rates between

    eastern and Western pygmies aren’t the same, meaning that it is between both convergent. Another example would be how even Asian Pygmies in the Phillipines and Oceanic areas are actually closer related to their neighbors that are taller.

    https://www.pnas.org/content/115/48/E11256.short?rss=1

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30413626

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4525207/

    “Obviously they are distinct, but Ergaster is seen nowadays as an African variant of Erectus, not the other way round.”

    Well lets see your proof further down.

    “Many studies point to Erectus being black-skinned.
    As for Habilis, I inferred it because all pygmies are black-toned.
    You will never see a pale pygmy.
    Mbuti have 15% introgression, I’ve seen studies where Yoruba’s one is estimated at 20%.”

    You said you’ve “seen” studies. Don’t just say that, show them.

    “What?? Archaic african ancestry in Europeans?
    No, archaic ancestry is real (Neanderthal, but in fact his ancestor because Upper Paleotlithic Europeans never mixed with Neanderthals, nor their ancestors), but “African” is not objective.
    It is based on the fact scientists assume like you OOA to be real, so the conclusion is false.
    If they don’t have the level to understand, how could you?”

    You are beginning with your conclusion, that OOA is false so that must be the vidence instead of OOA is false because of evidence. You can;t explain it or porve it, how you are squirming.

    “The oldest is in Africa at 1.9 million, older than the ones on georgia.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26190282

    Habilis is 2-2.5 mya, Dmansi is just 1.85.”

    “Again, this is false, Habilis can be anywhere 1,8 to 2,5 Mya, so I assume it is 1,8 Mya.”

    You’re interval is that same as mine for all intents in purposes, you just arbitrarily decide”

    “Dmanisi can be up to 1,85 Mya, so it may be older.and I’m pretty sure it is.”

    Wow, so you have a “hunch”? That’s convincing.

    “The oldest in Africa is Habilis, so 1,8 Mya.”

    Only according to your clearly biased intuition.

    “The oldest Asian specimen are 2 MYa (Mohui, Longuppo), so they clearly predated every african hominin (by the way, Habilis was shown to be related to Australopithecus, these asians specimens are erectus-like, so more evolved when they are older).
    Once again you are not objective, you’re changing the datae in order to fit with your story, that is not scientific at all.”

    Oh the irony, you called Africans apes or hybrids for so long yet those two specimens were revised by the chinese themselves as being ape species, not homo.

    https://europepmc.org/article/cba/527759

    https://books.google.com/books?id=coFA6_r4PTUC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=mohui+fossil&source=bl&ots=_sOecLyFJk&sig=ACfU3U0m7Ict5O_Mx4XsXOVsr3yJkkZhiQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1_PmbyfnoAhVGl3IEHe9IDb4Q6AEwB3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=mohui%20fossil&f=false

    Click to access P020140409540808768786.pdf

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wushan_Man

    Even Bernard wood, someone who believes that homo could originate in Asia, isn’t convinced by the fossil.

    https://www.downtoearth.org.in/interviews/science-and-technology/-it-is-perfectly-possible-that-homo-genus-evolved-in-asia–54458

    “Australopithecus dna has never been recovered. Just a MCU7 haplogroup that is 4.5 million years old that introgressed at 140k-150k, but that doesn’t say anything about the autosomal dna.”

    what is a “great level”? You do understand as well that even Australopithecus as closer to us than it was to chimpanzees.

    “No, it was the Hausa name for the Oyo people, and it doesn’t sound Hausa at all, you’ve got to assume it was the name the Oyo gave themselves.”

    Lol ” It doesn’t sound Hausa so you have to assume”. The Hausa form is “Yaraba”. And I doubt you are qualified to even know what Hausa sounds like.

    Either way, it’s not actually a native term originally.

    “Of course it isn’t Neanderthal. Neanderthal was a dead end, but giving the date (at least 700000 years old), it was shared by Neanderthal too, that’s why you have this “ghost Neanderthal DNA” in Yorubans and Sans.”

    Except, again, it’s distinguishable from neanderthal DNA within the study and is actually in higher amount han Neanderthal dna in the non african samples.

    “You’re being ridiculous : back migration ?
    Where do you find evidence of this “back migration” between Europa and south Africa ? Just nowhere.
    This funny story was used by die-hard OOA proponents who couldn’t accept the truth.
    No one came from Africa, except 20 % of the African genome, which is found nowhere else on earth. That is your “deep lineage”, it’s not human.”

    Except that the back migration was recovered not only in the schelbusch study, but also repeatedly beforehand.

    https://www.pnas.org/content/111/7/2632

    https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/36/9/1849/5475268

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/145409v1

    This isn’t the only reason, but it is relevant.

    https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2017/09/28/selection-for-pigmentation-in-khoisan/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30530665

    Like

  • Aitor says:

    Affiliated for more than 260 000 years, which means no more than any people on the planet, scumbag.
    You don’t have the brain, you must give up.

    Maasais (not Masai, morron) have 0 % European ancestry, they are typical africans : Y-E and Y-A ; mtDNA L and M.
    Somalians (not Somolians) are Y-E and T ; mtDNA M and L.
    They have nothing to do with Europeans.
    Maasai have long skull like Ergaster (not orthogonal on the rear like Europeans) so mtDNA L is Ergaster/Heidelbergensis.
    I gues you are too, reading your comments.

    The only ones who had European DNA were the ancient Egyptians, but they were totally wiped out by the Romans and the Arabs.
    By the way, they weren’t related at all to Africans.

    San are Y-A and Y-B , and mtDNA L (Ergaster).
    Pygmyes are Y-B and mtDNA L.
    They have huge prognathism, much like Tasmanians, so Y-B is were you find your australopithecus introgression.

    “After a period of isolation, during which current phenotype differences between Pygmies and Bantu farmers accumulated, Pygmy women started marrying male Bantu farmers (but not the opposite). This trend started around 40,000 years ago, and continued until several thousand years ago. Subsequently, the Pygmy gene pool was not enriched by external gene influxes.”
    That’s how you’d got your introgression, dumbass.

    No, you don’t understand anything, Florisbad was human but had to take a ergaster female, resulting in an 1/2 ape-man (Ergaster was ape-man).
    When modern arrived, 40 k years ago, again, they interbred with the descendants, creating a 1/4 ape-man, which is 1/8 or 12,5 %, that is the concentration you observe today, more or less.

    Do not speak about language, that’s not your field obviously. Yorouba can’t stem from yaraba, funny man. Languages don’t get richer, they tend to simplify. Yaraba is the arabic understanding of yorouba, and that is gross.

    Nothing is relevant is your other points, you’re just repeating the same dull things all over again, pointing the same irrelevant “studies”.
    Mohui was an ape, and not Australopithecus ? You’re just ridiculous. Australopithecines were apes, point. Cousins of chimps with a dead-end.

    Like

  • Phil78 says:

    “Affiliated for more than 260 000 years, which means no more than any people on the planet, scumbag.
    You don’t have the brain, you must give up.”

    Not even sure what you are responding to here.

    “Maasais (not Masai, morron) have 0 % European ancestry, they are typical africans : Y-E and Y-A ; mtDNA L and M.
    Somalians (not Somolians) are Y-E and T ; mtDNA M and L.
    They have nothing to do with Europeans.
    Maasai have long skull like Ergaster (not orthogonal on the rear like Europeans) so mtDNA L is Ergaster/Heidelbergensis.
    I gues you are too, reading your comments.”

    Masai and Somolians have back to Africa ancestry from the ancient middle east, this is well known.

    https://anthromadness.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-mota-mistake.html

    “The only ones who had European DNA were the ancient Egyptians, but they were totally wiped out by the Romans and the Arabs.
    By the way, they weren’t related at all to Africans.”

