Racial Loyalty News

Announcements & General Jabber => General Jabber => Anthropology => Topic started by: Rev.Cambeul on 01 August 2009 at 01:10

Title: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 01 August 2009 at 01:10


Hobbits 'evolved separate to humans'

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,25862805-29277,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,25862805-29277,00.html)

AUSTRALIAN research has thrown a question mark over long-held beliefs of human evolution thanks to never-before-tried technology on a set of "hobbit bones'' found in Indonesia.

Researchers based in Canberra and Wollongong set to work on a "hobbit'' skeleton found on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2004, using new cladistic analysis.

It compares the forms of organisms to determine ancestral relationships - the first time it was used on this set of homo floresiensis bones.

The results were surprising.

Anthropologist Debbie Argue concluded the bones diverged from the Homo sapiens evolutionary line nearly two million years ago, meaning that it did not share an immediate ancestor with modern humans.

The homo floresiensis bones have previously been dismissed as the remains of a sick human or near-human impacted by environmental factors.

''(The results) suggests that H. floresiensis was not a sick modern human, not even a very close relative,'' Dr Argue said.

It would then also dispute the theory that Homo sapiens were the only hominin around after the Neanderthals, she said.

The research has been published in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 09 September 2009 at 20:23
Pesky science. Always conflicting with the "politically correct".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html)

A skull that rewrites the history of man

It has long been agreed that Africa was the sole cradle of human evolution. Then these bones were found in Georgia...

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Wednesday, 9 September 2009

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

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

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

    * Steve Connor: The story of humans unravels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the five skulls is of a person who lost all his or her teeth during their lifetime but had still survived for many years despite being completely toothless. This suggests some kind of social organisation based on mutual care, Professor Lordkipanidze said.
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 09 September 2009 at 20:54
(TROLL) Dmanisi replica:

(APE)  Homo Habilis replica

Article Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html)

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

Comment:   I would be thrilled to find out that the H.E originated from Eurasia..

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

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

Comment:   I have learned from a documentary called "what makes us human" that it is not entirly the SIZE of the brain that makes us human. The amount of GREY MATTER we have is in relation to the kind of social environment we are designed for. Ants have a higher brain to skull ratio than humans do and they live in huge colonies.. Modern human brains are designed for social colonies of about 120 to 150. 

Link to documentary:

Video: What Makes Us Human? (1. Big Heads)
Update: Video Removed

There are also parts to the brain besides grey matter which play a role in our human characteristics and abilities. A smaller brain may be indication that Dmanisi species was designed to be a loner.

Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 26 June 2011 at 08:28
Human ancestors in Eurasia earlier than thought

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/012345/full/news.2011.350.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/012345/full/news.2011.350.html)

Stone fragments found in Georgia suggest Homo erectus  might have evolved outside Africa.

Archaeologists have long thought that Homo erectus, humanity's first ancestor to spread around the world, evolved in Africa before dispersing throughout Europe and Asia. But evidence of tool-making at the border of Europe and Asia is challenging that assumption.

Reid Ferring, an anthropologist at the University of North Texas in Denton, and his colleagues excavated the Dmanisi site in the Caucasus Mountains of Georgia. They found stone artefacts — mostly flakes that were dropped as hominins knapped rocks to create tools for butchering animals — lying in sediments almost 1.85 million years old. Until now, anthropologists have thought that H. erectus  evolved between 1.78 million and 1.65 million years ago — after the Dmanisi tools would have been made.

Furthermore, the distribution of the 122 artefacts paints a picture of long-term occupation of the area. Instead of all the finds being concentrated in one layer of sediment, which would indicate that hominins visited the site briefly on one occasion, the artefacts are spread through several layers of sediment that span the period between 1.85 million and 1.77 million years ago. The findings are published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1.

"This is indeed suggestive of a sustained regional population which had successfully adapted to the temperate environments of the southern Caucasus," explains Wil Roebroeks, an archaeologist at Leiden University in the Netherlands.

Eurasian ancestry?

 The presence of a tool-using population on the edge of Europe so early hints that the northern continent, rather than Africa, may have been the evolutionary birthplace of H. erectus. Unfortunately, the fossils of the hominins responsible for making the tools are not proving very helpful to the debate.

Fossilized bone fragments found in the same sedimentary layers as the Dmanisi artefacts are too weathered to be identified as belonging to any one species, so it is impossible to say for sure whether the tools were made by H. erectus.

Neither do fossil skulls previously retrieved from later sediments at the site help to resolve the controversy. These fossils, dating from 1.77 million years ago, had brains between 600 and 775 cubic centimetres in volume, whereas H. erectus  is generally thought to have had an average brain size of around 900 cubic centimetres. For comparison, modern humans have a brain capacity of around 1,350 cubic centimetres. "Many people call those Dmanisi fossils the earliest H. erectus, but there is still frequent debate about this," explains Ferring.

There and back again

 Even if the ancient inhabitants of the Dmanisi site were not early members of H. erectus, there is still a problem: anthropologists have previously thought that no hominins existed outside of Africa as early as 1.85 million years ago.

