Can someone redpill me on the out-of-Africa thing? Did human beings really come from Africa? If that's the case...

everytime i see this kind of paragraph format it discourages me to read it.

get fucked

It's song lyrics you dumb redditor

>Veeky Forums is THIS uneducated. I blame /pol/.

you don't say, gaylord.
thanks for the advice, never do it again. Gotcha pal? ;)

And why would these be "races" rather than "species" if they had evolved independently? Why are we able to interbreed and why do we have less genetic diversity than other apes that didn't spread as far and wide as us?

I think it's time for you to go back to /r/foodporn

It isn't really correct to say that humans came from Africa. Yes, the first bipedal hominids came from African and the modern day expression of human beings came from the bipedal hominids but it's much more nuanced than a linear 1:1 evolution. It would be like saying sharks came from plankton

>Can someone redpill me on the out-of-Africa thing? Did human beings really come from Africa?
It is true. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence with the earliest remains of modern humans following the migration pattern.
>If that's the case, why are the first known civilizations in the Middle East?
Civilization arose 10000s of years after humans migrated out of africa and in regions best suited to early agriculture like flood plains, it is almost completely unrelated to migration patterns.

Personally I believe humanity if far older than what we believe and if we did come out of Africa, it was so fucking long ago and in such a different context that to implies we even have any kind of lineage that can be traced back to this land is utterly pointless, as we know absolutely nothing of who they were, why they left and how they saw the world.

Also the ''first'' known civilisation isn't the de-facto first civilization of humanity, its just the one that we did discover at least to the extant that we could define what the culture was about, we surely found a-plenty of artifacts far older than these civilization and showed sign of certain wisdom/culture (such as the respect of the deads or whatnot) but it just didn't offer enough as to make it fact that it has verifiable origin. Imo I believe one of the earliest were proto-indus civilisations that existed along the indian ocean coast prior to the ice age, for there were underwater cities found along the coast, under a certain depth that would implies that they were thriving prior to the rise of the ocean during the end of the last/current Ice Age. Given the estimated age of Yoga (the actual source of spirituality in that area, while Hinduism is said to be about 7 thousand year old, more or less and the result of a centralization in spiritual belief among the numerous Indian tribes, Yoga have been found to have origin as far as 20 thousand years ago if we believe the proto-indus wall paintings and the estimation of their age.) it isn't that much of a stretch to think so, I believe.

>It would be like saying sharks came from plankton

No, it wouldn't.

Because terms "race", "type", "species" are very fluent and not strictly related with interbreed. Tiger and lion can have kid, some similar species cant, etc.
Current similarity of all humans was reached after European colonisation, its not obvious about previous epoch.

t. Patel Srinivasalampatapetlon

>It would be like saying sharks came from plankton
lol wtf

>Did human beings really come from Africa?
Yes, homo sapiens are originally from Africa and migrated to everywhere from there. That's what the paleontologists say.

smart comeback.
I think it's time for you to go back to be someone's pet, you retard.

I think it's time you think it's time

If I remembered right the oldest pottery that we have found is from China. So it would make since for China to have been one of the oldest civilizations but the human is from Africa.

how the fuck did people get to the Americas? Is muh ice bridge a real thing?

...

Check the legend for "extent of land areas". There was a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska 20,000 years ago. Land, not ice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas

Do you realize these names (Asia, Africa, China, even Sumer) did not exist in the time of which you speak.
It is so unlearned--ignorant and arrogant--to speak of one current culture, country or religion as original.

