Debunking the Out-of-Africa Theory

 

serveimage

by Alex Gore

Erectus Walks Amongst Us, by Richard Fuerle, challenges the political correctness and mainstream assumptions about race, genetics, and the origin of modern Man. I found the book absolutely amazing in terms of information. Much of the stuff I never heard before. I had briefly written a review of this book earlier this year. This article explains more in depth about my findings. BTW, a hard copy of Fuerle’s book is over $150 from Amazon the last time I checked. Fortunately you can read it here for free: http://erectuswalksamongst.us. (As of 1/29/17 I was not able to access it)

The out-of-Africa theory goes something like this: all humans on earth evolved from Africa (By “Africa”, I’m referring to sub-Sahara Africa). Africans migrated out of their continent around 65k years ago. They first replaced the Asians and then the Europeans. Because of their superiority and strength, the Africans were able to replace the more primitive populations of homo erectus and neanderthals in those continents. Thus everyone’s roots can be traced back to Africa. According to Wikipedia, the OOA theory is the most widely accepted model of the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans among paleo-anthropologists. I will show you, based on the book, that this theory is flawed.

“Throughout history, most of the instances of people from one region attacking and conquering substantial portions of another region have involved ‘northerners’ invading more southerly lands.” (Hart, 2007).

Lack of Motivation

First of all, the Africans would not have a motivation to leave their continent and move to areas where it would be more challenging to survive – particularly when this period was an ice age (a major ice age lasted from 73k to 55k ya just after Mount Toba erupted). Why would Africans move out of their homeland with it’s temperate climate to areas much colder and more challenging to survive? The Africans were not adapted for cold weather. There were no signs of massive famine or struggle among African tribes to have forced them to seek lands north.

And because this era was an ice age, there would undoubtedly be Eurasians who would be trekking southward in search of food and milder climate. Image the bizarre scenario of the Africans migrating northward while rubbing against the Eurasians going in the opposite direction.

Lack of Sophistication

Charles Murray catalogued man’s accomplishments according to the number of times they were cited by others. (Murray, 2003). Over 97% of the most important scientists and 74% of the most important artists and authors were white, almost all males, and most from only four countries, Great Britain, Germany, France, and Italy; the remainder were mostly Asian, and none were African. (Fuerle, Ch 15)

It would not be feasible for Africans, whom were very primitive, to replace a population that was more advanced than theirs. The history of conquer and colonization has been that of the more intelligent people conquering the less intelligent. The average IQ of Africans today is only about 67 to 75, which is among the lowest in the world. Only the Aboriginal Australians are lower. I would suppose the IQ of Africans 60k years ago is even lower than it is today.

Figure 14-3

IQ levels are typically higher the further north you go, because larger brains are naturally selected for the more challenging climates. Contending with four different seasons means not just gathering food but knowing how to store them for the winters. Hunting requires much more skill than picking fruit. Africans primarily rely on harvesting for food, while the northerners relied mainly on hunting and fishing. The further north you go the heavier the reliance on hunting. Those living in warm stable year around temperatures would not have developed the skills or intelligence required to live in the harsher environments. There is no need for larger brains to have evolved when larger brains are not required.

The cranial sizes were larger for the native Eurasian populations than the Africans. Africans with their sloping foreheads have a smaller frontal lobe and a larger rear area than their Eurasian counterparts. The frontal lobe is responsible for planning and self-control, while the rear is responsible for vision.

Prior to contact with other races, Africans never invented the wheel and axle (Baker, 1974, pp 372-373), never smelted metals, never domesticated a plant or animal, never constructed buildings other than out of plant products and mud (Baker, 1974, pp 368-371), never developed a written language, and could not count beyond their fingers and toes. (Fuerle, Ch 15)

Additionally, there were no signs that Africans could reach nearby islands such as Madagascar or the Canary Islands. They did not even know how to reach some islands that were visible off their own coast. Evidence indicates that the Chinese erectus were using boats as early as 800,000 ya (Morwood, 1998; O’Sullivan, 2001). The native populations of Eurasia had traits that were well adapted to their environment and knew their territory well. They had knowledge of the use of weapons, knew how to store food, and knew how to plan for the winters. So who would have been more likely to survive their own native lands?

From Chapter 18 of Erectus Walks Amongst Us:

Domesticating an animal is behavior that is clearly modern. Domestication requires keeping an animal within a limited space so that it can be located and easily captured, feeding, watering, and protecting it, and selectively breeding it for traits that are useful to man. The domestication of a wild animal, particularly a dangerous wild animal, unlike making simple tools, which even chimpanzees and some birds can do (FN 444, p. 106), requires a modern mind that can plan for the future and can engage in complicated behavior. There is no evidence that any animal was domesticated in sub-Saharan Africa. Some tribes (Zulus, Masaï, Tutsis) do herd cattle, but those tribes have interacted with Arabs, who did have domesticated cattle.

The NE Asian wolf was the first animal to be domesticated, between 100,000 and 130,000 ya

There is other evidence that people outside of Africa engaged in modern behavior before 65,000 ya, the date that the afrocentrists say the first modern man left Africa. Heidi was killing elephants, twice the size of today’s elephants, with wooden spears and butchering them with flint tools 400,000 ya in Great Britain. In Germany, seven balanced throwing spears, over 400,000 yrs old, were found with stone tools and the butchered remains of more than 15 horses; these are “the world’s oldest wooden throwing spears – so far the oldest complete hunting weapons of humankind.” (Thieme, 1997). This find strongly suggests that systematic hunting, involving foresight, planning, and appropriate technology – all modern behavior – occurred in Europe long before modern man allegedly even arose in Africa. The BBC News, June 20, 2006, reported that a 250,000 year old cleaver and “giant flint hand axes” of “exquisite, almost flamboyant, workmanship” were found in Britain, which is also modern behavior. People were living as far north as Finland, where tools were found in and below layers dated at 340,000 to 300,000 ya. (Schulz, 1998). In southern France, 73,000 year old prehistoric man was burning coal for fuel. (Thery, 1996). Neanderthals (at least 60,000 ya, Kebara, Israel) and pre-historic man in Europe were burying their dead before Africans.

… The control of fire, i.e., keeping a fire burning in one location (and probably also being able to start a fire), is one of the most important modern behaviors because control of fire vastly extends to the north the territory that could be occupied. Fire breaks down meat for easier chewing and digestion, leads to metallurgy, and is a powerful defense against predators (e.g., the cave bear in the north, which competed for living space). The earliest hearths are in Israel 790,000 ya (Goren-Inbar, 2004), Vétesszöllös in Hungary, and Choukoutien near Peking, dated at 400,000 to 500,000 ya (Chap. 17, Table 2). In Africa, clear evidence of controlled fire is not found until about 60,000 ya, at Kalambo Falls, Zambia, although many earlier living sites have been found in Africa.

If Africans throughout history have been repeatedly unsuccessful in fending off colonization and foreign attacks, despite vastly outnumbering their opponents, how could they in ancient times have come into a foreign territory and conquered the native population with no prior knowledge of the land and being vastly outnumbered?

OoA supposes that 65,000 ya Africans, who were even more primitive, were nevertheless more advanced than the people living in Eurasia at that time, though Eurasian tools and weapons from those times do not support that contention. Superiority is a necessary supposition because, unless a primitive population vastly outnumbers a more advanced population, it cannot defeat them in battle, particularly when they are defending their home territory. For example, in the Rorke’s Drift battle of the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War in South Africa, 150 to 155 British troops and volunteers held off 4000 Zulu warriors, hardly what one would expect from a race that supposedly conquered all of Eurasia.

No Evidence of African-Specific Traits in Eurasians

There are no evidence that any sort of African specific alleles such as dark skin, woolly hair, higher salt retention gland, flat nose, and fat concentration in the buttocks have been found in any of the Eurasian population that did not come in contact with Africans. These traits sound like trivial things, but each of those traits served a purpose for the year round hot climate. Dark skin was to protect from the sun. Short woolly hair was for cooling efficiency. The higher salt retention was to prevent the body from being depleted of minerals from sweating. The Eurasians whom had a more protruding nose to warm and moisten the air prior to entry for the cold weather, was not needed in Africa thus a flatter nose. A larger brain was more important for the northern climates when it comes to planning ahead for storing food, hunting, and controlling fires. Fat in the buttocks was to lower the center of gravity and aid in faster more efficient movement of the legs for the Africans. Fat of Eurasians on the other hand is more uniformly distributed for insulation to cold weather.

People have been taught that race is just skin deep and that there are a only a handful of distinguishing features among the races. In addition to some of the traits listed above, there are literary hundreds if not thousands of distinct features among different races. This contrast is particularity strong when you compare Africans to non-Africans. Table below shows important differences in skulls (Legend for far right column: (AA), Homo erectus (He), Neanderthals (Hn), chimpanzees (C), and gorillas (G)):

ec92a5556beae86815759316deab4a63

For the complete table see: http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap9.html

Losing all of your African-specific traits is difficult enough to do in a short period of time, but also gaining all the ones that codes for the European and Asian ones is near impossible. These traits take a very long time to develop. In addition, people still retain traits that have long lost their functions. While negatively selected traits would disappear quickly, neutral traits such as toenails and nipples in men still remain to this day. These features today are useless. Male nipples on mammals, for example, originated over 200 mya.

To evolve just one trait, a trait that was strongly selected for in the cold north, such as a stockier body to reduce heat loss, within that time period would be unlikely. But to evolve each and every one of those traits, even traits for which there was little or no selection, within that time period, is not possible, even for neutral traits. That would have easily required well over a million years, and could never have occurred in only 65,000 yrs …

If OoA is correct and some Africans who evolved into Homo sapiens left Africa 65,000 ya, then the Africans who remained in Africa should not have any traits that are adaptive in Eurasia, but are maladaptive or neutral in Africa. But they do. The fact that Africans have a nose supported by external nose bones suggests migrations of early man into Africa. In the tropics, where the air is warm, there is no need for nose bones to support a large nose to warm the air, and apes do not have them. The nose also moistens the air, but Australopithecus and very early man in Africa walked the savanna when it was dry and managed to do so without external nose bones. (Fuerle, Ch 22)

If an African loses an African-specific allele, such as for skin color, it does not mean he will be left with an Eurasian allele and have a European or Asian skin. If an African loses the allele for black skin, he becomes an albino, because he does not have the Eurasian allele for white skin. African alleles only code for black skin.

No African Alleles Present in Eurasians

The figure below illustrates the fact that Africans have almost all the alleles that are found in both European and Asians. How could the Africans already have had all those Asian and European alleles prior to migrating to Eurasia? If the Eurasians came from Africa, they should have almost all of the Africans alleles as well. Non-Africans lack the M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262 haplogroups found in Africans. It is unlikely that the Africans migrated to Eurasia, replaced the Neanderthals and Erectus, then came back to Africa and replaced all the Africans. The more likely scenario was that Africans originated from a common Eurasian ancestor.

(image link broken)

Africans have the most diverse set of genes. The probable reason for that was from the constant influx of Eurasian migrants into Africa over a long period of time (about 2 million years), where they were absorbed into the general population. Climate was key and periodic ice ages would force migrants from Eurasia south.

Another probable reason why the genetic makeup is greater for Africans was because of the ice age that followed the eruption of Mt. Toba. The figure below shows a timeline of what may have happened in the past. The ice age of 50-70k years ago probably wiped out a good bit of lineage and species of ancient humans of the north, which left them with less genetic makeup than they used to have. The Africans didn’t suffer this and thus kept their alleles.

(image link broken)

The M&N macrohaplogroups are only found in Europeans and Asians, but very rarely in Africans. The only Africans who have them live in the northeast corner of the continent where they likely got them from immigrants who crossed the narrow Bab-el-Mandeb strait from the Middle East into Ethiopia. If Eurasians came from Africa, why do the Africans not have those M or N groups?

Photo below is that of a Somali, who shares some facial features of Caucasians. It’s likely he shares some ancestry with Eurasians who migrated to that northeast corner of Africa from the Middle East many years ago.

Figure 26-8

Evolution Normally Proceeds From Generalized to Specialized

The tropics are a specialized climate while the northern climates are generalized. Species of the northern climates have to deal with seasonal variations of both hot and cold while species of the tropics have to deal with just hot. For the Africans to have migrated to the more challenging northern climes would require a whole host of traits to help them deal with that type of climate such as uniform body fat, higher intelligence for hunting and storing food, more body hair, etc. On the other hand, those from the northern climes could better contend with the tropics because they are more generalized and can better deal with both hot and cold climates. A specialized species normally goes extinct when their environment changes. They simply don’t have sufficient time to evolve new adaptive traits to deal with environmental changes. An anteater will simply die if ants disappeared. Evolution usually proceeds from generalized to specialized, not the reverse.

Since man is a relatively generalized species, and generalized species are more likely to arise in a changing climate, man is more likely to have evolved, at least in his later stages, in a temperate zone, not in the tropics. (Fuerle, Ch 4)

Atavism

Occasionally, a person will be born with a mutation called atavism that codes them for ancient traits that are long thought to be lost. There have been no reports that any Eurasian (with no prior African contact) with this disorder ever had any African specific traits such as woolly hair, sloping forehead, flat nose, etc. An example is the world famous Russian heavyweight champion, Nicolai Valuev. He is an atavist and displays clear Neanderthal traits such as a sloping forehead and heavy brow ridge. Valuev has none of the African traits.

serveimage

Large Genetic Differences

Until the 1960s, Neanderthals were classified as Homo neanderthalensis, a different species from us, Homo sapiens. But the genetic distance between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis (<0.08%) is less than the genetic distance between the two chimpanzee species (0.103). Today, Neanderthals are classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a sub-species of our species, while we are another sub-species, Homo sapiens sapiens. The genetic distance between (sub-Saharan) Africans and Eurasians (0.2%) is more than twice the genetic distance between living humans and Neanderthals (0.08%) so, at the very least, Africans should be classified as a sub-species, Homo sapiens africanus and Eurasians as another sub-species, Homo sapiens eurasianensis.