"Anthropology textbooks of the 1990s often showed maps with large arrows indicating migration of early H. erectus  from its inferred core area of eastern Africa to other parts of the Old World," explains Roebroeks. The findings in Dmanisi make such an explanation look faulty.

Ferring and his colleagues propose that some ancestors of H. erectus  might have travelled to Asia and possibly Europe, done a bit of evolving, then wandered back to Africa. [Exactly as explained in the book Erectus Walks Amongst Us (http://erectuswalksamongst.us/) ~ Cailen.]

"Remember, it would not have been obvious to the hominins they were leaving Africa. There were no signs saying 'You are leaving Africa now — come and visit us again!'" says Bernard Wood, an anthropologist at the George Washington University in Washington DC. But Wood admits that it is unclear why the hominins might have made these movements. "It perplexes me," he says.

Ferring suggests that ancient hominins might have been following their food source — animals. "My hunch is that the migrations relate to the rise of carnivory and a sudden flexibility to live and eat meat anywhere," he says. Vegetarians, he explains, are limited to the specific plants that sustain them and cannot travel from tropics to deserts to mountains nearly as easily as predators can. Wood agrees. "My guess is that hominins were following game," he says.

Other possibilities also exist. "We tend to think of hominins as living in a disease-free world, but maybe they were eliminated in some places by an epidemic, and the only healthy ones left were at the edges of their distribution", who could then move back into the vacated areas, says Wood.
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 02 December 2011 at 02:57
Arabian Artifacts May Rewrite 'Out of Africa' Theory

By Charles Choi | LiveScience.com – Wed, Nov 30, 2011

http://news.yahoo.com/arabian-artifacts-may-rewrite-africa-theory-225406521.html (http://news.yahoo.com/arabian-artifacts-may-rewrite-africa-theory-225406521.html)

 Newfound stone artifacts suggest humankind left Africa traveling through the Arabian Peninsula instead of hugging its coasts, as long thought, researchers say.

Modern humans first arose about 200,000 years ago in Africa. When and how our lineage then dispersed has long proven controversial, but geneticists have suggested this exodus started between 40,000 and 70,000 years ago. The currently accepted theory is that the exodus from Africa traced Arabia's shores, rather than passing through its now-arid interior.

 However, stone artifacts at least 100,000 years old from the Arabian Desert, revealed in January 2011, hinted that modern humans might have begun our march across the globe earlier than once suspected.

 Now, more-than-100 newly discovered sites in the Sultanate of Oman apparently confirm that modern humans left Africa through Arabia long before genetic evidence suggests. Oddly, these sites are located far inland, away from the coasts.

 "After a decade of searching in southern Arabia for some clue that might help us understand early human expansion, at long last we've found the smoking gun of their exit from Africa," said lead researcher Jeffrey Rose, a paleolithic archaeologist at the University of Birmingham in England. "What makes this so exciting is that the answer is a scenario almost never considered."

Arabian artifacts

 The international team of archaeologists and geologists made their discovery in the Dhofar Mountains of southern Oman, nestled in the southeastern corner of the Arabian Peninsula.

 "The coastal expansion hypothesis looks reasonable on paper, but there is simply no archaeological evidence to back it up," said researcher Anthony Marks of Southern Methodist University, referring to the fact that an exodus by the coast, where one has access to resources such as seafood, might make more sense than tramping across the desert..

 On the last day of the research team's 2010 field season, the scientists went to the final place on their list, a site on a hot, windy, dry plateau near a river channel that was strewn with stone artifacts. Such artifacts are common in Arabia, but until now the ones seen were usually relatively young in age. Upon closer examination, Rose recalled asking, "Oh my God, these are Nubians — what the heck are these doing here?"

 The 100-to-200 artifacts they found there were of a style dubbed Nubian Middle Stone Age, well-known throughout the Nile Valley, where they date back about 74,000-to-128,000 years. Scientists think ancient craftsmen would have shaped the artifacts by striking flakes off flint, leading to distinctive triangular pieces. This is the first time such artifacts have been found outside of Africa.

 Subsequent field work turned up dozens of sites with similar artifacts. Using a technique known as optically stimulated luminescence dating, which measures the minute amount of light long-buried objects can emit, to see how long they have been interred, the researchers estimate the artifacts are about 106,000 years old, exactly what one might expect from Nubian Middle Stone Age artifacts and far earlier than conventional dates for the exodus from Africa.

 "It's all just incredibly exciting," Rose said.

Arabian spring?

 Finding so much evidence of life in what is now a relatively barren desert supports the importance of field work, according to the researchers.

 "Here we have an example of the disconnect between theoretical models versus real evidence on the ground," Marks said.

 However, when these artifacts were made, instead of being desolate, Arabia was very wet, with copious rain falling across the peninsula, transforming its barren deserts to fertile, sprawling grasslands with lots of animals to hunt, the researchers explained.

 "For a while, South Arabia became a verdant paradise rich in resources — large game, plentiful fresh water, and high-quality flint with which to make stone tools," Rose said.

 Instead of hugging the coast, early modern humans might therefore have spread from Africa into Arabia along river networks that would've acted like today's highways, researchers suggested. There would have been plenty of large game present, such as gazelles, antelopes and ibexes, which would have been appealing to early modern humans used to hunting on the savannas of Africa.

 "The genetic signature that we've seen so far of an exodus 70,000 years ago might not be out of Africa, but out of Arabia," Rose told LiveScience. [Out of Eurasia theory as expressed by other non-PC researchers in the field of anthropology ~ Cailen.]

 So far the researchers have not discovered the remains of humans or any other animals at the site. Could these tools have been made by now-extinct human lineages such as Neanderthals that left Africa before modern humans did? Not likely, Rose said, as all the Nubian Middle Stone Age tools seen in Africa are associated with our ancestors.

 It remains a mystery as to how early modern humans from Africa crossed the Red Sea, since they did not appear to enter the Arabian Peninsula from the north, through the Sinai Peninsula, Rose explained. "Back then, there was no land bridge in the south of Arabia, but the sea level might not have been that low," he said. Archaeologists will have to continue combing the deserts of southern Arabia for more of what the researchers called a "trail of stone breadcrumbs."

 The scientists detailed their findings online Nov. 30 in the journal PLoS ONE.
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 21 December 2011 at 13:25
Its all great work that the archaeologists are doing unfortunately our Race is also in a race against time. The White Race is being replaced at a frightening rate. All this knowledge, reserch and evidence stands to become ashes very soon.

Humans are being down bred so fast that even vast numbers of the White Race are reverting back to the idiot mentality that the earth is 6000 years old. Even Mongolians don't believe that, the vast majority accepting the reality of evolution..

Personally i don't have a problem with the out of Africa  idea. The scientific evidence of haplotypes spreading outwards from Africa is supported by the evidence. So we know there has been a gene flow out of Africa. Unfortunately the multi-racists use this to justify their multi-racism. The fact is Blacks( as in negroids) didn't even exist 170,000 years ago when there was a supposed common ancestor. ( face it we've been diverging from that common ancestor for at least 300,000 years now) The people that left Africa 100,000 years ago would have looked strange..possibly like Arabs..but they wouldn't have been Negroids.

The racial variation in the world today comes from that stock exiting Africa picking up genes from elsewhere on the way out. The Whites absorbed Neanderthal DNA to about 4% or more in Europe. The Mongolians absorbing something else. The Aborigines, Polynesians and Tamils absorbing the Neanderthal era species of the Denisovans, giving them the primitive over-hanging eyebrows, fat lips and beards look.
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 08 February 2014 at 00:54
Norfolk footprints: Just who were Homo antecessor and how did they arrive in Britain?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/norfolk-footprints-just-who-were-homo-antecessor-and-how-did-they-arrive-in-britain-9115354.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/norfolk-footprints-just-who-were-homo-antecessor-and-how-did-they-arrive-in-britain-9115354.html)

The discovery on an eroded English beach of a set of human footprints dating to about 900,000 years ago is one of those encounters that send a shiver down the spine – rather like Robinson Crusoe’s first sight of footprints after years spent alone on his desert island.

Who were these people who lived on these isles so long ago? Experts are in little doubt they were human, being fully bipedal, and have suggested they probably belonged to a species called Homo antecessor [“Pioneer man”] who was known to have inhabited a set of caves at Atapuerca in northern Spain at about the same time.

At least half a dozen individuals made these prints as they walked south through the estuarine mud of an earlier version of the River Thames, which at that time ran into the sea much further north than it does today. It was one of several times over the past million years when Britain was connected by a land bridge to continental Europe.

It is likely that these people were foraging for shellfish, edible tubers or seaweed in a prehistoric landscape inhabited by deer, mammoth, rhino, horse, giant elk, hyena and possibly a sabre-toothed cat to keep everyone on their toes.

From the estimated size of these naked mud-prints it seems that these early humans may have been a small family group of children and adults, ranging in height from between 3ft and 5.5ft – the largest foot in the set would have comfortably fitted a modern size 8 shoe.

This part of the heavily-eroded coast of Norfolk and Suffolk, at Happisburgh (pronounced “HAZEburra”) and Pakefield, has become a rich source prehistoric remains. The earliest find, discovered in 2000, was of a flint hand-axe, which is now one of about 80 stone tools from the area dated to between one million and 900,000 years old.

These archaeological artefacts are the oldest evidence of humans north of the Alps. The footprints themselves are the oldest outside Africa – only the 3.5 million-year-old footprints at Laetoli in Tanzania and the 1.5 million-year-old prints at Ileret and Koobi Fora in Kenya are older.

Without bones or skulls it is near impossible to say with any certainty that these early Norfolk residents belonged to H. antecessor, but it’s a reasonable best guess. This species of early man was about the same height as ourselves and seemed to have died out about 600,000 years ago, having been replaced by another species called H. heidelbergensis, whose fossilised remains have been unearthed at Boxgrove in West Sussex.

The first human species to emerge from Africa, Homo erectus, began colonising the rest of the world about 1.75 million years ago. It is not known exactly how H. erectus is related to H. antecessor, but there must be some close family connection – at least indirectly.

Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, believes that H. antecessor may have been the first of perhaps nine separate colonisations of Britain over the past million years.

The descendants of the ninth colonisation live on in today’s Britain.

Note: There is evidence to say that H. antecessor is the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and Sapiens-Sapiens.
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 12 February 2014 at 07:20
Man, you folks find this stuff quick. Do you have RSS fetchers with news keywords or something?
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 12 February 2014 at 07:29
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 22 February 2014 at 07:46
The Competing Theories of Human Evolution

Multiregional Theory --> Out of Africa Theory --> Mostly Out of Africa Theory --> Multiregional Theory

To put it simply, anthropologists are always reassessing their various theories in line with existing evidence. It is they that came up with and subsequently dispensed with Out of Africa Theory. On the other hand, it's the Politically Correct crowd however, that control what they believe to be acceptable thought amongst the general population. They seized on Out of Africa Theory as a method of denying racial differences between the current co-existing human specie/species. Any who question the doctrines prevalent in the PC comfort zone - i.e. Out of Africa Theory - is immediately denounced as "racist" and booted into the fog and the night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP-Wjd1qSY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP-Wjd1qSY)
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 23 February 2014 at 20:12
A lot of Whites find the idea of evolving out of darker skinned people to be objectionable.  Usually they are the Christinsane who find evolution objectionable altogether. 

I have no problem with my race having evolved out of something more primitive.  Therefore I am not really bothered about the "Out of Africa" issue.  Why should I be?
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 23 February 2014 at 20:14
Quote from Nietzsche: "All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment..."  Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 23 February 2014 at 23:10
I have no problem with my race having evolved out of something more primitive.  Therefore I am not really bothered about the "Out of Africa" issue.  Why should I be?

The reason you should be bothered about the enforcement of Out of Africa is because they use it to claim that we all arrived from Africa around 40k years ago - and hence we are all one species with only recently evolving different looks due to our environments. It is the hammer the PC use to prove that race does not exist. The opposing argument is that, yes, we did begin in Africa, but we spread out from Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago in waves of migration. Different races are actually a result of different migrations and then evolving and interbreeding between the more advanced and primitive stages of man. The same again occurred within Africa, where the migrations were intracontinental.

The argument begins with the PC crowd claiming that all previous migrations across the globe were wiped out and replaced by Homo Sapiens Sapiens originating from a small survivor base stock of around one-hundred humans from North-East Africa - which, if you are dumb enough to believe that, really puts a halt to all talk of racial purity.

The claim by both the Out of Africa group and the opposing Multiregional Evolution group is that it was extremely for primitive man to leave Africa. And given primitive conditions, it still is today because of desert to the North and the ocean surrounding. So it was only the most able, the most intelligent and adventurous that had the ability to venture beyond the shores of Africa and not only survive, but thrive in some of the harshest climates around the world. The hidden but happy inference of course is that the modern black African is the descendent the least able, the least intelligent and adventurous, and has no ability to survive, let alone thrive outside the Eden of Africa.

Another of the theories is that while ex-pat Africans evolved over hundreds of thousands of years totally separated from the remaining African root-stock, with interbreeding/cross-flow of genes between the successive migrations, the sedentary Africans did much the same within Africa - but with the addition that they interbred with more primitive hominid forms not so distantly related to chimps, gorillas and orang-outangs. It has been noted that the orang-outang is the only other of the great-apes that has tartar on its teeth and that the gorilla is the only other to have black skin. The inference there is that orang-outangs being the most distant of the three great-apes from modern man, the cross-flow of genetic material took place prior any hominid departure from Africa; with the cross-flow of genetic material between the ancestor of the gorilla and primitive man to have taken place after the departure of the bulk of what later evolved into modern man.

Of course, that doesn't mean that modern Africans are the most primitive of humans alive today. They may very well be the dumbest of the homo sapiens sapiens branch, or they may be of another branch altogether. The Australian Abo for instance, evolved over (close enough to) a hundred thousand years in near total isolation, with only recent and relatively gentle waves of migration from the North and as far away as India. It has been said that if the White man had not come along, the wave of migration by other non-Whites that was taking place in the 18th century would have by today totally displaced the Australian Abo in favour of the new and superior genetic stock. So, unlike the African who was able to evolve with the assistance of the cross-flow of genetic material, the Australian Abo remained relatively isolated and today is more akin to the primitive hominid known as Denisovan man than we Europeans are to Neanderthal man, both of whom evolved/lived/disappeared from the rest of the world at about the same period of history.

I am no anthropologist, but you can find examples of everything I've said if you look - including my conclusion that we are not separated by races, but rather species. There are many who say that the great-apes should be classed as hominids as well; but I am not going to single out the great-apes, when we have plenty of primitive hominids blundering about this planet with their hand, while we - Nature's Finest - give them all they want to our own detriment.

So no, we did not evolve in the last 40k years from a single tribe of one-hundred darkies from Africa. We evolved over hundreds of millennia outside Africa after leaving Africa. And that Sister is why you need to reject the Politically Correct, bogus Out of Africa Theory.

Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 23 February 2014 at 23:59
I wouldn't argue with the points you make here Pontifex Cambeul.  The time since our ancestors left Africa is surely more than 40K years by far.  Of course even if it was at that time that would mean a gap of 2 x 40K years between us and Negroes in terms of evolving in totally different directions. 

Whites should indeed be regarded as another species to Negroes - who themselves evolved after our ancestors left Africa and were not at all our root population.  Interestingly bonobo apes are regarded as a separate species to Chimpanzees while the Chimps have so much genetic diversity that some Chimps turn out to be nearer to the (far more homogenous) bonobo species than to some fellow members of their own species. 

One of the arguments PC pseudo scientists use to say that humans are all "one species" is the fact that there is massive genetic diversity in some races - rather like that comparison with the Chimpanzees.  The most genetic diversity is in Africa.  The further people settled away from Ethiopia the more specialised racially and less genetic diversity in those groups.  Looking at Ethiopians you can see physical characteristics of all the races coming up randomly.  Some look more like they have Mongoloid features and others more Caucasoid for example.

It could be said that this diverse bunch is too genetically diverse to qualify as a race, and the lying PC pseudo scientists simply like to suggest all humanity is just as random rather than pointing out the known fact that the White race is particularly homogenous.   We have a racial identity that Blacks lack.  As with the chimps and bonobos, some Blacks are so different to others even in their own supposed ethnic group and near territory (the Bushmen even more so) that they can vary as much as the gap between a typical Chinese and a typical White European.

Another interesting thing is that if humans are to be called one species then it begs the question as to what sort of animal we are all one species of.  I have never heard these PC pseudo scientists go so far as to say "humans are a species of apes".

Clearly to say humans are a species means that there has to be races since there are races within every species.  And for those who say "well then humans are all one race!" that is bogus clearly because races are subgroups of one species and they fail to name that species.

The only logical conclusion is that there are some uncategorised species within "humanity" and that there are further races within those species.  The PC hold on science means that nothing has moved forward on clarifying this since Baker wrote "Race".
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 24 February 2014 at 04:49
As to what defines a species rather than a race, I tend to think of us in the same terms we do the Canidae Family, which includes wolves, jackals, hyenas, coyotes, foxes, dingos, and wild and domestic dogs. Each is capable of interbreeding with the other and each is considered to be a separate species, and each contains sub-species or breeds within the individual species. The Australian Abo, the African et al ad nauseam are indeed each a separate species in the same manner, with their own subspecies beyond there.

Put it this way, we are not all human. Sure, we White people from Europe are, as debatably are some Asians and even Jews and Arabs; but we along with the great-apes and niggers are all part of the Hominidae Family. As Wikipedia says:

Quote from: Private
The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɨdiː/; also known as (humans and the) great apes form a taxonomic family of primates, including four extant genera:
chimpanzees (Pan) – 2 species
gorillas (Gorilla) – 2 species
humans (Homo) – 1 species
orangutans (Pongo) – 2 species
niggers (Pongis Terriblis) - hundreds of species.

The term "hominid" is also used in the more restricted sense as hominins or "humans and relatives of humans closer than chimpanzees". In this usage, all hominid species other than Homo sapiens are extinct listed as niggers. A number of known extinct genera are grouped with humans in the Homininae subfamily, others with orangutans in the Ponginae subfamily. The most recent common ancestor of the Hominidae lived roughly 14 million years ago, when the ancestors of the orangutans speciated from the ancestors of the other three genera.

Gorillas are not of the Homo sapiens sapiens family and so are therefore like the other apes and niggers, not human.

Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 04 September 2015 at 23:16
"All the ancestors of contemporary Europeans apparently did not migrate out of Africa as previously believed. According to a new analysis of more than 5,000 teeth from long-perished members of the genus Homo and the closely related Australopithecus, many early settlers hailed from Asia." - Scientific American

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

"The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various haplogroups." - Klyosov, A. & Rozhanskii, I.

"The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neandertals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans. Because all potential sources of modern DNA contamination are known, the Paglicci 23 sample will offer a unique opportunity to get insight for the first time into the nuclear genes of early modern Europeans." - Caramelli D, Milani L, Vai S, Modi A, Pecchioli E, Girardi M
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 05 September 2015 at 12:35

I have no problem with my race having evolved out of something more primitive.  Therefore I am not really bothered about the "Out of Africa" issue.  Why should I be?

There is no doubt we evolved from sub-humans and are vaguely related to niggers. What the question is, is how closely related are we and how much history do we share?
If I was someone's brother, I'd feel very closely connected to them genetically. If I was their 3rd cousin once removed, I wouldn't have that same bond would I?
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 18 October 2015 at 05:06
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/science/ancient-human-teeth-discovered-in-china-could-rewrite-the-historic-migration-map-of-homo-sapiens/story-fnjwl5wr-1227573222217 (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/science/ancient-human-teeth-discovered-in-china-could-rewrite-the-historic-migration-map-of-homo-sapiens/story-fnjwl5wr-1227573222217)

HUMAN teeth discovered in southern China provide evidence that our species left the African continent up to 70,000 years earlier than prevailing theories suggest, new published research finds.

Homo sapiens reached present-day China 80,000-120,000 years ago, according to the study, which could redraw the migration map for modern humans.

