Is out of africa theory correct?

But they didn't know there was land, so they were just hoping to find something? Spreading like a disease.

of course they did. they literally walked over it.

Just moving to a nearby uninhabited region once your home region became a bit overpopulated. And in terms of Beringia, I've heard suggestion that they could have been following migrating herds of mammoth or something.

>tfw we were the ayy lmaos all along

This is the likely ice coverage.

yes. but there were several "out of Africa moments"

i doubt they realised they had crossed over to another continent. Tribes would just roam around and follow herds of prey animal.
It is only in retrospect that we sea a pattern.

no
/thread

Illogical, made to support the """"theory"""""

Looking to get btfo in another thread /pol/?

>Stupid enough to thread yourself

I wish I could believe that you were a different species.

Argue with the palaeoclimatologists.

No

The overwhelming consensus of biologists is wrong

>Illogical
how so?

A small amount of Denisovan and Neanderthal admixture doesn't refute OOA.

>The overwhelming consensus of biologists is wrong
...based on?

Jewish lies

the sad thing is that on Veeky Forums this doesn't even pass for bait.

hell no what a farce!!!!
we all came here on separate mother ships from the core worlds, see trigon.

We wuz Outers of Afrika n shieet ?

Bait? More like obvious sarcasm in response to OP's stupid question.

I read some user on /tv/ say that the reason black people are so stupid is because they never developed the ability to abstract think because africa was so rich in nutrients. Laugh at him, Veeky Forums. Look at him and laugh.

It's not a dumb question you stupid nigger, I asked about the out of africa theory's validity compared to the multiregional origin of modern human's theory, maybe you are too fucking stupid to realize that or know that alternate hypotheses even exist.

Shouldn't this show when humans reached Ireland 800 years ago?

livescience.com/54125-ancient-irish-people-butchered-bear.html

No.
We all know that Erectus Homos can't reproduce.

Pro tip:
If a certain theory is considered "the most widely accepted model", it's probably valid.

That doesn't prevent them from touching me at night though

So the Madagaskarians just crawled out of the sea?

Not exactly. Modern humans revisited (east) Africa. It's complicated .

that map seems to be missing the white aryans came to north america first ;)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

The people living in Europe 20,000 years ago weren't white, or aryan.

Yeah they're fishpeople from R'lyeh

Maybe

Your pic is just whiteman for me.

t. brownislandchink

I thought Caucasoids were still brown back then?
Our pigmentation changed because of our wheat diet, didn't it?

No. Before the advent of modern geology most scientists believed that the world was not several layers of earth set down by large, catastrophic events, and that meteors were key in shaping the world around us and what lives on it (or more specifically, what died on it).

In fact, having a "catastrophist" view of the history of the world was seen as quackery and was generally conflated with religious fundamentalism throughout the 19th century, and thus shunned from the secular community. This was exacerbated by Darwin accidentally putting religion and science at odds in England.

Theories of meteors destroying chunks of land would have been received like ancient aliens theories of our day, and disavowed as pseudoscience. Now, with our advances in geology and of course much later the Shoemaker-Levy event, it's undeniable that meteors hit planets and completely fuck them up. Having any other view is unacceptable.

For the record I believe the Out of Africa theory is likely correct and I also reject ancient astronaut/alien theories. I just wanted to point out that you should have an open mind to "widely accepted models" being completely wrong.

They came from Indonesia.

Multiple origins. Read about the denisovan man. The whole of Russia is unexplored

They were brown

The mutation for pale skin derived from early farmers who cucked all the brown hunter gatherers

they had to move there one way or the other, even if out of africa is not corrext.

The Native Americans came to this New World through subterranean tunnels dug by the ancient dwarves.

I prefer the 'multiregional origin' theory. It is more logical than 'out of Africa' theory. I still don't get why 'Out of Africa' theory is more popular since they are lot of flaw in that theory.

Because the overwhelming majority of DNA and fossil evidence perhaps?

>ice free corridor theory
lol

It was coastal migration.

What if all the other theories are even more flawed?

the mamooths crossed first and the hungry fuckers went after them

Yes but in this context it is. Because there is nothing Veeky Forums can contribute to the science that effectively debunks the OOA theory.

The earth turns, creating a new axis every year, in varying degrees, for a natural tendency or for specific catastrophic tectonic events. One earthquake in Chile a few years ago, I understand, modified the north pole almost an entire inch. So , if you can imagine, over time the latitude we understand has deviated, and toward the end of the Pleistocene, that land bridge from Siberia to Alaska, was above water (because not enough glacial ice had melted to fill the oceans to cover it) and it was a distance north of the equator something along the line of the northern United States, which can get pretty hot in summer.

too bad Solutreans and Clovis were separated by thousands and thousands of years on top of a big ocean. Saying they must be the same because they made similar stone works is like saying ancient Egypt and Mesoamerica had to have been connected since they both made pyramids

Also
>implying Clovis were even here first
Not even mainstream archaeology thinks that anymore. There were even earlier waves from Eurasia.

What a fucking outdated shitty theory, but expect /pol/ to still cling to it for decades to come because "WE WUZ PURE ARYAN INJUNS N SHEEEIT"

>There were even earlier waves from Eurasia.

Absolutely certain you've been listening to insane people. 100% without a doubt, humans before the era of the Vikings in North and South America have closest DNA relation with northeast Asia.

>>b b but muh roman helmet in the north american dirt

I'm absolutely certain several people made an effort to cross the Atlantic. Some ancient Greeks knew full well the Earth was not only "round" but an imperfect globe. Either they died on the way, a couple ships washing up on the coast as flotsam, or hey, maybe they made it on an occasion or two, just to be brutally slaughtered by natives. Certainly no one returned in that era to talk about it, as that would have been entirely too important to not report in history.

>Is out of africa theory correct?

There's nothing to actually support it, and even the people who wrote it have dismissed it now.

Most scientists have rejected it and are studying other theories. In China they've basically proven multiregional origins of humans.

>100% without a doubt, humans before the era of the Vikings in North and South America have closest DNA relation with northeast Asia.
That's exactly what I was talking about. Read up on the latest research, Clovis wasn't the first culture to come over Bering. Of course they all came from northern Eurasia, but that doesn't mean they were all the same groups. DNA tests have even shown a connection between South Americans and Australian Aborigines.

Everything you've said is wrong.

This isn't the "sweet potato" thing, is it... fuck, I can't stand that people took that woman seriously.

There's no DNA test linking South Americans with Aborigines before the 17th century ce. Stop.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist or /pol/

smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/?no-ist

news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150722-dna-first-american-history-anthropology-science/

Oh, it's a slightly later dispersion of a slightly different human sub-breed who arrived via the same route, and is also related to those who would become Australian natives. I would imagine the route was "open" for a couple thousand years.

I thought you meant people paddled across the Pacific, from Easter Island to Peru, without an island chain or migratory animal flock to pursue.

The earth was still in an ice age so a lot of the water in oceans was frozen in ice caps. The lower sea level means the coasts looked different and they probably walked from Russia to Alaska

They were most likely hunters following populations of bisons/elks/whatever animal lived there

Protip, we're in "an ice age" now, but it's an interglacial period we call the "Holocene". You're describing the very late Pleistocene, the beginning of which, 2.6mya, was the advent of the "current ice age".

Thanks, Pixar, building new colloquialisms and making children retarded one movie at a time.

you do realize that world is run by the darkest skin people

australoids did make it to sa
they are the founders of both mongoloids and caucasiods etc

skin changed because there was no fucking sun
If you were dark skinned you'd kill yourself out of the lack of sun.

>skin changed because there was no fucking sun
>there was no fucking sun
>kill yourself

"We all have an African ancestor." is a globalist argument used to cuck the west into miscegenation with dindus and kababs. Its an anti-white argument.

I was like you once, when I was a teen. I grew out of it. You should, too.

If humans came out of Africa, what does that make the beings that stayed behind?

Grew into a bitch?

Dead. Our African ancestors are as distant to us as they are to current Africans. Obviously, time didn't slow down there.

The best part is that the pale farmers came from the Middle East.

he looks white to me

It's okay to be scared little buddy but it's time to be a big boy now.

This looks suspicious considering there are huge mountain ranges in that "corridor".

Maybe, but we've since evolved from dirty animals. We whites have tens of thousands of years of progress behind us which is more than I can say for most blacks.

how the fuck did they get to Australia and all the pacific islands? just walked there lmao? maybe jesus did exist

>What are rafts and shit ass boats

How come the australian aboriginals never had the knowledge of seaworthy boats?

They obviously did, but the knowledge of how to would have been forgotten when it hadn't been necessary for a few generations.

so you're saying all australians were originally boatpeople? then how come fuck off we're full?

It sounds more likely than the multi regional hypothesis.
Ethnicities with older DNA haplogroups have darker skin tones than later haplogroups except perhaps in the case of any people that settled somewhere within the tropics .
It's also pretty easy to see the San people as exhibiting "archaic" characteristics.
>in b4: No we are of a separate and differently evolved species based solely on our societal achievements and the sexiness of our skulls.

>the San
>somehow less archaic looking than Aborigines despite being hundreds of thousands of years older

What gives?

Because your idea of what looks archaic is faulty?

For example many people who descended from farmers don't know how to farm because they didn't need it.

>Illogical
Gaciar maximum around the world it's calculated using topography and pretty obvious glacier marks you fucking /pol/bibletard

Abos give, user. Fuckin Abos.

Land bridges, they walked over to Australia via Indonesia/new Guinea thanks to the land bridge. Then the water rose back up and they were all like, oh shit.

Nope, even when sea levels were at their lowest, Sahul wasn't connected by land to Asia.

It's a pretty thorough explanation of human origins and expansion trough the planet, supported by tons of evidence but most people get it wrong, it wasn't a single wave washing trough the continents, there were many migrations of different groups fucking (or just killing) the actual subspecies they found into extinction and then those groups came back to Africa and left again. Even that is an oversimplification but you get the idea.

"Gravity pulls us down" is an oppressive argument used by The Man to cuck us into submitting to his "laws"

i was looking at the map of Australia and new guinea, and i was wondering, what would have happened had the two stayed connected? New Guinea is Lush with green, yet Australia is much less at the closest point to new guinea. What happened?

This is actually a really good question for the multiregional hypothesis.

What primates are there in Australia to produce the aborigines?