Out of Africa vs Multiregionalism

Some claim that the Out of Africa hypothesis is widely used today due to high political tension rather than actual evidence. Any truth to this?

Other urls found in this thread:

scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2975862.stm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I am skeptical to any chart that just shows pictures of different skulls rather than a few medium stats of many with clear cut definitions.

There's this.

Was more thinking of something like this.

I specialize in fossils and skulls, not skin.

I mean, "This found in x belonging to y" don't say much.
This was found in Peru.

Ah yes, cranial binding. My friends tried to convince me it was an alien hybrid.

No, there is no truth to that. Out of Africa is the only theory consistent with the evidence, which is why it is supported by virtually everyone.

What "political tension" are you even talking about, anyway? What difference could it possibly make to politics?

Bad wording. More like social issues. Some try to claim that it's actually really shady and the scientists are basically pandering to SJWs and such. Standard conspiracy theory-tier stuff.

My point is, I have no idea if those skulls are the norm for said peoples, exceptions or if they can just as well be found elsewhere.
It would be better if someone could come up with a "normal" of measurements for skulls of different races our groups, or are skull shapes not diverse enough for that to be necessary?

>pandering to SJWs and such

...what? How so?

Cranial binding doesn't change morphology, nor does it increase the skull's size.

I think the aborigines/melanesians are the only real outliers I can see.
Basically this picture. They think it's basically a scientific "we are all the same" shtick

Same size, just a different distribution.

I've only heard /pol/ and similar groups assert that out of africa is due to political correctness or whatever other boogeyman. The theory was speculated on as early as Darwin and was pretty widely accepted by the 1950's.

Not to say there's no merit to the multi-regional hypothesis but there's quite a mountain of evidence to overcome.

>Basically this picture. They think it's basically a scientific "we are all the same" shtick

Multiregionalism (which is a fringe hypothesis, to be clear) has us no less "the same," whatever that means.

Here's a better example of what I mean.

...

The longskulls are morphologically anomalous, and larger in size (I.e. Bigger dimensions) than the average current human skull.

Clearly, you are both, ignorant, and idiotic for opining whilst being ignorant.

Just fuck off, moron.

It seems like a lot of the people who promote multi-regionalism think it's actually polygeny, where we would be different species more or less. Polygeny has been thoroughly discredited, multi-regionalism is fringe but at least has some reason behind it, despite not being the best explanation give the evidence at this time.

>pandering to SJWs

this theory has been around longer than SJWs

But that doesn't even make any sense.

I've been arguing with him for a while on Veeky Forums

Bone shapes vary widely even between peoples who are closely related. Compare the skeletons of a great plains Indian and a Yucatec Mayan or Peruvian and there are clear differences in height and shape despite them being descended from a small group of tribesmen who crossed the Bering Sea just 13,000 years ago.

Also compare Hutus and Tutsis, who come from the same ethno-cultural group but diverged in appearance due to one inhabiting the highlands and the other in jungles.

Tell him Veeky Forums says he's a retard.

How good is he at giving sources for his claims?

>An argument? Wait, I think I got this pic I can give ya

This
scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

Yeah that's pretty interesting, Tutsis almost look Ethiopian while Hutus are clearly Bantu.

Veeky Forums has a reputation among "redpilled" boards for being a liberal fagbox safespace. Doubt that would sway him.

Isn't Veeky Forums really pretty diverse politically speaking?
I would say we are more diverse than /pol/ at least.

The picture is dumb because we are the same species as Australoids, even though we look different. Molecular phylogeny and just the fact that other races can create fertile offspring with them is enough evidence.

It is like saying that chihuahuas and German Shepards are not the same species

Yeah there's probably an active anti-communism thread at any given time. Most of Veeky Forums generally agrees that the holocaust happened as reported though so we're zionist shills.

Yes, but a lot of libs tend to be very vocal and call everything /pol/.

>Multiregionalism

The problem with this is that humans from every part of teh world can freely interbreed, which makes sense if we all share a relatively recent ancestor but doesn't make sense if we evolved separately over millions of years in relative isolation.

The hypothesis is that they had frequent contact with one another throughout the pliocene and pleistocene.