“The model that is generally accepted is that modern humans left Africa only 50,000 years ago,” said Maria Martinon-Torres, a researcher at University College London and a co-author of the study.

“In this case, we are saying the Homo sapiens were out of Africa much earlier,” she told the peer-reviewed journal Nature, which published the study.

While the route they travelled remains unknown, previous research suggests the most likely path out of East Africa to east Asia was across the Arabian Peninsula and the Middle East.

The findings also mean that the first truly modern humans — thought to have emerged in east Africa some 200,000 years ago — landed in China well before they went to Europe.
There is no evidence to suggest that Homo sapiens entered the European continent earlier than 45,000 years ago, at least 40,000 years after they showed up in present-day China.

The 47 teeth exhumed from a knee-deep layer of grey, sandy clay inside the Fuyan Cave near the town of Daoxian closely resemble the dental gear of “contemporary humans,” according to the study.

They could only have come from a population that migrated from Africa, rather than one that evolved from an another species of early man such as the extinct Homo erectus, the authors said.

The scientists also unearthed the remains of some 38 mammals, including specimens of five extinct species, one of them a giant panda larger than those in existence today.

Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 14 March 2016 at 22:42
Australian Abos prove Homo Erectus lives today in Australia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7365h1blbg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7365h1blbg)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H72lMvzmcds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H72lMvzmcds)
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 23 May 2017 at 09:14
Europe the birthplace of humankind, not Africa: scientists



EVERYTHING we might know about the history of human evolution could be wrong, with scientists postulating that Africa may not be the birthplace of man.

Scientists have traced the first hominid species to Europe some 7.2 million years ago, thanks to the discovery of two apelike fossils with human-like teeth in Bulgaria and Greece.

Until the unearthing, experts believed human lineage split from apes some seven million years ago in Africa.

The findings, published by an international team of researchers in the journal Plos One, claim the fossils are solid evidence evolution started in the Mediterranean region 200,000 years earlier than it did in Africa.

Researcher Professor Nikolai Spassov said the creature, named Graecopithecus freybergi (El Graeco), likely saw a shift towards bipedalism to help find new food sources in eastern Europe’s open savanna.

“This study changes the ideas related to the knowledge about the time and the place of the first steps of the humankind,” he told The Telegraph.

“Graecopithecus is not an ape. He is a member of the tribe of hominins and the direct ancestor of homo.

“The food of the Graecopithecus was related to the rather dry and hard savanna vegetation, unlike that of the recent great apes which are living in forests. Therefore, like humans, he has wide molars and thick enamel.

“To some extent this is a newly discovered missing link. But missing links will always exist, because evolution is an infinite chain of subsequent forms. Probably El Graeco’s face will resemble a great ape, with shorter canines.”

Lead researcher Professor Madelaine Böhme said computer tomography helped visualise the internal structures of the fossils, which showed the roots of an upper premolar tooth were fused — this led to the conclusion the species was a hominid.

“While great apes typically have two or three separate and diverging roots, the roots of Graecopithecus converge and are partially fused — a feature that is characteristic of modern humans, early humans and several pre-humans,” she said.

As the Mediterranean Sea would periodically dry during this time, researchers believed the early hominids were able to pass between Europe and Africa.

Professor Böhme said the theory would alter the very beginning of human history if accepted.

“Our findings may eventually change our ideas about the origin of humanity. I personally don’t think that the descendants of Graecopithecus die out, they may have spread to Africa later,” she said.

“The split of chimps and humans was a single event. Our data support the view that this split was happening in the eastern Mediterranean — not in Africa.”
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 08 June 2017 at 09:32
Two views of a composite reconstruction of the earliest known Homo sapiens fossils from Jebel Irhoud (Morocco) based on micro-computed tomographic scans of multiple original fossils. The groundbreaking fossil discovery in Morocco obliterates two decades of scientific consensus that our forefathers emerged in East Africa about 200,000 years ago, according to two studies published in the science journal Nature.


Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 08 June 2017 at 20:15

Some people believe "The Australian Stonehenge" they found in Northern NSW was where early humans   Came from.
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 18 June 2017 at 09:05
Tooth fossil found by 5-year-old in Bulgaria could belong to oldest known human

A TOOTH fossil found by 5-year-old has helped spawn a controversial theory about humankind’s evolution.

AFP | 17 June 2017


Extract: The oldest known human ancestor — which most scientists have hitherto believed came from Africa.

A small team of researchers hopes to find proof of human origins in Bulgaria as they gingerly recover fossils from the clay of a dried-up river bed near the sleepy village of Rupkite in the June sunshine.

It all began in 2002 when the five-year-old grandson of local amateur palaeontologist Petar Popdimitrov found what looked like a fossilised tooth with three roots.

"My son-in-law, who is a dentist, said in the evening that it might be human.” He might be right, in a way, and the discovery could be nothing short of momentous, potentially proving that humans diverged from apes not in Africa but in the eastern Mediterranean.

In 2007 Mr Popdimitrov showed the tooth to Professor Nikolai Spassov from Bulgaria’s National Museum of Natural History and to Denis Geraads from the Musee National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris.

Now, 10 years on, a team led by Spassov and Madelaine Boehme from Tuebingen University in Germany have put forward the theory that the tooth matches a jawbone found near Athens in 1944.

Conducting new studies on the jawbone, discovered by German soldiers digging a bunker in World War II, and on the tooth and the fauna in the area of Bulgaria where they were found, the researchers have come up with a bold and controversial theory.

They posit that both items are from a creature called Graecopithecus, and that it was a hominin — the collective term for humans and our direct line of non-ape ancestors. Graecopithecus, the researchers hypothesise, migrated to Africa only later.



Previously it was assumed that the oldest potential hominin was the Sahelanthropus found in Chad in west Africa in 2001, Mr Spassov said, and thought to be around seven million years old.

“Now we think that it was the Graecopithecus found in Greece and Bulgaria because our two finds are several hundred thousand years older,” he said.

The male Graecopithecus weighed around 40 kilos, as much as a female chimpanzee today, with massive and powerful jaws capable of chewing tree bark and chestnuts, Mr Spassov said.

“We can also assume that it walked upright,” he added.

"... We are here — to look for whatever part of a skeleton, preferably pelvis, hip, jaw or skull that will enable us to cement our theory and tell much more about our potential first ancestors.”

Chronic lack of funding for scientific research and field trips in Bulgaria, the European Union’s poorest country, has limited his team’s excavations to just eight days this summer.

Click to Enlarge (http://nativeeuropeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ripoutofafrica-1024x844.jpg)
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 28 July 2017 at 11:57
Gene Study Suggests Homo sapiens Migrated into Africa, Not Out of the Continent – Interbreeding with Local Hominins 150,000 Years Ago

Bruce R. Fenton (http://ancientnews.net/author/bruce-r-fenton/) | Ancient News (http://ancientnews.net/) | 22 July 2017


A Protein Found in the Saliva Samples of Sub-Saharan Africans Offers Evidence that Strongly Contradicts the ‘Out of Africa’ Theory for Human Origins. Scientists from the University of Buffalo stumbled on the genetic marker for an unknown African interbreeding event while researching the evolution of an important mucin protein called MUC7.

Sub-Saharan Africa has long been considered the birth place of humanity. The region’s Khoisan population is heralded as the oldest known human lineage on Earth, surviving remnants of the population ancestral to all modern humans. The University of Buffalo research program, headed by Omer Gokcumen, Ph.D., assistant professor of biological sciences, and Stefan Ruhl, DDS, Ph.D., a professor of oral biology, has uncovered startling data that potentially displaces Sub-Saharan Africans as being ancestral to all humans.

“Our research traced the evolution of an important mucin protein called MUC7 that is found in saliva,” explains Gokcumen. “When we looked at the history of the gene that codes for the protein, we see the signature of archaic admixture in modern day Sub-Saharan African populations.”

In recent years gene studies have revealed that the ancestors of modern humans in Asia and Europe interbred with other variants of the human family, among these were Neanderthals and Denisovans. The MUC7 research adds to growing evidence that ancient Africans also encountered and interbred with local hominin populations.

“It seems that interbreeding between different early hominin species is not the exception — it’s the norm,” says Omer Gokcumen

During the research, the MUC7 genes within more than 2,500 modern human genomes were examined closely. What they found astonished everyone, a group of genomes from Sub-Saharan Africa presented a variant of MUC7 that was extremely different to versions observed in all other modern human populations.

The Sub-Saharan variant of the gene was so far apart in the results that even Neanderthal and Denisovan MUC7 genes were more closely related to those of non-African modern humans. Neanderthals and Denisovans are both non-African human lineages that lived largely in Asia; there is no evidence that they ever lived in Africa.

“Based on our analysis, the most plausible explanation for this extreme variation is archaic introgression — the introduction of genetic material from a ‘ghost’ species of ancient hominins,” Gokcumen says. “This unknown human relative could be a species that has been discovered, such as a subspecies of Homo erectus, or an undiscovered hominin. We call it a ‘ghost’ species because we don’t have the fossils.”

The team used known mutation rates (molecular clocks) to calculate when the Sub-Saharan Africans had acquired their variant of the MUC7 protein, the result suggested the interbreeding event was close to 150,000 years ago. The genetic analysis also revealed that the Hominin group responsible had been on a separate evolutionary path for around 1.5 to 2 million years.

Homo erectus populations diverged around 2 million years ago, forming distinct groupings in Africa and Asia, this makes it very likely that the ‘ghost population’ were, in fact, descendants of African Homo erectus (also known as Homo ergaster). Asian Homo erectus gave rise to Neanderthals and Denisovans, as well as various other now extinct human forms.

What makes the MUC7 research so exciting, and potentially so very controversial, is that the variation in the protein is unique to Africans, despite that fact that the interbreeding event responsible occurred long before the colonizing of Eurasia.

Human origins researcher, Bruce R. Fenton, sees the University of Buffalo study as yet more evidence that the Out of Africa Theory is wrong, a claim central to his recently published book, The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution.