    Egyptians shared Geneflow with other East Africans, so they were likely related. Also, no, they were not “wiped out”. Arabic and Roman occupations never “wipe out” populations in the sense of Neanderthals or Native Americans.

    https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/egyptians-are-not-arabs-they-are-egyptians/

    “San are Y-A and Y-B , and mtDNA L (Ergaster).
    Pygmyes are Y-B and mtDNA L.
    They have huge prognathism, much like Tasmanians, so Y-B is were you find your australopithecus introgression.”

    Prognathism is actually noted by the San to be actually rather low compared to West African related populations like the Bantu. Given how the San are more diverged than Pygmies, your point on Prognathism makes little sense.

    Likewise, where is your source on “tasmanians” since of the Non african populations that do have it, they are are not listed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_B-M60#Distribution

    “After a period of isolation, during which current phenotype differences between Pygmies and Bantu farmers accumulated, Pygmy women started marrying male Bantu farmers (but not the opposite). This trend started around 40,000 years ago, and continued until several thousand years ago. Subsequently, the Pygmy gene pool was not enriched by external gene influxes.”

    “That’s how you’d got your introgression, dumbass.”

    Except in the context of the pygmy studies, where there introgression date was 35k-40k ago for them, this makes little sense if you are trying to say that this is the source of archaic ancestry in Farmer populations.

    This makes even less sense when the samples, Yoruba and Mandenka, aren’t Bantu and never mixed with pygmies. The Basal human component though could be the answer, but that isn’t the same population.

    “No, you don’t understand anything, Florisbad was human but had to take a ergaster female, resulting in an 1/2 ape-man (Ergaster was ape-man).
    When modern arrived, 40 k years ago, again, they interbred with the descendants, creating a 1/4 ape-man, which is 1/8 or 12,5 %, that is the concentration you observe today, more or less.”

    The highest african specific reading was 8% in the Yoruba, highest among the whole population for a hominid was 19% in Africans that was also 6% In Europeans, which is higher than there Neanderthal component which is 1%-2% .

    “Do not speak about language, that’s not your field obviously. Yoruba can’t stem from yaraba, funny man. Languages don’t get richer, they tend to simplify. Yaraba is the arabic understanding of yorouba, and that is gross.”

    Pffttt…This is the funny thing you said so far, honestly.

    “Nothing is relevant is your other points, you’re just repeating the same dull things all over again, pointing the same irrelevant “studies”.
    Mohui was an ape, and not Australopithecus ? You’re just ridiculous. Australopithecines were apes, point. Cousins of chimps with a dead-end.”

    That’s what the studies say. Prove otherwise or shut up.

    Like

  • Aitor says:

    The scientists dated China’s “Nanjing Man” as 580,000 to 620,000 years old, further supporting a multi-regional theory. “These ages along with those from other sites in China imply that most of the Homo erectus specimens there are older than previously thought and perhaps do not overlap significantly with younger Homo sapiens,” Science said. Homo erectus “Nanjing Man”, a skull discovered in 1993 in Tangshan Cave near Shanghai, showed that humans evolved in isolation in China and much earlier than previously thought.

    The scientists believed that “Nanjing Man” and the more famous “Peking Man” family, which had been estimated at 230,000 years old, evolved in small communities in eastern Asia. Under the multi-regional evolutionary model, these small communities of Homo erectus probably developed in widely separate locations, but had some communication, which explains the DNA similarities which developed.

    Apart from the fossil evidence, Paleolithic tools excavated in China, created according to ancestral techniques, also support the theory that modern Chinese man is more likely to have originated in China, said Huang Weiwen, a senior research fellow with the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Pale anthropology (IVPP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

    According to Hou Yamei, also an IVPP expert, up until recently, the lack of modern man’s fossils in east Asia had led experts to presume that the out-of-Africa theory was accurate, but the recent dating of the Liujiang Hominid fossils is causing the international academic community to once again focus its attention on east Asia.

    Like

  • Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google photo

    You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    Please keep comments on topic.

    Jean Baptiste Lamarck

    Eva Jablonka

    Charles Murray

    Arthur Jensen

    Blog Stats

    • 651,041 hits
    Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on WordPress.com

    suggestions, praises, criticisms

    If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at RaceRealist88@gmail.com

    Keywords

    %d bloggers like this: