Are there any good resources on human prehistory that doesn't do the whole "out of africa" shit?

What are you basing that likelihood on?

You have literally no conception of biological evolution or pre-history and I'm willing to bet $20 you've never so much as read a single book about either of the subjects.

the fact that there have been human teeth found in central asia that dates to 400 thousands years ago. it is more likely that the early humans came to be in pic related with the start of agriculture, then slowly moved west as well as venturing to the part of africa everyone believes is truly where humans came from

Uh oh Eurocentrist these anons raise valid points

its not eurocentrist, i accept that eurasia was likely the cradle of civilization for very long

Are you talking about these from 20,000 years ago?

bbc.com/news/science-environment-34531861

Sorry, 80,000 years

no I am talking about these
newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/29/worlds-oldest-human-remains-found-in-israel/

...

you can stop now, i know u feel like this is a great opportunity to post all of ur epic bait pictures but im being serious. if u dont want to discuss this sage it and fuck off

>teeth scattered throughout strata covering hundreds thousands of years

Odd. Even odder that it's just teeth.

i agree, could be that they started migrating somewhat fast. i would imagine something like the ice age would cause them to move towards the equator and possibly down into africa

Maybe the teeth were jewelry or belongings of an African migrant.

that doesnt fit the so called "accepted" theory of modern humans developing in africa 200,000 years ago.

Well the last glacial maximum was 21,000 years ago and the middle East did experience smaller mountain glaciers.

I think the teeth research needs more data points to be released.

No humans are too retarded to not have evolved in tropical Africa.

The author of the article jumped the gun. I was watching "Human Odyssey" documentary on netflix and im pretty sure they talked about that finding. There were many waves of people leaving Africa at different times; OOA is pretty much solidified as fact. Thats not something to get hung up over; plenty of traits are non-African or "European" in origin. Africa is simply where your ancestors became modern humans; thats it. Your OOA ancestors had dark skin and afro hair. Hoever, white skin, looser hair, different eye colors and the like all evolved outside Africa. Thats just what all the evidence shows

Maybe it was older then. I personally believe humans originated in Atlantis one million years ago, and migrated to seperate corners of the world.

The evidence isn't there to support this theory.

It's a nice story though

Veeky Forums don't fall for easy bait

thats just silly, I really do believe that there is a possibility that "out of africa" is not necessarily a lie but simply misguided infomation

>we evolved to this stage all in europe.
lol then why dont we see as much evidence in Europe as opposed to Africa? Surely, they would be well preserved in cold climates? If you go back far enough, your ancestors were dark skinned and afro-haired populations who migrated to Europe and evolved your current palette of features over the next tens of thousands of years of natural selection and evolution.

Start from here where Proto-Germanic peoples are from.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

Actually you're falsely assuming the Sub-saharan phenotype was the progenitor

That's not in evidence.

>lol then why dont we see as much evidence in Europe as opposed to Africa?
livescience.com/42861-early-human-campfire-found-israel.html
>In and around the hearth, archaeologists say they also found bits of stone tools that were likely used for butchering and cutting animals.

Human doesn't equal Homo sapiens, that's just one species of human. My guess is that they belonged to a subspecies of Homo heidelbergensis, considering they roamed Eurasia and Africa around that time.

Look up "Omo 1". I can promise you that there are no older Homo sapiens remains in the world.

its a reconstruction by Richard Neave based on actual finding. Thats without a doubt an early European.

I am aware of the omo specimens but I think it's highly possible that early humans developed in eurasia and the best preserved early homo sapien remains happened to be in africa

developed in eurasia and spread to africa and further into asia as they became more developed and the best preserved early homo sapien remains happened to have been found in africa*
sorry im a little bit drunk

The skin color obviously being artistic liscence.

One has to assume that Sub-saharans evolved from the progenitor phenotype just as widely as the Asiatic or Hispanic or European peoples.

To assume that the Sub-Saharan made zero advancement or mutation along with the others is a bit outlandish.

