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:

Continue to Page: 1 2
  • http://Website 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?

  • http://Website 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.

    • http://Website 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.

    • http://Website 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.

  • http://Website 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.

    • http://Website 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.

  • http://Website 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/

  • http://Website 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!

    • http://Website 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…

  • http://Website 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.

    .

  • http://Website 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?!

  • http://Website 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?

    • http://Website Chuchee Mguchee

      Homo sapien sapien, is a real term.

  • http://Website 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!

  • http://Website 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]

    • http://Website 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.

  • http://Website 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

    • http://Website 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.

  • http://Website Charles Webb

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

    • http://Website 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

  • http://Website 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.

  • http://Website 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.

  • http://Website 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.

Translate »