100,000 yrs ago our ancestors had not split off from West Africans or Australian Abos. Its not even worth talking about what we might have been like back then.
Humans operate off of genetics and culture. We depend on both to make good choices. Jews have completely reprogrammed the culture of many whites. This fucker has been turned inside out. Good is bad and bad is good. He annihilates his self with all those tattoos. He’s clearly been brainwashed with this “its a woman if it thinks its a woman” shit. And he looks like a drug addict.
I think pot is incredibly dangerous because it teaches people to be flexible in their thinking which generally leads to this shit.
I agree with you about Thailand. Didn’t David Carradine die of autoerotic asphyxia there?
Believing the out of Africa theory and that all humanoids are the same species.
There is exactly zero evidence to support any of this. The oldest humanoid remains found are actually from Europe, and there are several remains that have been found that lack the African "Eve" gene. Specifically the abos in Australia.
And if we were any other species, we would at the very least have sub-species. Somehow there are a handful of tiger and chimp species that look very similar and can have viable offspring, but there is only one species of human? What a joke. Coyotes and wolves can have viable offspring that can reproduce, but they are a different species.
I didn’t say anything about species but lets get that canard out of the way first shall we?
Species is an arbitrary definition. The entire Linnaean taxonomic nomenclature system is a social construct. The decision to classify two organisms in as the same or separate subspecies or species or genus is an arbitrary decision as there is no precise definition for any of these and organisms from even different genuses have produced reproductively viable offspring.
Its a preference whether or not blacks and whites are catergorized as separate species or subspecies which has zero to do with the biological FACTS of how related blacks and whites are and when that divergence took place and what the practical implications of that divergence are. And please don’t bring that FST statistic at me unless you actually understand what it is saying.
What I mean to say is, only a retarded faggot would dick around over the terminology. I made no assertion about terminology and it has no biological relevance.
Fossils of early or extinct Homos like Erectus or Denisovan or Neanderthal are found throughout Eurasia prior to a more recent OOA event specifically pertaining to Homo Sapiens. The OOA migrations of these archaic Homos may have happened at least 2 million years ago and probably in multiple waves. These early homonins diverged from chimpanzees and australopiths 4 or 5 million years ago so its a fairly safe bet they all originated in africa since we see the most diversity and presence of all three in africa.
Common ancestry of all living homos is put at around 150 to 300 thousand years ago in Africa. That is a most recent common ancestor. It does not account for all human genetics which would include an earliest common ancestor which some put a 4.5 million years ago.
To put it in to retard speak, “OOA” theory allows for the potential that human genetics began to diverge 4.5 million years ago and that some ancestry of some modern groups is from homos that were living and evolving in Asia for at least 2 million years.
There are many different OOA models that disagree on things like rate of genetic mutation, date the ancestors of eurasians physically left africa the date eurasians diverged from west african/bantu/east african ancestors, and what portion of african ancestry is due to back migration to africa (hint: alot). No one in mainstream evolutionary anthropology is rejecting the idea that a significant component of human evolution has been occuring outside africa for millions of years. No one. No one that I know of is denying that large scale back migrations from eurasia impacted modern africans over the last 20,000 years at least. And no one is denying significant introgression from multiple non-homo sapiens in to every major genetic population.
But so far as I know all existing mtDNA and Y-chromosomal haplogroups can be traced to a genetic eve and adam who probably live in africa about 150 to 300 thousand years ago. That does not mean all of our ancestry is from that population. It means that other mtDNA and Y chromosomal groups were lost in the populations due to genetic drift, although the autosomal DNA from archaic homos may account for as much as 20% in some individuals.
Australian abos have introgression from denisovans, maybe 5 or 10 % but all of their mtDNA haplogroups are traced to M and N macrogroups AFAIK. If you know different, serve it up faggot. Cite.
Im happy to throw down with you on this subject because as you can see, Ive done some research on it. I have my own personal favored model of OOA and Im sure there is room for revision on it as additional genetic and archeological discoveries are made. Chinks and Dot-heads are doing a lot of this research and have no consideration for the sensitivities of PC anthropology profs in the US and Europe. The mathematical certainties of the human genome have smashed liberal fairy stories.
You better bring your A game because I can destroy most people on this subject. Human evolution is diffuse and I doubt you have a good understanding of what the points of contention are in this field. Be my guest though
TL;DR
Yes, humans As in Homo sapiens sapiens are older than 100,000 years. Africans regressed more recently than that by crossing with an even more primitive hominid. Hence why they gave no Neanderthal genes.
To some extent that is true. All groups of modern humans have some DNA from different recently extinct non-homo sapiens. West africans and bantu in particular may have some admixture from at least one primitive homonin that would have branched off from the family tree several million years before neanderthals (~4.5 million ya, see MUC7 gene, Xu - 2018).
There is an increasing amount of evidence that the Khoisan and central african pygmy populations are the people most properly thought of as indigenous sub-saharans. They branched off from everyone else around 70,000 years before other blacks (west africans/bantu, east africans) did, which is around the time australoids branched off. These later blacks (99% of black africans today) may not have moved in to subsaharan africa until 3000 years ago or so. Where were they prior to that? Possibly a less arid Sahara, possibly the middle east or southern asia.
West Africans have a large amount of introgression from archaic homonins. Up to 18% in some individuals according to one study. Its not clear when they picked it up or if they picked it up directly or through mating with pygmy populations or whether there were several major introgression events with multiple species.
A lot of answers are needed pertaining to the origin of west african/bantu and east africans. The more I study it the more it seems to me that a very sizeable chunk of their ancestry (>50%) is not particularly african. New questions keep arising from genetic studies. It may be that most blacks today are descended from some basal eurasian population that back migrated and mixed with some really primitive homo erectus types and pygmies and then some much more recent eurasian migrations were added. And then they moved south out of northern africa and genocided the pygmies and khoisan.
Didn't DC's death have the hallmarks of a hit? I thought he was hung off a door knob which is a symbol for a snitch in certain circles. And then the AA death story stemmed from that
edit:i agree about thailand being a magnet for western degens
I never heard about any of that. I tend to believe the AA story because he was a hollywood actor and as we know they are generally degenerate.
Who would let Caine from Kung Fu in on all their big bad secrets anyway? I guess somebody would say pedo hollywood illuminati child sacrifice cult or something. I just think the Pervert Hollywood Actor theory is incredibly plausible and simple.
Yeah I heard the AA accidental death story when he first died and thought the same as you. I heard the snitch theory a few years back, possibly pizzagate related. I'm inclined to believe he was part of a circle that partakes of california cheeseburgers or whatever and then was bumped for an indiscretion. Why would a wealthy guy be jerking it alone in Thailand on a door knob rather than have a hooker tightening the belt?
They also used the AA story for Hutchence and I read an entertaining theory last night that Hutchence's death was a murder dressed up as suicide.
(post is archived)