It's without a doubt an early slave.

no because all the evidence points towards out of africa so you're just going to end up with spooked retards who ignore evidence, but since you probably are one I guess it doesn't matter to you

>an incomplete skull and jawbone

A jawbone with molars that are too large, possibly indicating interbreeding with Neanderthal.

Again, the skin color is a complete work of fiction. There is literally nothing in the evidence suggesting a definite dermal hue.

Explain why Africans have the highest genetic diversity of all humans, then. It only really makes sense if they're the oldest. Also humans are genetically closer to African apes like the chimpanzee than Asian apes - chimpanzees share our closest common ancestor and are the only currently extant great ape endemic to Africa. You're just upset because you dislike niggers.

Dude the skulls are clearly negroid, they're tropically adapted and they had to come from Africa. This one is from 35k years ago I believe. Light skin only evolved something like 12-6k years ago except maybe neanderthals who evolved it independently before. Dark skin and afro hair (as much as this sounds like afrocentrism) was the original phenotype.

And yes, obviously modern-day blacks are not representative of the early humans beyond phenotype similarities due to same evolutionary climate and other things; you're right about that.

academic.oup.com/mbe/article/30/1/24/1020174/The-Timing-of-Pigmentation-Lightening-in-Europeans

>Research indicates the selection for the light-skin alleles of these genes in Europeans is comparatively recent, having occurred later than 20,000 years ago and perhaps as recently as 12,000 to 6,000 years ago.[26]

first known fully modern humans in Europe were Cro Magnon

who most certainly did not look like that trash-tier """reconstruction"""

No sorry the picture I replied to was crafted from

>an incomplete skull and jawbone

A jawbone with molars too large that might indicate Neanderthal inbreeding or might just indicate Neanderthal.

What is lacking from an incomplete skull and jawbone is any skin.

>Explain why Africans have the highest genetic diversity of all humans, then.

Africa is a very large continent. Maybe you could specify which Africans you are referring to.

Because if you are referring to all Africans, you necessarily include North Africans, Boers, Ethiopians, Egyptians, West Africans, Bantus, Kenyans, Chadic peoples, etc.

>the skulls are clearly negroid
>doesn't post picture of skull
>Light skin only evolved something like 12-6k years ago

you're trolling

>Mitochondrial DNA analysis places the early European population as sister group to the Asian groups, dating the divergence to some 50,000 years ago.[38] The very light skin tone found in modern Northern Europeans is a relatively recent phenomenon,[39] and may have appeared in the European line as recently as 12 to 6 thousand years ago (10,000 - 4,000 BCE), indicating Cro-Magnons had dark skin.[40] Sequencing of finds of the late post-ice-age hunter-gatherer populations in Europe indicate that some Cro-Magnons likely had blue eyes and dark hair, and a "black" complexion.[41][42]

see

Again you're making the assumption that the Sub-saharan has remained frozen in time unchanged while every other phenotype on the planet underwent massive mutation.

That's outlandish. You cannot assume that modern Sub-saharans have been frozen developmentally since the original phenotype.

Or you must describe by what vehicle this outlandish lack of mutation occurred

>He believes in evolution
Holy shit you're retarded

>/pol/ is this dumb now

Every time you mock pol on this board I go to pol and tell the worst users to go back to Veeky Forums

Why do people get so triggered when someone suggests that their might be a chance that far back in their genetic line, maybe they might've come from some africans or some shit. I mean, it's just a theory, but the way you guys dismiss it....

Do you guys really hate niggers that much?

no one is saying that modern-day subsaharans are *exact* representation of the first modern humans. The phenotype wasn't completely frozen in time, but it has been evolutionary conservative compared to the wide array of mutations we see around the world.

We'll find the most ancient Europeans beneath the ocean, what used to be doggerland.

