Is out of africa theory correct?

The Bible, Herodotus, Dreamtime (ante-diluvian era) and so on

>Is out of africa theory correct?

the "out of Africa" part yes. But scientists are not entirely sure about the paths human tribes took to branch out. Expansion timeline is also uncertain.

>there is also a possibility that humans began in India then migrated into Africa for some reason.

Yeah no, this is pure bunk that gets taught in Indian schools but has zero (0) supporting evidence.

No retard Australopithecus fossils were found in India meaning walking apes could have started there.

Dates are wildly inaccurate

Source?

>ancient ayyliens?
The bottleneck in our genes wasn't because of any catastrophe, it's because we were engineered--the sky people cleaved themselves unto the feral children of Earth. It's why we have fewer pairs than apes. They didn't want us breeding back into the native population. It's why the Y-chromosome is fucked and deteriorating. Or did you think the Mesopotamians pulled every social technology necessary for civilization from thin air.

100% of Australopithecine fossils are found in East Africa.

>the bible
>proof
Where in the bible does it say that humans are from north america?

...

Yo, wikipedia is your friend here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus

No. It doesnt explain why nearest Europens are white.

Cuz science
Don't ask questions racist

Not much UV radiation in European latitudes dumbass.

Its impossible, scrub. 2 cases.
1) Initial settlement was long ago. Then native people of North parts of Asia and America should be white. But no.
2) Initial settlement was not long ago. Then Europeans as nearest descents of niggers should be darker than asians and other races. But no.

Yes, but it also assumes that it pre-dates the rise of H Sapiens.

Wow holy fuck you think the UV in North Africa is the same as fucking South Europe.

Also Euros never came from niggers retard, even the dark skinned humans we came from are not niggers either.

The natives of North Asia have very pale skin as well, the American natives just have pigmentation mutations that give them their reddish skin but they get darker the closer you get to the equator.

>Then native people of North parts of Asia and America should be white. But no.
North Asian are quite white, and Americans hardly lived as far north as Europeans and Asians.

Not that I should be arguing with a race fetishist like you.

What's cool is Hindu texts talk about apemen working for Krishna.

biologically speaking it's probable

Yes, the matter of contention is whether our common ancestors coming out of Africa were Homo Erectus, or modern day humans.

Again, If you say race (mainly color of skin) depends only on latitude of current location, then native North Americans and North Asians should be white.
But native North Asians are yellow-brown, such as North Americans. There no any documents about white people before european colonisation (Spanish/French colonists in America, Russians in Asia).

are native americans just suburned and underdeveloped east asians

In all likelihood, yes. It's what all fossil and genetic evidence indicates.

Mormon doctrine states that the Garden of Eden was located in Jackson county, Missouri. That's probably what he's talking about.

Both left Africa. But even though Erectus spread out into Asia, Sapiens seems to have emerged as distinct in Africa before spreading out.

Race isnt skin color dumbass, skin color changes based on very random pigmentation mutations and the UV distribution. Only chinks are yellow retard, nips, mongolians and koreans are pale as snow.

are you retarded

there is no ethnic chinese group, the 'han' meme was peddalled by the kmt. if you go to western china it will look like racemixed turkish-chinese ppl, if you go south there'll be slightly pointed nose darker skinned people, if you go north they'll all be pale. the reason you think they're yellow is because the overwhelming majority of Chinese immigrants to the West are from Guangzhou, same as the cue Hollywood accent, when in reality the overwhelming majority of the population sound more like a bastardisation between a korean accent and russian accent when speaking english

>mongolians
>pale as snow

the overwhelming majority of mongols are tanned

You havent answered why COLOR OF SKIN of native populations of North Asia and North America is between yellow and brown instead of white.
Mongolians are yellow. Sea coast of Far East was massively settled by europeans in 16-19 centuries.

Then why are we more related to chimps and gorillas than orangutans and gibbons?

There are some in South Africa.

Go and look at Mongolian, Chinese, Korean and Japanese people right now. They're quite pale-skinned, not "yellow" and certainly not brown. They may not be nordic-white, but neither are most Europeans. There's no reason to believe that Europeans raped everyone making them whiter, especially when they have no other European features and European+East Asian mixed people are quite distinguishable from both Europeans and East Asians.

You're retarded.

The walking apes probably began in Africa and just fucking walked into India overtime or something who knows.
They yellow skin of central east asians is due to fatty substance adapted as a heat insulator.

I mean fuck there are godddamn Colombians with yellow skin skin color is not racially connected.
I know there are no ethnic chinks, I know china is a continent sized country thus there are a fuckton of human groups in it, but the meme is that chinese are yellow but I have met chinks that have pale skin as well.

It's also interesting to note that until 6,000-10,000 years most Europeans were actually relatively dark skinned. It wasn't until agriculture and Middle Eastern farmers from the Levant started moving to Europe and displaced the hunter gatherers there, causing a mixed race population that was significantly lighter.

Even the "Aryan" PIE speaking Yamnaya people were darker than modern Southern Europeans (but probably lighter than modern Arabs).

proto-mongoloid is the word I've heard thrown around.

Then why aren't there any Homo habilis skeletons or Homo naledi skeletons in India? And if they did wind up in India, they would have most likely been relatively unrelated to other members of the australopithecus genus, like how the Hobbits of Indonesia aren't related to the line that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens.

No
God created man in the Levant, not Africa

I have wrote about Far East colonisation, there are a lot of information about SETTLEMENTS in China, but Korea and Japan was under similar influence. There few photo of native Mongols or Japanese of 19 century, european-asian mixed elitists (like Chinese royal family) does explain nothing.
But images of yellow north men of 20 centuries are undisputed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo

>Asians don't have light skin, only Europeans do
>Asians that do have light skin do so because they have European ancestry somewhere down the line

I won't even bother because it's clear that you won't budge out of your circular reasoning.

You are so stupid to understand difference between primal human colonisation of op THEORY and REAL secondary european colonisation of 16-19 centuries.
Graduation of skin color - from light of coast people to yellow-brawn of middle Asians means native asians werent white.

why everyone is telling me that all races are pure except "caucasian/europid" ?

Who is telling you that?

I have mixed feelings about mentally handicapped people posting on Veeky Forums.

Australian aborigines and native americans are a lot purer than "europids" and especially """caucasians"""