Header Summits

DNA Evidence Debunks the “Out-of-Africa” Theory of Human Evolution

Australian Original - Wake Up World

By Steven Strong with Andy Whiteley

Contributing Writers for Wake Up World

Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.

This article was inspired by a comment made recently by Australian historian Greg Jefferys. So before continuing a scientific assessment of DNA evidence, we will first open this discussion by outlining Greg Jefferys’ comments.

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

It did begin the early 90’s. And the academics most responsible for cementing both the Out-of Africa theory and the complementary common ancestral African mother – given the name of “Eve” – in the public arena and nearly every curriculum, were Professors Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann. In their defense, the authors of this paper were fully aware that genealogy is not in any way linked to geography, and that their placement of Eve in Africa was an assumption, never an assertion. In their seminal paper The Recent African Genesis of Humans, they even stipulated “that all humans today can be traced along maternal lines of descent to a woman who lived about 200,000 years ago, probably in Africa.”

So how is it that their “probably” has morphed into our collective “definitely”?

Over time, even the two researchers came to discover that the research of Original Mitochondrial DNA was fundamentally flawed. Both separately conducted further tests on Mitochondrial DNA found within the blood of full-descent Original people, arriving at the same conclusion, both recanted their previous assumptions by acknowledging that Homo sapien sapiens originated in Australia.

Professor Alan Wilson came to Australia in 1987 and 1989 to personally supervise the collection of Original blood from a variety of locations throughout Australia. With a mutation rate of 70% from the samples analysed, which is manifestly higher than any other race, Wilson was compelled to admit that:

… it seems too far out to admit, but while Homo erectus was muddling along in the rest of the world, a few erectus had got to Australia and did something dramatically different – not even with stone tools – but it is here that Homo sapiens emerged and evolved.

Rebecca Cann was more expansive and specific in declaring that the Original “Mitochondrial DNA puts the origin of Homo Sapiens much further back and indicates that the Australian Aborigines arose 400,000 years ago from two distinct lineages, far earlier than any other racial group.” The notions of a “far earlier” time frame when estimating when, and the existence of “two lineages” in Australia when grappling with who, are constant themes that can be found within many other reports investigating the make up of the genes and chromosomes of Homo sapien sapiens.

The very recent mapping of the Original Genome only reinforces the stance taken by both Cann and Wilson twenty years earlier, and highlights the inconsistencies and illogicality of any and every Out-of-Africa theory. A Danish genetic research team, led by Dr. Eske Willerslev, found that Original people came into existence at least 70,000 years ago, 40,000 years before both the European and Asian race first appeared. They assumed that because Africans made their way across the entire Asian continent and never stopped or settled, and remained in transit until reaching Australia “some 50,000 years ago.” Once ensconced in this foreign land where they managed to keep “the whole continent to themselves without admitting any outsiders”, their genes should be very African.

The problem being, as they openly admit, such a premise is “based on a mixture of statistics and best guesses”, and more importantly as Wilson and Cann came to realise, “we really can’t put geography in there.” Granted, they did concede that “the Aborigine occupation of Australia presents a series of puzzles” and especially so in relation to “the nature of their stone tools found in Australia” which “are much simpler than the Upper Paleolithic tools… at the same era.” Professor Richard Klien (Paleoanthropologist Stanford University) highlighted the contradictory nature of the stone tool technology in Australia when observing that “I don’t understand why they looked so primitive.”

Basically this means that the people who invented and sailed the first boat capable of carrying many people over 100 kilometres of open sea, regressed markedly in technology once arriving on these new shores. Or perhaps in ancient days until quite recent times, no-one ever sailed to, but from, Australia, which would explain why the Original technology was so unlike anything outside their home base.

Noted by Dr. Savolainen from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, even the arrival of the only dog to reach Australia until the British invasion is an “enigma”.

We would humbly suggest that proclaiming any genetic absolutes, when dealing with Australian history, is risky business and best left to the Original Elders.

What only complicates the convenient versions of history is the totally unexpected addition to the ever-expanding hominid family: the Denisovans. Just after the release of a paper on the mapping of the Original Genome from a piece of hair collected 100 years ago, the first news of a new species of hominid – called the Denisovans – reached the public arena. All evidence found – especially in relation to the mtDNA extracted from the little finger of a Denisovan woman believed to be 80,000 years old – widens the geographic boundaries and time-scales of this recurring “enigma”. First and foremost, the resulting mtDNA of this sub-species of modern humans was compared against every race and tribe on the planet, and the closest genetic match was, as we would have predicted, the Australian Original people.

Thirty thousand years before the first Africans supposedly entered Australia, Original, not African, genes turn up in Siberia. The real issue at stake is that the Denosovans are considered a lesser species of early human, placed somewhere below Neanderthals, while the Original people, according to every model, are fully Homo sapien sapiens. So how is it possible that this regression took place? And did so, so far from home?