Finally, the genetic distance between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus is estimated as 0.170 (mean given as 0.19), about the same as the genetic distance between the Bantu Africans and the Eskimos, but the genetic distance between living Africans and Eurasians is 0.23 (Table 7-1, p. 45). Thus, Homo sapiens is more closely related to Homo erectus than Eurasians are to sub-Saharan Africans. Either erectus should be reclassified as Homo sapiens erectus or sub-Saharan Africans should be reclassified as Homo africanus. (Fuerle, Chapter 28)

Asian Specific Traits

There are traits that are specific to certain races that are not found in Africans and seldom in Caucasians. For instance, shoveled incisors have been found in the Peking Man, Dali, Jinniushan, and Liujiang fossils in Asia dating over a hundred thousand years ago and are still present in Asians today. These teeth are NOT found in Africans today nor in ancient African fossils. It would be farfetched to say that Africans trekked all the way into Asia, when they didn’t even have the ability to visit nearby islands in their own continent, replaced the Asian erectus and grew back those same incisors after replacing the Asian erectus. It would be much more likely that modern Asians actually evolved from ancient Asians.

shov

What about Disease?

In regard to a possibility of disease brought from Africans to wipe out the Eurasian population, Fuerle writes from Chapter 22:

It is not likely that the Africans could have brought a deadly disease with them that wiped out indigenous Europeans because many deadly African diseases, such as malaria and sleeping sickness, are caused or carried by parasites (e.g., mosquitoes and the Tsetse fly) that would have been left behind in tropical Africa. Even the viruses in Africa usually come from an animal host (e.g., apes and monkeys) that would have been left behind. Besides, at that time people were not crowded into cities, so it would have been difficult for even a head cold to spread. And deadly viruses and bacteria usually mutate to become less deadly, because the deadlier microbes die with their hosts.

Conclusion

An immigrating population usually does not invade the territory of an indigenous population by violent conquest, as Genghis Khan’s hordes did, but rather it expands and bumps up against them for many generations, gradually absorbing some and pushing others out. Even a gradual takeover is usually possible only if the incoming population is superior at acquiring food in the new territory. But to replace everyone in Eurasia by that method would require much longer than 65,000 yrs and, given the traits that Africans 65,000 ya would have had, it is extremely unlikely that they would be superior at finding food in continents they were unfamiliar with, even if the Eurasians were more primitive. Moreover, it is very unlikely that Eurasians would have welcomed Africans into their territory, so a gradual, peaceful replacement would not have been possible. But for a tribe of Africans to trek all the way from Africa to SE Asia, then conquer a no doubt more numerous population defending its home territory, is even more impossible. (Chapter 22, Fuerle)

The Out-of-Africa Theory is not based on science or sound research. It is based on politics. OOA stipulates that since all humans came from a common African ancestor, everybody is equal. Proponents of the OOA theory have focused nearly all of their research on “proving” this theory. The funding for digs for example have almost solely focused on Africa with little regards to anywhere else.

The OOA theory was introduced relatively recently in 1987 and became mainstream beginning in the 90s. The two behind the theory were professors Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann. They admitted that their placement of Eve in Africa was only an assumption. Interestingly, Professor Wilson then came to Australia to do some further studies. He contradicted his earlier findings and stated that the Homo Sapien originated not in Africa but in Australia. Nevertheless, the scientific community chose to ignore it. Australian historian Greg Jefferys had this to say:

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.

—————————————-

Source:

Fuerle, Richard. “Erectus Walks Amongst Us“. Spooner Press, NY. 2008

Atlantean Gardens, May 2014, Retrieved from: http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/05/out-of-africa-theory-officially-debunked.html

Maystadt, Michael, Nov 2007, http://soa.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/anthro_theses/a_critique_of_the_out_of_africa_model.pdf

Additional Reading:

http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/human-skull-challenges-out-africa-theory-001283?page=1%2C0

Advertisements
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

the real Syrian Free Press

War Press Info ~ Archive of Most Important Reliable Global War News

The Holocaust is a Hoax

Time to expose the lies!

The Rabbit Hole

Denying the truth, doesn't change the facts.

Levant Report

the Real Middle East, debunking the sound bites

Mothman777's Blog

Perfect nutrition in spiritual context

%d bloggers like this: