Out of africa is bullshit prove me wrong

malaria has been found in mosquitoes in amber up to 30 million years old. it infects primates, it infected early hominids, and it infects humans. It has had severe effects on human evolution, with multiple common traits existing purely to counter it
-glucose 6 phosphate deficiency seen in 10-15% of black males and many carriers for the trait
-sickle trait seen in up to 10% of blacks
-thalassemias are another group of diseases that exist purely because being a carrier of the trait is protective against malaria

all of these traits are so common that almost every single person in africa at this point is a carrier of at least one trait that protects against malaria. these traits are recessive traits, and confer only advantages to carriers. the sheer frequency and different number of these traits to survive malaria shows how important it has been in evolution of humans in africa.

but somehow, in just the 10,000 years since humans "left" africa, all of these recessive traits are barely even found in northern europe!! somehow, in just 10,000 years, a recessive trait that has no bad effects was selected out of the entire population to the point they are not seen in entire populations in northern europe. how can this be? assuming the frequency became low enough, sickle disease would only manifest in like 1 in 100k people there but the carrier state should still be at least like 1%. but it is not seen at all outside of some admixture from africa in spain, and this is the case in MULTIPLE traits against malaria.

so how can this be? simple. out of africa is bullshit. I am going to post the frequencies of the various traits that protect against malaria, and you can analyze for yourself and try to work the mental gymnastics to salvage the so called out of africa theory.

...

additionally, in the 400 years that blacks have been in the USA, where malaria is not seen, this recessive trait did not decline at all. the rates of sickle trait in the USA and africa are exactly the same. the velocity of trait loss would have to have been fairly rapid to lose it to the levels of northern europe in just 10k years, and the evidence that this rapid loss would not occur is seen right now by US blacks!

Are you for real? Have you studied SNPs and Haplotypes?

The Maps they have created almost prove we originate from one general location

ya, for some reason the M and N haplogroups, the ones dominant outside of africa, are found to almost no degree in africa itself. the main theory on that is that somehow this haplogroup came into being very shortly before migration and then everyone with that haplogroup left. does that sound plausible to you? maybe thats why there is actually controversy about it

either way, I would take actual trait prevalence anyday over unstable mitochondrial DNA which if you really want to get into the numbers is pretty stable between different species already, to the point that it might not be the best tool for differentiating between closely related species. I would rather do the classic phylogeny of looking at traits, and seeing that there is a glaring fucking inconsistency here.

The theory is that there was a significant bottleneck in the early human population iirc.

or maybe the multiple origin theory is correct in that the trace amounts of M haplotype in africa is from migration to africa from asia

I think your dissent stems from the fact that you think this mass migration happened 10,000 years ago. I'm pretty sure nobody thinks that. It would be more like 60,000 to 100,000 years ago.

the number changes every year. either way, 400 years of africans in north america with no change in the malarial resistance traits relative to african counterparts (after the selective prssure for these traits was removed and before modern medicine to negate the benefits) suggests that it still wouldn't be at its nearly extinguished levels seen in Europe (if there even is any endogenous levels of it there beyond recent admixture)