So is this "multiregionalism" the racist equivalent of intelligent design? An rebranding of the same search for an excuse for whites or asians to not regard Africans as human?

Something like that anyways. I know that Red China was apparently teaching that they were direct descendants of the Peking Man and his kin.

How? Before the domestication of horses and the invention of sailing, people had little or no contact with distant groups, let alone as regularly as you'd need to keep everyone interfertile.

Seems to be. It's doubly stupid because even the multiregionalists accept that apes originated in Africa, so all their "theory" does is push back the date for the last common ancestor, said ancestor is still an African.

post an article that gives the volume of a skull and that shows that it's not just deformation
just do it
I'll wait

I looked into it
ALL these "freakishly big" skulls just have estimates from people online who never examined them

Wasn't there a huge influx of Caucasoids into East Africa though, creating the Hamitic race? Or was the Hamitic race created in East Africa and spread north into Eurasia differentiating into the other Caucasoid races? Which one? Both? Maybe the predecessors of the Caucasoids and Mongoloids left Africa 70,000 years ago, then a wave of Caucasoids entered Africa sometime in the Neolithic? We know that wherever there is animal husbandry and agriculture in Africa, there were once Hamitic people.
Aren't Tutsi partially Hamitic (even if just a little bit) and Hutu fully negroid?

Polygeny is the really wacky one, that posits that human races are basically different species, arising completely independent of one another.

Multi-regionalism just says that the last common ancestor was H. erectus and that it left Africa 2 million years ago settled all around the world and developed into homosapien in multiple regions.

Out of Africa is the better explanation give the evidence, where homosapien left Africa 100,000 years ago and here we are today.

Much better than this shit.

Why did you call that pic "the Hamitic hypothesis"?

Came with the pic. I rarely change the filename.

No Hutus and Tutsi mixed a lot though.
That's why there' was a lot of confusion during the genocide and the colonial rules made people wear cards that stated their group.

so donkeys/zebras/horses are exactly the same then, considering that they can create offspring between themselves?

He isn't saying that they are exactly the same.

also most of the time mules and other hybrifs are sterile...
mixed race people arent...(tough shit i know)

>They think it's basically a scientific "we are all the same" shtick
if anything it's the opposite and subtly implies that africans are less evolved. if i wanted to make a theory that appealed to those types, i wouldn't make one that theorised non africans were just basically africans that adapted to harsher climates.

i really don't get why stormtards get so triggered by the out of africa theory.

Beats me.

Because deep down they know that any "greatness" they have is all due to the accomplishments of people long dead. Even with all their supposed historical knowledge they have, it still can't hide the fact that the greatness of any society is never permanent as great people from all over the world have risen and fallen just as hard.

[citation needed]
Who claims?
[citation needed]
Who tries?
Veeky Forums is not a credible citation.

That should have been a red flag. Also, nice pic.

Fuck off back to /x/ you literal retard.

>FERTILE offspring

>more evolved
That's not how evolution works

If they would stop posting unscientific bullshit, thet would stop being called out as crossboarding /pol/tards

no

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2975862.stm

>someone was racist to me so its ok for me to be racist
tumblr plz go

>pic
>decides that species is an arbitrary notion based on how similar things look rather than actual things like abilities to reproduce together

>more evolved
Chimps have faster mutation rate than us due to competition between males. Are they more evolved than us?

Don't question his logic. It ain't worth it.

>south europe not Terrone

Is this accurate, or exaggerated.

>the board with the most emphasis on historical accuracy and sourcing is seen as having a bent by the other """redpilled""" boards
I'm right-wing, and even I will call out a retard even if they agree with me.

*or exaggerated?
It was meant to be a question.

The description is mostly okay, but the mongoloid skull look shrinked.

On another note, it doesn't account that there are alot variation among Melanesian. Papuan have a quite tight curl, not wavy like Abos.

How does Out of Africa alone even discredit race in the first place?

The conspiracy theory doesn't even make sense.

wow, what a fucking racist man

race isnt real. there's only one skin color, brown

There's no Arabid, there's no South Europanid, there's no berberid, there's not Pygmey id, there's no native americanid.

Might be for scale. Also, those are some interesting hairstyles.
Limited chart I guess. Either that or they're not that morphologically different from what is shown here.