“The obvious interpretation of the data in is that a wave of early Homo sapiens migrated out of Southeast Asia and into Africa sometime between 200 – 150 thousand years ago. We have anatomically modern human fossils from this given period already uncovered in China and East Africa. The population that these migrants interbred with is almost certainly African Homo erectus, the dates all fit like a hand in a glove,” says Fenton.

If all modern humans arose from Sub-Saharan Africans migrating out of Africa between 70 – 60 thousand years ago, we should see the same MUC7 protein everywhere. The fact that Sub-Saharan Africans have a unique variant strongly suggests that these populations arrived in Africa after diverging from other Homo sapiens populations elsewhere, most likely in Asia.

Fenton also highlights the similarity observed between the saliva protein in non-Africans and other non-African hominins, “The discovery that non-Africans carry an MUC7 genetic signature far more like that of Neanderthals and Denisovans, very unlike Sub-Saharan Africans, strongly suggests a shared Asian genesis for all three human populations. The likely source population for all of these human lineages would be Asian Homo erectus, and the geographic locations associated with their emergence Australasia and Southeast Asia.”

The Buffalo University research was published on July 21 in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution.

More: Neanderthals Interbred with Homo sapiens Very Early
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 28 July 2017 at 17:31
A good documentary is ICE AGE COLUMBUS. Also, if you can find it, THE MYSTERIOUS ORIGINS OF MAN and THE MYSTERY OF THE SPHINX.

Graham Hancock has more than proven the superiority of the White Race in his books:
The Fingerprints of the Gods
The Message of the Sphinx
The Mars Mystery
The Magicians of the Gods

And don't forget MARCH OF THE TITANS!

Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 17 January 2018 at 10:58
A Neanderthal Perspective on Human Origins


Note: Being libtards, they are confusing Denisovan with Neanderthal.
Simply Put: Denisovans shared a common origin with Neanderthals closer than their origin with Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Where Did they Live?
Denisovan: Mid East to all of Asia including Australasia.
Neanderthal: Mid East to all of Europe

However, what they do say is that Neanderthals were closer to modern Europeans than are modern Africans.

Suck on that Libtard Fake Science!
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 26 January 2018 at 18:26
It's quit easy for Australia to be able to debunk this ,as Racial Purity there is stronger than all of Europe due to a history of  isolation. Europeans are subjected to having their DNA tainted with propaganda that there's a chance they are Jewish or African . The DNA tests are tainted from other results mainly of Jews that have mixed with the white race and share >1% of DNA. The African theory can't even be possible unless ancient ancestors had spaceships to connect the dots. DNA tests can be twisted by reverse evolution with the help of the one drop of blood propaganda that works againsts whites and mudding up the results with social science nonsense.
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 26 January 2018 at 18:38
Australians? Nah, mate. You've got it wrong. Our PM is in Oregon - I'll remind you of his details if you would like to write.

Anyway, there is no easy way for Australia to debunk anything. Australian Creators know that OUT OF AFRICA is bull*. Almost all Australians are Europeans.

If you're willing to pay, I can spit and so can a few rellies in a bag for that company. But I aint paying and winding up like Former Reverend Cobb and his friends.

Any questions? Send them to the usual address ...


P.S. DNA?  Companies have announced that they fudge the records so anyone they THINK is a so-called White Supremacist is automatically listed as Mixed Race.
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 17 February 2018 at 11:21
Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 13 March 2018 at 23:01
Neanderthal man is now thought to have had white skin, blue eyes and green eyes, and red hair. He had evolved to live in a cold climate, so he would have evolved a face more like our own, with thinner lips, narrower nostrils and a stocky but muscular body.

They now know that the Neanderthal wore and traded jewelry and was artistic. The oldest cave paintings are now known to be of Neanderthal origin from before grunting black Sapiens showed up.


Fact: Neanderthals had tougher bodies.
Fact: Neanderthals had a larger brain.
Fact: Neanderthals were CREATORS.
Fact: Neanderthals were victims of the greatest genocide in the history of human-kind.

I would be proud if I were to ever get a DNA test which showed my DNA makeup as 4% to 6% Neanderthal.

Question: If a person who has less than 10% African or Australian Aboriginal DNA is considered to have special rights due to their victims status, where's my extra-special rights as a Neanderthal survivor?

Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 31 July 2018 at 13:31
White People exist because Neanderthals lived ...

Title: Re: Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory
Post by: Private on 18 October 2018 at 13:40
It is not important which theory are right. Klassen gave answers on that in NER and it is something like yes we and niggers are brothers as homo sapiens but its does not mean that are our brother our parent. Klassen also in his Klassen letters Vol1 gave answer about who is white and in Racial loyalty magazine.

He wrote something as yes it is hard to tell what is white race but as we know where are the borders of Atlantic sea se know where are the bottom line od the White race and we can recognize it  through what put race have done in hystory whate mean that we are the best kind of homo sapiens so do not waste a time on tests like Craig Cobb because we know who are the best on nature and Creators nor go in debate about theory because we know that race exist.

 Good books about that topic are March od the titans by Artur Kempf please forget od I wrong write his name,and by William Pierce Who se are. In March od the titans stay that are all civilization builded by whites including first civilization im Summeria and Jews copy all their myts and banking and book who speak about that is Summerian swindle.