Some commentators proposed that this contact was not due to Original people sailing from Australia, but the Denisovans sailing to Australia. But alas, to for the Denisovans to have done so is in opposition to every accredited theory on the rise of Homo sapien sapiens, where they alone mastered the art of sailing to other continents in numbers large enough to genetically sustain their founding populations. Apparently, the Denisovans, who are well down the Hominid tree, were able to communicate, construct a boat of sizeable proportions, and navigate a successful voyage of thousands of kilometers on the open seas. This hypothesis just doesn’t make sense. What does sound more logical was that Homo sapiens were actually sailing from Australia and bestowing wisdom, culture and genes, with the Denisovans gratefully receiving all of these gifts.

Now the plot thickens and unravels.

An article in the New York Times on 4th December 2013 lays claim to a “baffling 400,000 year old clue to human origins”. On this occasion, humanity’s indirect ancestry was traced back to Spain during pre-Homo sapien sapiens times, and once again Denisovan genes are at play. So it appears the same hominid who is most closely linked to the Original genes of Australia was wandering around the Spanish countryside some 400,000 years ago, well before any African Homo sapien could be claimed to have stepped in, on or outside African soil.

“Scientists have found the oldest DNA evidence yet of humans’ biological history. But instead of neatly clarifying human evolution, the finding is adding new mysteries”. The femur bone found in cave was analysed by Dr. Matthias Meyer (geneticist Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology). When Meyer and his colleagues “drilled into the femur, they found ancient human DNA inside, just as they hoped”.

But past this point, nothing went according to their script. Much to their surprise, the DNA they recovered – the oldest yet by over 100,000 years – “most closely resembles DNA from an enigmatic lineage of humans known as Denisovans”, originally thought to be 80,000 years old and confined to the Northern Asian region. This finding was the cause of great consternation. “Everyone had a hard time believing it at first” Dr. Meyer said. “So we generated more and more data to nail it down”. Not surprisingly, their further research only confirmed the original results.

As Meyer quite rightly observed: “right now, we’ve basically generated a big question mark”.

As was the case with the Genome studies of Original hair, “the new finding is hard to reconcile with the [accepted] picture of human evolution”. None of what they found fits into any traditional version of human ascension, and according to Dr. Luis Asauaga (Paleoanthropologist, Universdad Complutense de Madrid) this discovery demands that “we have to rethink the whole story”.

And that last statement by Dr. Asauaga really sums up the case for the entire Out-of-Africa theory: it is a “story”, it was never a fact. From the very beginning it was always a “probably” at best. But this is only one half of the story… all of the evidence we have presented relates to women’s side of the genetic pool, and until the male’s Y-Chromosome is factored into this ancient narrative, any “rethink” of the “whole story” is incomplete.

What really does reinforce Greg Jeffreys’ contention that the genetic evidence is in stark contradiction to any Out-of-Africa theory, is that time after time the many Y-Chromosome papers released over the last decade stand united in their denial of any African input. And this is by no means a recent occurrence, as evidenced by a paper released in 1999 by Australian researchers Vandenburg and colleagues. As it was with other studies, the results were as inconvenient as they were unexpected. Vandenburg found that “Australian Y-chromosome diversity is surprisingly limited”. In contrast with the Genome researchers’ assumption that Australian was literally sealed off genetically until their land was stolen in 1788, Vandenburg made note of “two haplotypes unique to Australian Aboriginals”. But if indeed Africans sailed to Australia and were immediately isolated genetically, this just should not happen – every Original haplotype should have close to an identical African match.

Further information added to the African inconsistencies, while also reinforcing an observation offered by Rebecca Cann in relation to mtDNA evidence that suggested the first Original Homo sapien sapiens were sourced from “two lineages”. The results gathered “were compared with other worldwide populations” which “produced 41 unique haplotypes”. Instead of an even spread amongst so many haplotypes, in Australia a far more intense clustering was present in that “most (78%) of Australian haplotypes fell into two clusters, possibly indicating two original, separate lineages of Aboriginal Australians”. To that end, since at least two Original haplotype groups have no African counter-part, there can be no African involvement, mtDNA or Y-chromosomes in either of the “two lineages”.

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

Central to results of this extensive examination of haplogroups (7,556) was the absence of any African genes. So lacking was the sampling of African genetic involvement, the researchers stated in their introduction that:

“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, as well as all non-African groups do not carry either SNI’s M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262 …”

There are 11 more entries in this list of non-starters, all missing from both Europeoids and “all non-African groups,” which obviously includes the Original Australians. With the Original people exhibiting an intense clustering into two groups, haplogroups not present in any African genes and an absence of dozens of African genetic markers, it is very difficult nigh on impossible to sustain any link between Africa and Australia.

The researchers are adamant that their extensive study “offers evidence to re-examine the validity of the Out-of-Africa concept”. They see no genetic proof substantiating an African precedence in the Homo sapien tree, and maintain that “a more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork”.

We regard the claim of “a more plausible explanation” as a gross understatement, since there is absolutely nothing plausibly African turning up in any test tubes. In fact, the researchers made note of their repeated absence stating “not one non-African participant out of more than 400 individuals in the Project tested positive to any of thirteen ‘African’ sub-clades of haplogroup A”.

The only remaining uncertainty relates to the identity of this “more ancient common ancestor”. All that can be stated with confidence is that humanity’s ancestor did not reside in Africa, but “probably” Australia.

When an Original Elder of high standing recently declared that “all peoples of the world come from us”, it seems he had a large body of genetic science standing beside him.

About the authors:

Steven Strong is an Australian-based researcher, author and former high school teacher. Together woth his son Evan, his work is to explore the ancient story of the Original people, a narrative that was almost lost to aggressive European colonisation.

Andy Whiteley is a former corporate manager turned writer, editor and co-founder of Wake Up World. An advocate of peaceful (r)evolution, Andy believes we are on a necessary path (albeit bumpy) to a renewed social model grounded in love, transparency, individuality, sustainability and spirit.

Connect with Andy at Facebook.com/JoinWakeUpWorld.

This article edited by Andy Whiteley for Wake Up World. This article © Wake Up World.

 

Join Wake Up World's Ever Evolving Social Communities

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google Plus

 

  • editor-b

    But, is there evolution if there is no time? How will evolutionary biology meet new physical paradigms about time, space and so on? Will new conceptual changes deny evolution? Or on the contrary, will it become a more extraordinary process, full of astonishing implications? Will human being nature become different as science progresses? Can knowledge change human beings nature, can it change yours?

  • hum

    Well my genetic research supports the ‘out of africa’ theory. Personal genome mapping of family and extensions, comprising of various ‘blood lines’ – every single one of them have a percentage of African genetics.

    Up to 5% ‘unknown’ haplogroup were reported too.

    There’s still lots to learn of course, yet the ‘out of africa’ theory still holds.

    • MG

      Those genetic mappings are all based on the Out of Africa fairy tale. They are worthless. The theory has been debunked from every possible angle, even by its creators.

    • Anti-Hum

      Can you post this genetic “research” you have done in a journal, so that I may read it? Because it sounds like you’re spewing bs.

  • Rex Lacoste

    Abetter explanation for this would be simple. Aborigines are not homo sapiens, but instead homo erectus. The reason their genes are unique is they evolved separate from the rest of us. We become homo sapiens, they did not. A population of homo erectus existed all over Earth. They all slowly evolved into homo sapiens. With the Aborigines retaining more erectus traits.

    • Adrian Dent

      No, that is not how evolution works, one species does not “all slowly evolve” all over the earth.
      A more likely explanation, related to the one you mention, is that homo sapiens has spread all over the world, and unique haplotypes have “sported” in various different places. Divergent, rather than convergent evolution.

  • Faye

    I often consider we are people fallen from the stars .. and each indigenous groups of people represent their own specific star colony .. and the Africa alliance of star colonies fell from the constellation Canis Major also known as the Big Dog … and the American Indian alliance of star colonies fell from the Pleiadian Star Cluster in the Constellation Taurus … and others fell from their associated alliance of the stars .. consider these findings ..
    http://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/connection-between-sirius-and-human-history/

  • Abie Martin

    If I have a farm where I breed strong strains of a certain chicken and a demand for the same arise elsewhere in the world the the easiest option is to transfer breeding stock to the location where its required. I have this wild idea that the same populations with strong traits were carted or placed to/in different parts of the world almost at the same time. How should become clear over time!

    • Larry Silverstein

      Yep!

      And the Earth land-mass was joined closer than it is today, so peoples could travel by land over great plains!

      • paz del

        the earth was much smaller once…& still growing …the earth was once all land mass when east coast of africa , india & west coast of australia were joined…most likely it would appear that “man” appeared or maybe “life” began at this juncture , where water would eventually separate…at this juncture maybe life came by way of a meteor…but given all that i have always believed our origins are with australian aborigines …in the northwest of australia we will soon find discoveries that will confirm this & will shake our arrogant notions of who discovered who & who has the rite to what lands etc…

  • Thomas Turk

    Humankind in this Universe, has a history of 8.6 billion years. The starting of human life was a creation on the planet SADR, in the WARON sun system, which moved in the LYREN galaxy, 3,816,000,000 light years distant from our SOL system.

    Information is from http://www.theyfly.com.

    Before you scream fraud, note that Meier, the Swiss et contactee published data on our Sol System sometimes years ahead of nasa’s discoveries.

    .

  • Greg Endries

    So, does this mean that casting Daryl Hannah as Ayla (Lucy?!) in The Clan of the Cave Bear possibly was a prehistorically accurate and resonsible thing to do?!

  • Frank Freeman

    Are we to take seriously an article on human populations that refers several times to Homo sapien sapiens? And says that scientific inquiry is best left to “the Original Elders” – whoever they might be?

    • Chuchee Mguchee

      Homo sapien sapien, is a real term.

  • Harleyrider1978

    In the 1980s it was called AFRO-CENTRISM!

    It was made up BS to try and claim the Egyptians were all BLACK AFRICANS and that Greek culture was started by the Africans…… Im glad to see all this trashy African studies crap being put to bed!

    Its all part of the lefts/socialists PC utopia world built out of JUNK SCIENCE and MYTHS!

    • BR

      Ancient Egyptians were Black and they even said in their writings that came from the beginning of the Nile River which is Ancient Nubia. Ramses III shows you Egyptians and Nubians were the same and whites and semetic different.

      • Prosecutor Jaxon

        Ancient Egyptians were not black, they had the same DNA that Caucasians do. You’re telling me that Cleopatra was black? LOL

        Blacks were definitely around in ancient Egypt centuries ago, but that’s because they were slaves. They were low-level servants and most of them performed manual labor, rather than ruling some glorious kingdom as they very mistakenly assume. In some instances, they served as guards for the royal family or as soldiers. They built the pyramids alright, by carrying and arranging large boulders within it under threat of force.

        • gertrude van voorden

          Do your homework. Black Nubians were the rulers in ancient Egypt. This however is no proof that all peoples with black skincolour are related, as the above story proves. Moreover black people were prevalent in many cultures around the world.

          • Who U Gettin Crazy Wit Ese

            That’s hilarious. Africans were living in mud huts and hadn’t even invented the wheel until the arrival of Europeans in Africa, but you expect us to believe that they somehow constructed the pyramids 2,000 years prior? You people really are delusional.

        • Neteruu

          Then why did the Egyptians call white people, tamahu?! Created white people…if the egyptians weren’t black?! If they were white why would they call them anything but themselves?

    • Vee

      the greeks themselves will tell you that they did all their schooling in Egypt.. all of them.. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and all their friends… the libraries of Alexandria didn’t get lost.. alot of knowledge was stolen and plagiarised by the greeks… this aint no secret…. and infact No the out of Africa theory was created by the white man to push the agenda that white people r better evolved mutations… which obviously aint true.. and clearly theirs alot more to the story… go to every continent and the oldest skeletons are black people… the question remains.. where did white people come from?? U don’t just walk out of africa and turn white.. ‘random’ mutations do not explain large populations… if tey were so random.. the cases would be isolated but their not.. mainstream science has lead too many people astray.. mainstream science only serves to push political agendas…

  • Harleyrider1978

    Afrocentrism

    From Wikipedia,For the study of African culture and history, see African studies.

    “Afrocentricity” redirects here. For the book, see Afrocentricity (book).

    Afrocentrism (also Afrocentricity) is a cultural ideology, worldview mostly limited to the United States and is dedicated to the history of Black people. It is a response to global (Eurocentric/Orientalist) racist attitudes about African people and their historical contributions and revisits their history with an African cultural and ideological focus. Afrocentricity deals primarily with self-determination and African agency and is[1] a Pan-African ideology in culture, philosophy, and history.[2]

    Afrocentrism can be seen as an African-American inspired ideology that manifests an affirmation of themselves in a Eurocentric-dominated society, commonly by conceptualizing a glorified heritage in terms of distinctly African, foreign origins (where foreign is anything not indigenous to the African continent). It often denies or minimizes European cultural influences while accenting historical African civilizations that independently accomplished a significant level of cultural and technological development. In general, Afrocentrism is usually manifested in a focus on African-American culture and the history of Africa, and involves an African Diaspora version of an African-centered view of history and culture to portray the achievements and development of Africans who have been marginalized.

    What is today broadly called Afrocentrism evolved out of the work of African-American intellectuals in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but flowered into its modern form due to the activism of African-American intellectuals in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement and in the development of African-American Studies programs in universities. In strict terms Afrocentrism, as a distinct academic ideology, reached its peak in the 80’s and 90’s.[3] Today it is primarily associated with its advocate Molefi Asante.

    Proponents of Afrocentrism support the claim that the contributions of various African people have been downplayed or discredited as part of the legacy of colonialism and slavery’s pathology of “writing Africans out of history”[4][5][6] Critics of Afrocentricity accuse it of being pseudo-history, reactive,[7] and therapeutic.[8]

    • Thomas Turk

      According to my notes..

      In this Universe, the Dern Universe, humankind arose in the Wyren Galaxy, 3.6 billion light years distant, over 60 billion years ago.

      Info comes from the Billy Meier website. and his contact notes with et,

      Before you scream fraud, because you didn’t here this from nasa, seti, astronomers, or the Govt., note that the Swiss et contactee Meier published data on our solar system sometimes years ahead of nasa’s discoveries, that from et or from his personal observation from abord et craft.

      Further, dozens of investigators and debuners have failed to debunk Meier for over half a century.

  • Richard Krause

    REFRESHING!!!!

    Thank you Steven for starting this website/discussion.

    I am no “professional”, however, for years the “out of Africa” just did not seem to fit. It did not fit because with the vast numbers of life forms on planet earth, they evolved from microbial life forms from all over the world, not just one single isolated place.

    There seems to be this reluctance to accept that there are several human species on planet Earth which evolved in varies areas of this planet.

    In my view the homo lineage did not start at a singe location, but developed independently throughout the earth.

    RichT

    • ThomasT

      Not quite Richie, Humankind in this Universe is 10, billion years old. Earth humans came from the far reaches of this Universe. When Lyrians first came here 22 million years ago, early man was still developing. If you have an open mind, http://www.theyfly.com and The Pleadian Mission by Randolph Winters of the same et contacts.gets you up to speed.

    • Tracey

      Exactly!

  • Charles Webb

    So where is the rock DNA, we all came from rock soup right?

    • Thomas Turk

      open The Pleiadian Mission by Randolph Winters, based on http://www.theyfly.com and realise that humankind in this Universe, the Dern Universe, has a 9.6 BILLION year hustory

    • Xerxesthe2nd

      I guess a sky man who came from nothing created everything… And to think it is 2015AD…and we still can get past ancient archaic beliefs.

  • Wayne Armytage

    Yoay, that’s what my (Kukuthaypan) elders> George Musgrave, Tommi George and Peter Costello always told me> “we have been here from the beginning”. Oh by the way the names> Anglosized all of our names are,
    as are all the male names of our lineage >Mukggrrngal.
    We were traditionally the people who handed out firesticks on Cape York Far North Queensland Aurstralia, and as such I have been given=’handed down’ stories that we have been ‘Keepers’ of that are stories of the getting of fire by our people. In one of these stories parts of this earth of ours was still mud. We have always been told we have been here from the beginning. By the way, how is it that approx’ 18yrs ago they found the OLDEST rock specimen here in western oz? Also a Moari friend told me his elders knew us as>’the ancients
    and that is why after coming all the way from Polynesia in their sea crafts that stopped at Aoratoa, and after eating all of the original inhabitants they occupied the island. However he was told on many occasions the reason these early boat people did not cross that last ribbon of water, that was quite small considering the vast oceans they had traversed, was that they knew/felt that this was where the ‘ancients’ lived and they dare not try and occupy n eat here for this was the place of the first people.

    • Leeloo De Sabat

      Blessings on you and your family…
      Would that the Europeans had learned at least enough wisdom to listen when they invaded your land. Maybe the dreamtime wouldn’t be such a wreck now. Certainly so much suffering could have been avoided.

    • gertrude van voorden

      If so, then it again started with genocide of original inhabitants. Nothing to be proud of. However i read a different story about those immigrating people from some polynesian island. Forgot how they were called. As the researchers found there are two different groups of peoples in Australia, so this perceived genocide may have been incidental. As John Pilger states in one of his docus, some aboriginal tribes went entirely extinct after the invasion by the Brits.

  • Josh

    You must be african! lol
    The Aboriginal People of Australia are the oldest, wisest living culture on planet earth, we make the ancient egyptians look like babies. 100,000 years of survival on the harshest country on earth kind of means you have some brains :)

  • Marc

    Yes familiar ring, soundings that never get anwsered, (beside’s spamming) Even when Thousands… hot air feeling.

  • Realist555

    Without any DNA evidence, The fossil record still points to Africa. Until older bones are found in other parts of the world, Africa is it.

    • Shawn

      Except that because of “jungle”, anthropologists have no interest in traversing those locals. Ever notice the only time they ever find anything is in the open desert? And 9 times out of 10, is laying out on the ground? Not looking anywhere BUT africa is is no way determining.

    • The Truth Hurts

      We have plenty of DNA evidence now, fossils can now be broken down into facts by using Human genetics to compare to modern peoples instead of basing a claim on a piece of dirt that a fossil was found laying in.

  • HelloSnapzz

    Saying that because the oldest fossilized bones you’ve found were found in Africa and that means that’s where we all came from is like saying that you’ve excavated the whole planet and found no older fossils. Pure ingnorance.

  • Luis Kenny

    If Noah Ark was found in Africa and this country covered it up with Yemen then what that does that tell you it tells you into Africa not out of Africa why is that because biblecodewisdom.com type in all continents see which one show up first up in Genesis.

    • David Mowers

      You’ll never find Noah’s ark because it never existed. The story was based on an earlier Sumerian tale and the Sumerians pretty much admitted it to be a myth.

  • Luis Kenny

    Biblecodewisdom.com every continent and find which comes up first in genesis. There you go its not Africa if you still believe that it is you go against Gods word.

  • Tracey

    I am so happy to find this. Even though. It is old. I told my kids growing up to ignore the out of Africa crap! I am Caucausion and am SO very sick of being told this lie.

    • Lizzie Beth

      Don’t get happy. The out of Africa still holds up and is not a lie or craps as you call it. Homo Sapiens came from there and migrated in several waves. I’m sure had it been out of Americas theory you’d be like….yay, I came from American Indians! Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus are different so don’t get the two confused. Check your own prejudices!

      • Tracey

        The oldest artifact depicting a human form was found in GERMANY and is over 40 thousand years old. Not every scientist believes the Africa theory. I surely don’t.

        • Lizzie Beth

          DNA evidence actually confirms the theory. Even a Chinese scientist set out to disprove it using DNA testing but it led right back to Africa. He seemed very shocked as I’m sure anyone would be.

          There still is lots to be discovered about humans but for now the theory certainly holds up. I know people have issues with it and that’s fine, you are allowed to have your opinions but science has definitely not disproved it.

          What I don’t like however is when both white and black supremacists go ham over it. Whites have a problem with it because it’s Africa. Blacks use it as a form of supremacy. Both groups are idiots in their own right!

          • Joyce

            Even if all humans have a same recent ancestor, nobody can prove that the ancestor was in Africa back then, as this article states rightfully.

      • Tracey

        Use the race card when someone doesn’t agree with you? So 2015 lol lol. I am not alone in this belief. I’m not fr Africa lol

      • Tracey

        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.

  • Kathleen Blachere

    The article points to the Denisovans as a new species in the hominid trail, but once again …pre homo sapien and extinct. I would not be surprised that there are more discoveries to come going all the way back to Pangaea. I think the earth continuously cleans house

  • Shadowbalde

    You are talking about Gondwanaland and Pangea, hundreds of millions of years before there were any humans at all! Humans migrated out of Africa due to climate change, following the herds and/or the coast line. The ice ages in the north caused droughts in Africa.

  • Shadowbalde

    This garbage, non-science was “published” by a discredited Russian ultra-nationalist (with a reputation for being a ding-bat), claiming that all humans outside Africa did not originate in Africa but actually originated in a “vast triangle” between, wait for it, Russia, The Levant and Central Europe. Except that it was not actually published; certainly not in a genuine, accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journal. It was merely “put on the internet” through a medium that will post any garbage dependent only on the author’s willingness to pay. Thus, the garbage in that paper was doubtless rejected by many journals until the authors decided to pay SciRP.org, a thoroughly scurrilous and disreputable heap of shit, whatever fee they were demanding. SciRP.org is so disreputable that the entire editorial board of Advances in Anthropology resigned in protest, en masse, in 2014.

    You only have to read the paper in that e-rag, which I am sure you have not, to see that the conclusions are spurious and misleading. You can see that even without any previous, in-depth knowledge of Y haplotypes. One obvious error (or fraud) is that they talk about the African haplogroup as if it is virtually monomorphic, when anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of the subject knows that the San bushmen population has the greatest degree of Y haplotype variation on the entire planet.

  • Tyrone Williams

    Evolution and religion never made much sense to me. Why can’t we just get along?

  • Patrick O’Connor

    Mathmatical genetic possibilities could determine that neither the “out of Africa”, or the “out of Australia” theories are strictly true. It could well turn out that there was a parallel, or indeed multiple, developement of our species throughout the world. due to expedient conditions. That our ancestors then cross bred, to a certain degree, maybe would explain genetic similarities and differences. A concerted scientific research based on beliefs is always going to produce “evidence” one way or another.

  • Deevo

    Leeloo doesn’t have an opinion, she has an attitude, and that attitude is very insulting to both Aboriginal and European Australians. She has what is known as a black armband view of Australian history, where all the whites are evil and all the blacks are victims. This view is simplistic to the point where it is an insult to both groups.

    For example, I’ve just finished reading a pile of original source material about a local incident known as the Pinjarra Massacre. Interesting points include that the idiot who started it was literally drummed out of the colony by the settlers who were appalled at what he’d done, to the point that most wanted to lynch him, and he was aided and abetted by a group of men from a tribe that had their own agenda of a score to settle with the other tribe.

    Real life is a lot more complex than Leeloo sees it. Let me assure you that my great grandmother was very happy to marry my great grandfather!

    • gertrude van voorden

      Those invaded are entitled to a victimhood stand. There are horrorstories on both ends. F.i. many children abducted in the UK and Ireland, whilst parents were still alive, but also many convicts deported to Australia, without consent. I suggest though you watch John Pilger’s docu to get the suffering. Those who intended the invasion were evil, just like those founding Israel, landgrabbing palestinian ancestral lands and those deporting the Nuba people in Sudan are evil. That does not and should not entail that all living there now are evil. As a dutch person though, so far i have not seen much of aboriginal culture or peoples being reflected when the world speaks about Australia and its politics, except some ancient rituals performed when the british royals visit and that simply does not suffice.

      • Deevo

        Your ignorance about Australia is typical of Europeans. You need to get better educated before commenting.

        This notion you have of a “British invasion” is simply not correct – it’s an absurd simplification and as such does not stand up to informed argument. Let me put it simply. The British arrived to found a single penal colony, not to invade an entire continent.

        Those who arrived after were migrants looking for a better life than they had in Europe. Transgressions toward Aboriginal people were generally punished by law in the overwhelming majority of cases.

        There are of course exceptions (the fate of the Tasmanian people springs readily to mind) but even this was more due to the ignorance of the times with introduced diseases being the primary cause of death rather than outright malice.

        • gertrude van voorden

          I suggest you watch the docu by John Pilger, who is an australian. Trust him more then your own biased ignorance.

  • Deevo

    No-one has ever recovered any DNA from Mongo Man. Not one single fragment.

    • kRIS

      Mitochondrial DNA and origins

      In 2001, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from the Lake Mungo 3
      (LM3) skeleton was published and compared with several other sequences.
      It was found to have more than the expected number of sequence
      differences when compared to modern human DNA (CRS). A portion of the mtDNA of LM3 survives in modern humans as a segment found in chromosome 11.[22]

      The divergence of the LM3 sequence before the MRCA of contemporary
      human sequences is indicated by its grouping with the Insert sequence
      (Fig. 1B), which other reports have suggested diverged before the MRCA
      of sequences in living humans

      Comparison of the mitochondrial DNA with that of ancient and modern
      Aborigines has indicated that Mungo Man is not related to Australian
      Aborigines. The results indicated that Mungo Man was an extinct
      subspecies that diverged before the most recent common ancestor of
      contemporary humans. These results, if correct, may support the multiregional origin of modern humans hypothesis.[22][23

    • kRIS

      In 1991 mtDNA was extracted from the bones of Mungo Man (WLH3). Agreed
      to be the oldest Homo sapien sapien yet found in Australia and dated by
      Alan Thorne to be over 60,000 years old, his internal genetic code
      should reek of African ancestry. Theoretically, the African castaways
      who first got to Australia around 50-60,000 years ago would have barely
      set up camp on a beach thousands of kilometres to the north, but here
      they were fully settled by a lake system positioned well to the south
      and a thousand kilometres from any coast. In what is as unexpected as it
      is inconvenient, a comparison of Mungo Man’s mitochondrial DNA to every
      other hominid and primate past and present, came up empty. The lack of
      connection to any person, ape or monkey

  • Lizzie Beth

    Certainly each to it’s own. Science has not disproved it though. Will new eevidence surface? Sure. Will do fossils be discovered? Sure. But for now that’s what we have. I just hate when both white and black supremacists use it to spread hate.

  • David Whitmore

    I believe what ‘HarleyRider1978’ is wanting to say is that not all Africans are or were dark-skinned as today’s academia is trying to claim. There was, and is, a full range of skin colouration for several millennia.
    Now, for your next statement: Were you aware that the Greeks had conquered much of northern Africa 2500-3000 years ago?
    And, in the process, the two ‘cultures’ became intertwined for a period of time; then, they separated again.

  • David Whitmore

    Have you figured out that many people still don’t understand that WE are all one Race? And it doesn’t matter what skin colour we are, we are all the same race.
    The only differences between any of us?
    Ethnicity… Our traditions; which includes our various religious practices, and our family groupings.

    • gertrude van voorden

      Killing the debate. We could originate from different planets and be different peoples/races.

      • David Whitmore

        We could.
        That would be pretty much what the Mormons believe. Isn’t it?

  • Andra Yineka

    I am Australia Spartan 3rd generation and have been trying to debate that Africans are not my ancestors and that I believe the UN and part of the left socialists with a dash delusion and propaganda accepted this lie as fact. The left manipulates facts and redefines to achieve an objective, not bothering of its accuracy. To have so many advise me that I do not belong in Australia and that I as a white European should be flagellating my self for the occupation of Australia and the ethnic cleansing of the Aboriginals, which did not occur as the left is suggesting, is ludicrous. My family was invited, for the contribution they could add to the Australian society and they had nothing to do with any conflict. I ended up on this site and am glad that the information at this level is available, thank you.

  • gertrude van voorden

    Watch the docu by John Pilger to let that suffering stand. Do your own research before commenting.

    • Deevo

      Unlike you, I actually know John Pilger – I’ve met him on a number of occasions. Whilst I generally like his docos, he does tend to overstate things somewhat for dramatic effect. As for doing my own research, I do, and usually from original source material. My first degree majored in anthropology and history. Also, unlike you, I actually live in Australia and am part Aboriginal. My father was an initiated man brought up in Wiluna, on the edge of the Western Desert.

  • David Mowers

    Here is the only historical mention of the earliest name for ancient Egyptians;

    “…Scytharum Gens antiquissima Semper habita, Superatus Aegyptus antiquiorers Semper visi Scyths.” -Justin, Trogus Pompeium

    “The Scythians are the most ancient nation in the world and inhabited Egypt first.”

    They came from Southern Russia…

  • The Truth Hurts

    This article is true. I know that Y-DNA Haplogroup A and B and probably E1b1a are African, but, the HGs spawned from Y-DNA Haplogroup F didn’t come from Africa. We are told F comes from CF and CF comes from CT but CF is merely a hypothetical missing link connecting F to CT. So far ZERO corpses of dead people or living people who have taken DNA tests have ever been reported to test positive for the hypothetical missing link called CF and AncestryDNA, 23AndMe, and FamilyTreeDNA, have NEVER found any beings who were CF either! Therefore, the “We all came from Africa” myth is simply a MYTH!

  • http://thekeytohoustonrealestate.com jcmoore2010

    so is this saying the whole moses story and jewish people being enslaved by egypt is incorrect?

  • mothman777

    I don’t believe a word of it, pure propaganda. A year or two back, they ran another story in the papers saying that about 70% or more of all the men in Europe are descended from Genghis Khan or someone. Actually, the Hopi Indians claim they come from another planet. There have literally been giants on the Earth, and the Smithsonian Institute has been hiding away all the evidence. Even President Lincoln stated that giant races of men have existed in America, as they have done in other countries too according to other evidence,as well as the cone head skulls with different sutures, different numbers of teeth to humans. During the Great Flood, not just the mythical Noah survived on the Ark, as several ancient cultures have recorded how they fled in aircraft to avoid the waters. sailed to avoid the waters, or went into underground tunnels to avoid the waters.

  • Logos_Evropas

    That’s ******. I see this a lot with people of your leanings. Unfortunately. But whatever you think, the continents do not move that fast. Sorry. They’ve barely moved during the lifespan of our species, even if you go back 4-7 million years when we split off from the ancestor of chimpanzees.

    I’m not looking it up to argue with someone who clearly doesn’t care about facts; prove me wrong and look it up yourself to refute me. But the continents only move one to several inches per year. Even using the seven million year estimate, that’s seven to fourteen million inches in that time, and that’s a very generous estimate of continental movement.

    That means that since the *very earliest* ancestors of all hominids, the continents have only moved roughly 177.8-355.6 kilometres. I hope you know that this is a miniscule distance, compared to the size of the Earth, and that therefore none of the continents would have been connected like you say during the human species’ existence, let alone earlier. I mean, I’m giving you seven million years leeway, and that’s still a tiny amount of movement, so, unfortunately, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Sure, over ***HUNDREDS*** of millions of years, the continents moved a (relative) lot. But over the lifespan of the human species, they’ve barely moved, in geological terms. You’re grasping at straws. You have a small bit of knowledge that is proving the adage that such small bits are dangerous things, because you want reality to fit and warp to your view, wherein the continents would have to be moving hundreds of times faster and further per year in order to satisfy the requirements of your “hypothesis”.

    Please, educate yourself with real textbooks, courses, and research, and not drivel and disinformational garbage, before you try to talk about things which you clearly don’t grasp scientifically, evidentially, or wholly.

    Nothing against you.

    Sorry to call you out on it, but someone has to. Mis/dis-information can’t be allowed to persist and spread, like you were doing (whether knowingly or not).

    Have a good night!

  • Neteruu

    It’s funny that the Europeans owe literally everything they have to Africa. It’s funny that after Europeans invaded Africa, nothing else came out of it because it was pillaged and raped of its people, resources and culture. Tell the truth…Europeans withold and stole ancient science and knowledge from Africa and put themselves into the dark ages to conquer the world with their religion, that stole ancient sacred knowledge and perverted it into a system of enslavement including religion and white supremacy. Europeans pillaged Kemet and did study under the Africans. You owe science, math and astrology to Africa. You don’t know history and that’s your job to be a pawn to uphold superiority. Nothing more. And that’s what this articles does.

  • Who U Gettin Crazy Wit Ese

    I’m not sure if the fact that you actually believe that is sad or hilarious.

    • Vee

      ur right.. it is sad they dont teach the truth.. but its not surprising.. why would the European rulers of the world want to admit they were the last explorers of the world.. and that Europe is not only indigenous to melanated people.. but also that it was ruled in medieval times by the Blackamoores who taught the Europeans living in disease and squalor.. how to bathe.. ask the Pope why theres a black man crowned on his coat of arms of Freising in Germany.. he cant tell u.. they say oh it was a ‘slave’… yea why would a slave wear a crown to begin with..and why would u let a so called enemy or slave be the face of your nation? hmm.. and why does almost every european country have the same thing including family crests..and yet did they teach u anything in school about it? No.. it doesnt take a genius to figure out why

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/39bf198f9a02109554b7e1f0eacb335cbae65e8bd42a536e01cfe80b5c1a526f.jpg

    • Vee

      people watch way too many movies without actually researching these subjects.. Black people have always been in and travelled back and forth from Europe.. infact.. do you know who Europe is named after? i’ll leave it at that..

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8bccc8bd5629fd62edc5cca29adf3138662ba6cad2d762097ebb6037d6fa516f.jpg