A 8000-yeas old skeleton was unearthed in Norway (Brunstad Man) with a typical Nordic skull, so my theory is that most graves are actually buried under the sea, especially seeing as it was close to where the sunken land of Doggerland is. See

>and may have
>as recently as
>the European line
>some Cro-Magnons "black"

what the fuck are you doing

It's not hate but accuracy.

There is very little likelihood that the progenitor phenotype looked like modern Sub-saharans.

In fact the wide degree that everyone else mutated demands a comparable Sub-saharan mutation.

Sub-saharans mutated away from the progenitor along with everyone else.

Thus, saying that modern Europeans came from Sub-saharans is faulty. They both mutated from the same progenitor.

Ironically the out of Africa theory bolster's /pol/'s ideas, it implies Europeans and Asians evolved rapidly in a very different environment

See

Considering the vast changes in climate over the African landmass since the progenitor that's startling.

Do you have a source for the mutational lag?

>while every other phenotype on the planet underwent massive mutation.
thats exactly what happened. The first OOA waves would have been people adapted to African climate (dark skinned, probably afro hair). As people spread all over the world, they would rapidly adapt to a variety of new environments that would spawn all the different phenotypes we see now.

Oh sweetie no.

Africa at that time wasn't the same climate as it is today. You're talking about 2 million years of time.

Oh no honey. No.

>Homo sapiens can't migrate out of Africa but Homo erectus can
Multiregionalists

>There is very little likelihood that the progenitor phenotype looked like modern Sub-saharans.

It did. Not exactly like modern sub-saharans, but reasonably close to them. If we brought them back, they wouldn't look out of place in a crowd of blacks

>In fact the wide degree that everyone else mutated demands a comparable Sub-saharan mutation.
No it doesn't. Mutation isn't some preset thing; its all based on environmental changes. Also, very few mutations actually deal with appearance (hair, skin color, etc...). Blacks have probably been evolving genetically like everyone else; just not too much in phenotype because that phenotype works well for that environment so there wasnt as much of a need
.
>Thus, saying that modern Europeans came from Sub-saharans is faulty. They both mutated from the same progenitor.
Modern-day Europeans don't come from sub-saharans, but if you go back far enough, their ancestors looked similar to modern day sub-saharans. This is true for everyone

Isn't it more likely that the oldest looking ancestor looked like a mix of african and white, migrated thousands of years ago and then evolved differently in each location + mixing wih neanderthals and heidelbergensis?
I doubt all modern humans descend from a black-skinned, afro-haired, body hair-less slender dude wih a thick nose. Those characteristics sound like as much of a mutation as their european and asian counterparts.
That being said, this thread looks like it's full of ideological crap from /pol/ and the anti-/pol/ people that seem to be infesting Veeky Forums and being as retarded as /pol/lacks

then what did the ancestors of modern day sub-saharans use to look like?

>You're talking about 2 million years of time.
no, only the last few hundred thousand years. Any climate change that occurred was conservative compared to the wide array of climate OOA populations had to adapt to.

This actually makes sense since the sub Saharan Africans look the most like apes with their big stinky nigger lips

>It did

There is literally no evidence to support that.

>Mutation isn't some preset thing; its all based on environmental changes

It's not all based on anything. Environment does play a part but a lot of mutation actually occurs in what appear to be random ways.

>that phenotype works well for that environment so there wasnt as much of a need

The environment of Africa has changed dramatically in 2 million years. JUST

>but if you go back far enough, their ancestors looked similar to modern day sub-saharans

Where are the proofs? Just because modern fossil reconstruction efforts choose a black skin based on the humans found there in modernity doesn't make it likely or so.

You literally think Africa and the Sub-saharans have existed in a static bubble for 2 million years.

No.

similar to them now. Not exactly. But similar.

>only the last few hundred thousand years

Literally why?

Earliest human migrations and expansions of archaic and modern humans across continents began 2 million years ago with the migration out of Africa of Homo erectus.

>Environment does play a part but a lot of mutation actually occurs in what appear to be random ways.
Environment determines which mutations thrive and reproduce.

>The environment of Africa has changed dramatically in 2 million years. JUST

>You literally think Africa and the Sub-saharans have existed in a static bubble for 2 million years.

If we're talking about modern humans, we're talking about the last several hundred thousand years. certainly not 1 million years let alone 2 million.

Once again there is no evidence to that conclusion.

Okay, 200,000 years.

Africa has gone through many climate changes in that time. Ice ages.

You're thinking of Africa as a static data point and that's faulty

there were no modern humans 2 million years ago. The oldest modern humans are 200k years. If we assume that Israeli tooth find is legit, then lets say 400k years ago. Still very short of 2 million

Guys please, examining Negro skulls is of not interest, they are not us and never has been. Weather you find some kidnapped European rape victim in the Sahara Desert doesn't make him/her African. Focus on the important task such as finding ancient European skulls, not Negroids.

Until then evidence suggests we share common ancestors.

So do German shepherds and terriers.

Until we have new data points we go with what we have.

>modern humans
>2 million years ago
confirmed for troll

I clipped that quote from Wikipedia take it up with them senpai

Even 200,000 years you are assuming that the progenitor did not mutate as it did rapidly across every other land.

Sub-saharans mutated from the progenitor just like everyone else. To suggest otherwise is quackery.

>we go with what we have.

Yeah like investigating if your x9999 grandpa was a dolphin.

Just know that at this point you have unfounded skepticism of hard science.

If you're comfy with that so am I

>protestants

Like I said, there's hardly any difference in our skulls from 10,000 years ago (see brunstad man from Norway) and today, yet we magically looked like a Negro 35,000 years ago? It's too silly to take seriously.

And pic related is a 5000-year-old Swedish woman.

...

.

>because I hate niggers and I'm a virgin white and weak bullied boy White powah

fix that for ya kid

And they all get BTFO when Veeky Forums debunks their nazi memes. Sad!

>HurrDurr I'm a Negroid and everything that isn't in favor of me is wrong!

Not everyone is from United Negroids of America

No, my point is there were no negroes at that time. There were no europeans.

There was just the progenitor from which we all mutated.

>hurdurr
You have to go back

whats your response to

>academic.oup.com/mbe/article/30/1/24/1020174/The-Timing-of-Pigmentation-Lightening-in-Europeans

>>Research indicates the selection for the light-skin alleles of these genes in Europeans is comparatively recent, having occurred later than 20,000 years ago and perhaps as recently as 12,000 to 6,000 years ago.[26]

>Sub-saharans mutated from the progenitor just like everyone else. To suggest otherwise is quackery.
No one is suggesting otherwise. You keep resurrecting this strawman and knocking it down

Actually anons were suggesting that Sub-saharans were nearly identical to the progenitor.

Multiregionalist btfoed

>There were no europeans.

That's where you're wrong kiddo.

>Oyster Fishermen found already in the 1800s the remains of mammoths and reindeer in the waters off England. 1931 drew a fishing trawler up a barbed harpoon tip of the horn whose age was set at 12 000 years after the fishermen, divers, archaeologists and geologists made more discoveries that show how people lived in Doggerland. And with the help of data from oil companies have Doggerland been mapped better. It has, among other things found a mass grave with mammoths, standing stones, walls, fossilized tree stumps and a probable burial for people. Fragments of a 40,000 year old Neanderthal's skull was trawled up 15 km off the Dutch coast in 2009.

>Fragments of a 40,000 year old Neanderthal's skull was trawled up 15 km off the Dutch coast in 2009.

>Fragments of a 40,000 year old Neanderthal's skull was trawled up 15 km off the Dutch coast in 2009.

you sound like the people who reject evolution all together. no one is saying we came from modern-day chimps, yet our common ancestor was certainly more ape-like. No one suggesting we come from modern-day blacks, but our ancestor probably looked more black.

>more ape-like
>more black

Ooooo you just sent full 14/88. Never reveal your power level senpai