A majority of scientists suscribe (or don't question) the "out of Africa" theory, but looking to the science rather to the scientists, we see it doesn't make much sense.
For starters, the theory isn't really proven with DIRECT archeological/paleontological remains, it ONLY rests in the fact that African DNA seems to be very differentiated from the rest of Humanity.
Because of this it's older, and thus is said to be the "parent" to the rest of DNA.
But there's a problem with this reasoning, and is that Eurasian(and 'Australoid') DNA isn't really similar to the African.
If the population that gave rise to 'non-africans' was a descendant(or a close 'sister' population) of africans you would expect higher genetic affinity, instead we find haplogroups with tens of thousands of years of separation.
In addition to this, we have the fossils from shortly after that alleged migration out of Africa. They aren't genetically similar to Africans, they appear in the archeological record in Europe, Siberia... And they have a totally different DNA. see my post on Ust-Ishim man. https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/42739-Ust-Ishim-disproves-Out-of-Africa?highlight=Ust-Ishim
There's also the Upper Paleolithic expansion, that starts a little before than 50,000 years BP. This is the birth of all the populations alive except for most of Africans, and officially, scientists claim this is because an a migration "out of Africa".
In a matter of a few thousand years this population replaces all the other peoples on Earth (including Neanderthals and other DIFFERENT SPECIES). As I said we're talking about the ancestors of practically everybody alive right now.
So they're succesful like nobody else, but even after dominating tundras, prairies, mountains, coasts, forests in climates ranging from extreme cold to hot... Also Nenaderthals, OTHER SAPIENS(more on this right next)...
They can't take over their alleged homeland of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years?????
Doesn't this strike you? How is that the best conquerors on record, can't seem to take over their very homeland?
To me that says that their urheimat isn't Africa, in fact, Africa seems to be the most different from their territory, since they seem UNABLE TO ADAPT.
But even after this that I said, there should be the possibility that even if they aren't recent descendants of Africans, they may have an archaic origin in the continent.
But we know that there were "earlier migration waves from Africa", of course this is phrased like this because the "out of Africa" paradigm is everywhere.
What this really means however, is that we have tracked Homo Sapiens remains/DNA in places of Europe and Asia before the Upper Paleolithic expansion, also known as out of Africa event.
And since we already KNOW 100% that Eurasians aren't similar to Africans, the evidence points to an Eurasian birthplace or urheimat.
And finally we have people living in that same area... We can assume that we have the ancestral population of Humanity among those "ghosts populations" of Europe, Arabia, Asia...
We DESCEND from PEOPLE in EUROPE, West Asia...
For starters, the theory isn't really proven with DIRECT archeological/paleontological remains, it ONLY rests in the fact that African DNA seems to be very differentiated from the rest of Humanity.
Because of this it's older, and thus is said to be the "parent" to the rest of DNA.
But there's a problem with this reasoning, and is that Eurasian(and 'Australoid') DNA isn't really similar to the African.
If the population that gave rise to 'non-africans' was a descendant(or a close 'sister' population) of africans you would expect higher genetic affinity, instead we find haplogroups with tens of thousands of years of separation.
In addition to this, we have the fossils from shortly after that alleged migration out of Africa. They aren't genetically similar to Africans, they appear in the archeological record in Europe, Siberia... And they have a totally different DNA. see my post on Ust-Ishim man. https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/42739-Ust-Ishim-disproves-Out-of-Africa?highlight=Ust-Ishim
There's also the Upper Paleolithic expansion, that starts a little before than 50,000 years BP. This is the birth of all the populations alive except for most of Africans, and officially, scientists claim this is because an a migration "out of Africa".
In a matter of a few thousand years this population replaces all the other peoples on Earth (including Neanderthals and other DIFFERENT SPECIES). As I said we're talking about the ancestors of practically everybody alive right now.
So they're succesful like nobody else, but even after dominating tundras, prairies, mountains, coasts, forests in climates ranging from extreme cold to hot... Also Nenaderthals, OTHER SAPIENS(more on this right next)...
They can't take over their alleged homeland of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years?????
Doesn't this strike you? How is that the best conquerors on record, can't seem to take over their very homeland?
To me that says that their urheimat isn't Africa, in fact, Africa seems to be the most different from their territory, since they seem UNABLE TO ADAPT.
But even after this that I said, there should be the possibility that even if they aren't recent descendants of Africans, they may have an archaic origin in the continent.
But we know that there were "earlier migration waves from Africa", of course this is phrased like this because the "out of Africa" paradigm is everywhere.
What this really means however, is that we have tracked Homo Sapiens remains/DNA in places of Europe and Asia before the Upper Paleolithic expansion, also known as out of Africa event.
And since we already KNOW 100% that Eurasians aren't similar to Africans, the evidence points to an Eurasian birthplace or urheimat.
And finally we have people living in that same area... We can assume that we have the ancestral population of Humanity among those "ghosts populations" of Europe, Arabia, Asia...
We DESCEND from PEOPLE in EUROPE, West Asia...