I meant from what was shown on the chart.

The first 3 are Caucasian with minor differences that at most would classify them as subraces.
Also, the example of Caucasian showed in the pic looks like a Nordid, which, skullwise, is really similar to the classic Mediterranid(long faced, long skulled). A more marked difference would've appeared if a Cromagnid skull was showed.

>light eyes

Not all caucasian have light eyes, also the sharp chin part varies from individual to individual and the skull shape too

Ah, this picture is a good point to show difference between "scientific racism" that arose in 19th century Europe and general ethnocentrism common in every society on earth.

In that infograph each race have their own "ideal" physical characteristic. The more someone differ from it, less pure they are. Race are imagined as separate from each other, meanwhile in real life that's not the case.

Look at this jungle dwellers from sumatra. Why a mongoloid have curly hair?

Does this work?

dayum where can i get a cro-magnid paleoatlantid gf

Must be closer to the australoid, which is common in Australia and the Melanesian islands.

Not much of a safespace since /pol/ is perpetually shitposting here.

They usually get triggered themselves when they are met with well thought responses, because they are the right wing version of what people have been calling SJWs these last couple years.

I was surprised to see this board turn out so well. It's not an echo chamber, nor is it constant whining at one another.

If the pic were to make a further division among Caucasians, sure, but I would take a living representative not some fossil skull.

true, the pic would work better with a more representative example rather than such a rare(statistically speaking) phenotype

>less evolved

Nothing is "more" or "less" evolved.

First of all, the current inhabitants of Africa are not the same exact thing as the inhabitants hundreds of thousands of years ago

Second, isolated populations become better suited to their current environments. There is no constant progression to being "more evolved"

Also, it has only been ~200,000 years. The differences aren't very significant. Pretty much just skin pigmentation, height and stockiness, and some things such as sickle cell genes being more common in Africans because it provides resistance to malaria.

The variations between individuals are greater than variations between racial averages.

That pic makes me think of some card game involving races.

>The variations between individuals are greater than variations between racial averages
Lewontin pls go.

Do chimps/gorillas technically have races? If so, someone should name them if they haven't already.

All these -oids and -ids make me cringe so much.

They cant create fertile offspring. They are different species but close.

zedonks, mules, etc are almost always sterile, which is considered a hard-and-fast rule for the species boundary

there's also the soft version of this rule:

if species cannot normally interbreed to produce virile offspring, but a major change in behaviour (like learning a new behaviour, e.g. being active at night instead of during the day) can allow viable and virile offspring, then you're likely dealing with subspecies.

it's a soft rule though, so it can't be applied like a law would be

maybe not, but aboriginal persons and persons of other races can have babies

ayyy

bonobo=nymphomanic pygmy chimps

As an unironic American liberal on Veeky Forums, get the fuck out of Veeky Forums. I cannot for the life of me understand why faggots go off about "white fragility" when it usually comes up by POC discussing their victimhood. It makes absolutely no sense.

yes.

>First of all, the current inhabitants of Africa are not the same exact thing as the inhabitants hundreds of thousands of years ago
sure, but they're likely more similar than europeans or asians are.

Wasn't that because the proto-Europeans and proto-Asians interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans?

Approx 4 million years ago, the Congo River formed and the Chimpanzee groups were separated from one another. The Northern Group had to deal with Gorillas and certain predatory dangers that the Southern Group didn't. The Southern Group became the Bonobos.

How would Mitochondrial Eve exist then?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Its not "white fragility" or "victimhood" to point out that racist are usually on the lower end of the social scale who have very little in terms of personal achievements. Thus hanging onto something like "race" as a source of pride lets them live vicariously thought the accomplishments of others

Does that mean that the chimp-bonobo LCA was more like the bonobo?

It gets much worse and inconsistent later on.

Explain.

>usually on the lower end of the social scale who have very little in terms of personal achievements. Thus hanging onto something like "race" as a source of pride lets them live vicariously thought the accomplishments of others

This ends up happening with any group. The crappiest members have the most to gain by associating themselves with the group, and defining people that way in general. For example, what university you went to - if you're really proud of it 10 years later, you probably didn't deserve to be there in the first place. Whereas the more impressive alumni are impressive on their own, not just because of who they are associated with.