/thread

OoA
>our first confirmable ancestors lived in central/ eastern Africa (much more forested at the time) around 7mya. These were still tree dwelling
>for some reason (causes for bipedalism is another green text altogether) Australopithecines decent from the trees around 3-4mya. They were bipedal and produced very rudimentary stone tools. Lucy is one of these, though she's more like a cousin than a direct ancestor
>Homo Habilis was our first clear one of those, they show up around 2mya and are followed by H. Erectus. These fuckers leave Africa somewhere between 1200-800kya, spread from Portugal to the yellow sea, and eventually develop into H. Neanderthalensis and other hominids that we'd come into contact with later
(Erectus has many names, if I don't mention it here, and you're unsure of some genus of Homo, it's probably some form of Erectus)
>back in Africa H. Sapiens starts appearing around 350kya, and totally anatomicaly modern humans are first seen c 125kya
>we know of at least one failed migration (c 95kya, Shkul cave, Israel) but genetic mapping points to a group, maybe as small as 200, leaving across the Bab el Mandeb straits around 70kya. If you're not African (sans Madagascar, cool story), they were your ancestors

The fossil record states that yes, out of Africa is correct.

Firstly, the first "known" civilization is not the first civilization. If that isn't obvious to you, perhaps you should know that homo sapiens were around long, long, long before civilization appeared.

And as for civilization, we're basically looking at such vast periods of time here that any geographical proximity is pretty much moot. If we take "civilization" to mean a sedentary formalised state with agriculture and writing, then by the time Sumer got around to that, people had already settled everywhere on the planet they would go, except some pacific islands, and been there for at least 5000 years.

No

The overwhelming consensus of historians, archaeologists, biologists, and common sense is wrong

The jews used their magic brainwaves to convince us we're the same species

I have lots of blogposts from conspiracy websites as proof

Humans began in Africa but some humans left Africa and became the only civilized humans in existence while the african natives remained primitive feral hunter gatherer shit to this day.

"Humans" left Africa as homo ergaster (pic), so that much for it. Since then we evolved separately. Ergaser wasn't even full erect yet btw.

Answer this.
If humans didn't originally evolve in Africa, why then is the genetic diversity greater in Africa than anywhere else in the world? Doesn't that strongly indicate humanity started out here and then had a part of its population leave?

No humans began in Sub Saharan Africa, Ergaster also began in Africa but much earlier as literally every hominid began in Africa at first because Africa is the origin of us walking bipedal apes in the first place.

You sir are operating at so many different levels of wrong that I don't know where to begin. I think the worst though is trying to pic related something that's been extinct for hundreds of thousands of years, and trying to use that (stil) pic as proof of their walking gait. I mean god damn it, apply yourself nigger. I'm fine with people like , you can think that Africans are uncultured savages if that helps you get through your day, but multi regionalism, just no man

Shouldn't such an early isolation have rendered it impossible for humans of different races to breed with each other?

Only Khoisan and pygmies remained mostly foragers

/Thread

They didnt breed with eachother, as there are only five human races in total on earth.

Yeah, and after more than a million years of separate evolution we can still interbreed with other human races this day.

There are several species of human being, we are the only one currently alive atm, Homo sapiens, and developed in Africa then spread around the world.
Other species of humans such as homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis developed in different areas of the world.

Civilisations first developed in the Middle East because the climate was suitable for growing cereal crops

Because humans are 2 million years old

Adding onto this, there are six pristine civilizations, which civilized without the help from anyone else. They are the Olmecs (Aztec and Mayan precursors), Sumer, Harrapa (India), China, Norte Chico (Inca), and Egypt.

This worth a read?

It was in Babylonia because the Tigris and Euphrates would flood every year and give them enough food to sustain a large population. The Egyptians were in a similar situation.

all evidence points to definitely yes, hominids originated in africa. as unquestionable as the shape of the earth.

the first civs spawning in the middle east could have been random, more than likely it was due to evolutionary/technological factors involving cro-magnon and the descendants of cro-magnon. not even racist in any traditional way, just realistic when looking at the world. cro-mangon developed in the middle east, and with the exception of sub-saharan africa, australia and some random islands managed to displace/absorb all pre-existing populations of hominid, likely due to advantages in technology and/or society, thinking etc. descendants of cro-magnon (which include native americans discounting australasian populations who were outcompeted/absorbed) are the only branch of sapien to autonomously develop civilization in the way that we define it.

people who use this evidence for racial superiority claims are silly, though. it's not as if sub-saharan africans or australasians stopped evolving. intelligence is a huge factor in your ability to reproduce when you're a human no matter where you are. people focus too much on environmental/subsistence challenges and not enough on sexual behavior and society. no matter what, intelligence is a strong selective factor. maybe they just don't give a shit about our meticulous crap?

egypt, sumer and indus valley civs developing independently is highly questionable, they share a lot of traits and it's highly probable that egypt and indus spawned from ideas out of sumeria. I'd say particularly with egypt I'd cut my dick off if they'd have formed without sumer existing first. the same applies to olmec civilization in the americas. yellow river culture seems to have been independent, though.

How do you explain the large differences between Egyptian and Sumerian languages?

olmec in regards to inca*, worded that poorly.

Literally 19th century theory, dipshit.

There are 5 genetically-distinct groups of humans (in the sense that they're genetically different enough from each other to justify being categorically different). 4 of them are in sub-Saharan Africa. The 5th is "everyone else."

The entire fossil record also supports the "out of Africa" theory.

We evolved from frugivores into highly-specialized pursuit predators on the Savannah, relying on endurance to run prey down. As our species spread out into the world, climate (and thus agriculture) was the primary determinant on where "civilization" sprung up. Mostly we were nomads, and when you don't have a particular connection to a piece of land (as agriculture will obviously give you) you tend to not set up shop there, especially when your entire lifestyle revolves around following herds and wintering in places you won't die.

Humans roamed the world as hunter gatherers for tens of thousands of years before they had the political, economic, and cultural incentives to set up permanent agricultural camps.

that's the best argument egypt has for it's independence, but it's pretty much impossible geographically and sequentially for sumerian civilization to have not influenced the nile valley before the rise of egypt. literally nobody knows, my assumption due to the spread of cunieform-based languages throughout africa and the mediterranean is that egypt had some scribes do some special snowflake shit sortof like what korea did. that's obviously speculation, though.

I don't think there's any connection language wise. What is interesting to note is that the phonetic cuneiform language (they had to have different symbols for literally every little sound) was not a big influence on languages today, while the hieroglyphic Egyptian language has had big impacts on the alphabet that we use today.

...

The land bridge was a thing, but some studies a couple years back also found some artifacts in the Americas dated to before the glaciers melted enough for humans to move into North America. Current theories are that a previous group to the land bridge one made their way down the pacific coast in small boats, island-hopping style.

from the pacific or from the northern polar circle?

actually now that I'm thinking about this, early cuneiform and egyptian written language made use of logography and are oriented the same. that could be convergent, as logography was also used in yrv and the americas, but when it comes down to it it's geography and time.

1000-2000 years. this distance, this geography. there was certainly movement and communication from sumer into egypt during this time.

not him but the americas were peopled distinctly at least four times:

first by australasians who probably just walked there just like papua new guinea and aussieland. they were all entirely absorbed/outcompeted by later peoples.

second by "native americans", 99%< of the geneology of the americas upon european contact, big game hunters with atlatls and shit, came from the direction of the bering straight but nobody knows for sure how.

third by inuits, ice-eating shitstains from ruskoland who choose to live a life of terror in a frozen wasteland sometime around 3k years ago

fourth by polynesians, showing up late in the game around/after european contact and spreading some random genetics and bits of culture along a few of coastal settlements in central and south america.

The pacific. Don't quote me on this, though, I'm just recalling what I saw in a documentary on the Clovis culture a couple years ago.

I'm no expert, but wasn't "early cuneiform" not really a written language, and more of just pictures to describe livestock numbers?

the earliest cuneiform was a mixture of pictographic and logographic concepts that definitely shared information about more than livestock, though I would consider a livestock recording system a language. I think more-so of early yrv written languages when I think of a pictographic language meant for demonstrating basic information as opposed to communicating complex abstract ideas.

another extremely interesting thing to consider is how sumerian civilizations are situated relative to the coastline chronologically, and what is underneath the water in the persian gulf. the first steps of civilizations are more than likely under a layer of earth and water, and possibly more concrete answers to this linguistic debate. I really hope to see what's under there within my lifetime.

here's a map that's more clear about the information I'm trying to convey about water levels.

Yes, and no.

Caucasoids are believed to be the result of bands of hunter-gatherers who ventured into Europe, the Middle East, and parts of India. They did.... something with the Neanderthals; either we fucked them out of the gene pool, or we killed them.

Mongoloids are bands of hunter-gatherers that migrated to East Asia and developed narrow eyes for dealing with blizzardy winds going into their eyes. They also have a layer of fat in their skin to deal with colder climates.

Negroids stayed behind - bottom line, homo sapiens are believed to have migrated (in some capacity) from Africa.

The first known civilizations in the Middle East are there because the land was fertile, and plants could be easily cultivated and leading to bigger harvests. More food can attribute to a bigger population, and then you got a city-state on your hands.

Those that had any drive left. Those that stayed on the continent were berefet of the right stuff for such endeavours. That's why the second you get out of africa there are progressively more societies appearing. The urge to explore and or no build something new for yourself and leave your father's land inherently correlates with expansion and migration outwards.
Stagnation and mediocrity are naturally more likely to occur in africa. That said, it's been ages, they need to start stepping up a bit more.

...

>why are the first known civilizations in the Middle East
massive river valleys next to volcanic mountain ranges
soot washes off the peaks into hilly flanks making fertile land that can be settled on and easily maintained. trade allows other people to settle in less fertile lands with other valuable resources. when they reach this level of organization they can settle the even more fertile river valleys because they have the resources and organization to irrigate them

>Forgetting the Bantu and Nilotic migrations

Retard alert

The settlement pattern (based on the age of the sites) still goes north-south, just down the coast.

We know they had boats because there are multiple sites on islands off the west coast.

So, with the DNA evidence, dates of sites in North and South America, and that tidbit about boats, we can conclude that (probably) fisherman gradually settled down the coast from Beringia. The key thing here would be sites in the Bering Strait but it's not feasible to look for them, not even getting into whether anything would remain after millennia of stormy ass seas churning the water overtop of any such theoretical sites.

The idea of some kind of mass exodus (either from Africa or across Beringia) is the biggest misconception we run into with this stuff. Realistically these people spent generations living in the areas we regard as "transitional," just doing their thing, and gradually moving in the directions that they did.

>first by australasians who probably just walked there just like papua new guinea and aussieland. they were all entirely absorbed/outcompeted by later peoples.
No. Pic related.

>fourth by polynesians, showing up late in the game around/after european contact and spreading some random genetics and bits of culture along a few of coastal settlements in central and south america.
There are a few finds that have forced archaeologists to throw some conjecture out there about possible Polynesian contact with South America, there's nothing even remotely as concrete as you're implying here.

>Current similarity of all humans was reached after European colonisation, its not obvious about previous epoch.

lol.

your information is outdated, retard.

smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/

sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/epic-pre-columbian-voyage-suggested-genes

read a fucking book that was printed after the 1990s before you hit me with your holier-than-thou stupid-ass nonsense.

I had a lecturer for black history month at my high school a few years back. He said, among other things, that the first agricultural civilizations were in Africa. I raised my hand at the end of the presentation when he took questions, and asked him why then the vast majority of current academia supports the first human civilizations being in the Middle East. He simply said "I do not accept that theory" and laughed, then all the black kids started clapping.

I have a stupid question that I've always wondered about. Sub-saharan hair is pretty different from every other groups' hair, even primates' hair. How did it come to be? Did it appear post emigration out of Africa, thus explaining why it skipped all other groups?

>smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/
>the researchers think that they all share a common ancestor that lived tens of thousands of years ago in Asia but that doesn’t otherwise persist today.
>One branch of this family tree moved north to Siberia, while the other spread south to New Guinea and Australia. The northern branch likely migrated across the land bridge in a separate surge from the Eurasian founders.
A possible separate migration wave via Eurasia sharing a common ancestor with Aboriginal Australians doesn't mean "Australians" literally colonized the Americas like you said, you colossal retard.

>sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/epic-pre-columbian-voyage-suggested-genes
>Skeptics say that genetic evidence from modern human populations is not enough to prove ancient contact. The genetic clock is often uncertain, says anthropologist Carl Lipo of California State University, Long Beach. “We need ancient DNA from skeletal evidence—not modern evidence—to resolve this question.”
Like I said, there's nothing at all concrete about connections between Pre-Columbian South America and Polynesia. There are also several alternate explanations to what you're putting forth as fact.

To be clear, I literally have a degree in this, work in this field in this specific topic, and you're a retard.

>and all the black kids started clapping
>things that didn't happen

>mom why aren't the black kids all super smart pillars of virtue like in my nickelodeon movies

they clap for anything in america

...

when these threads come up can never tell if some /pol/tard is so retarded hes seriously asking the question or purpusefully trolling, but then again is there realy a difference

One of the oddities of the blank period between the spread of man and development of civilization, is that, in the grand scheme of things, the latter kind of happened everywhere at once. Depending on who you go by, mankind was running about with tools, primitive agriculture, fire, and sometimes even primitive metallurgy, pretty much every ingredient you needed for civilization, for between ~30,000 and ~100,000 years, all before anyone got around to building a city. Then, suddenly, in that last 5-10K years, you get cities all over on both sides of the planet in short order.

(This is among the oddities of prehistory that triggers the ancient aliens folks, obviously.)

Most blame climate change, citing that it was just too cold, but that wasn't true of all the regions where man was located during that time.

It's just as likely that civilization isn't an inevitable "development stage". That, much like language, or nearly any technological advancement, it happens rarely, and only if all the circumstances align in just right way in just the right place, *but* when it does happen, it spreads everywhere quite quickly. It's quite easy to imagine that any far traveling member of a primitive tribe seeing a city, just once, without knowing any of the nuances as to how it came to be, could easily return home, describe it, and say, "Let's do that too!" Similarly, that upon hearing of such a tale second hand, some other, even more distant tribe might take up the same idea.

Thus, civilization may actually only be sourced in two or three places on planet, and simply spread by witness or word of mouth, disseminated enough times that each civilization still remains relatively culturally unique and seemingly unconnected, each replicated in chain by perhaps a single elaborate storyteller.

It's called bait, user.

>all these places were convenient for monkeys,
But how many of them were convenient for great apes?

but its so repetitive

id bet 70% of all the posts are other /poltards cooperating and samefag

BTFO

There are a lot of basement dwellers that dedicate their lives to bait, yes. Some consider it their holy mission to "red pill" everyone on the internet. Thus bait, bait everywhere.

Plus, well, the mods here are pretty laxed (and, I suspect, sympathetic).

Every time I see a stormfag conflate monkeys with hominids I laugh inside and realize none of you fucks have ever picked up a biology textbook to save your lives.

Seriously, read a fucking book lmao you're only embarrassing yourself.

This whole board is nothing but the same shit bait threads day after day.

I think the most important context here is the evolutionairy (not in the genetic, but as competition between nomadic and agricultural). If the tribes next to you start occupying (and defending, as they can specialize people into well-fed soldiers) fertile lands in your neighbourhood, then your nomadic tribe will, in the long-run, be outclassed. This is also due to the fact that agricultural societies will usually be able to feed more people as technology develops.

Thus your nomadic tribe has two options: settle (and the technology should be there) or move to a place where there are no settlements. Thus as a result you will see many settlements in some areas at once, up until you reach climates which are less favorable for the agricultural technology of those days.

Yeah, whatever gets (You)'s I guess - even if I suspect most baiters never check their threads after posting them.

But the only way to fix it would involve draconian moderation, banning all talks of race, prehistory, religion, Germany, WW2, vikings, the American Civil War... yadda yadda. You wouldn't be left with much to talk about, and I suspect the board would move at a rate of all of three posts a week, while a thousand moderators blew their brains out.

I understand you're butthurt to the point of making up pure lies now. even if you have a degree in the "field", it's obviously outdated.

here have more sources, dumbass. I like your lack of counter-evidence, btw. if you think geneologists would risk their careers on making bold statements before there's a decade or so of prescedence and evidence, you prove you know nothing of the field.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150721134827.htm
nytimes.com/2015/07/22/science/tracing-routes-to-america-through-ancient-dna.html
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3170959/Were-Aborigines-AMERICANS-Native-tribes-Amazon-closely-related-indigenous-Australians.html
bbc.com/news/science-environment-33612869
news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150722-dna-first-american-history-anthropology-science/
thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2015/07/22/discovery-change-view-human-history/
csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0722/Scientists-find-genetic-link-between-Native-Americans-and-Pacific-Islanders
dna-explained.com/2015/07/22/some-native-americans-had-oceanic-ancestors/
patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2014/10/ancient-polynesians-had-children-with-american-indians/
nature.com/news/dna-study-links-indigenous-brazilians-to-polynesians-1.12710

people like you who get proven wrong and then proceed to try and revise reality are one of the biggest problems with the fields of history and humanities, as well as this board.

grow up.

It's actually around 60,000 to 80,000 years, at least for non-Africans. The Khoisan, Pygmies, and proto-"Black" people from East Africa all separated from each other earlier. There were earlier populations who left Africa 100,000 years ago to what is currently now China, but they died out, never passing on their genes. They might as well be a subspecies.

Oh lord, it's a WE WUZ VEDDOID N SHIT poster. Care to back up why the oldest human fossils for both Homo sapiens, or earliest ancestor Homo habilis, and protohumans like Australopithecus are found in Africa?

It doesn't make sense right? A species called Homo heidelbergensis did the whole populating different continents thing like we did, and according to multilregional theory, we should have evolved everywhere at the same time. Only that's false, we evolved from the taller Heidelbergensis in Africa, the shorter ones evolved into Neanderthals, and whatever the hell they looked like in Asia evolved into Denisovans. Three different but closely related species.

Tigers and lions can't always have fertile children, the same apparently happened to humans and Neanderthals, to a slightly lesser extreme. Thanks to the Toba Catastrophe, humans are too inbred to even be separate subspecies.

Get out Oog, The Land of Topless Dark Women is a shitty name for Paleolithic Africa and you know it. Now stop time traveling.

Does nothing to explain dat gap though.

I mean, yes, obviously nearby tribes and nomads either get absorbed or killed, as we see in history over and over again, but this would happen less often for the more distant ones (although some may get in such dire straights that they opt to make the long emigration to the city and integrate.)

If the first cities were rare anomalies, and the more distant tribes were more apt to simply emulate the feat, that would at least explain why you get cities popping up at around the same time, despite the great distance between them, with little to no apparent cultural connection.

Granted, with the amount of information we have to work with from this period, it's nearly entirely speculation.

>if I don't mention it here, and you're unsure of some genus of Homo, it's probably some form of Erectus

If this means that Heidelbergensis is just a very advanced subspecies of Erectus, then Erectus was the most physically and racially diverse species of human on the planet. For fucks sake, "Meganthropus", which was really just Erectus, was gigantic, while "Georgicus" was really just an early Erectus subspecies that was tiny.

Ergaster is just the early African branch of Homo erectus. Nice try.