/sci/ - Science & Math

>africa has had people for thousands of years
>nothing to show for it besides some pyramids
>america was settled 400 years ago
>turned into a super power
i don't get it

If your asking if people originated from Africa, they did.

>>15307809
I mean, wouldn't you want to get out of Africa?

>>15307829
False, the problem is that you think Homo sapien = Human, which is simply wrong. Homo sapien was just another Human species, which did came out of Africa, it was less evolved and relatively younger than other species such as Homo Georgicus and Homo neanderthalensis.
White Europeans are descendents of Neanderthals with some sapien DNA
Asians are descendents of Homo Erectus with some Neanderthal DNA
Sub Saharan Africans are descendents of Homo Sapiens with some unknown ancestor which only they have (search up Ghost DNA).
Basically Human species were present in multiple places and evolved separately, with some amount of intermixing.

>>15307855
Dubs of truth

>>15307821
it's called climate dumbass. one look at global climate patterns and geography would explain every development in civilization

There's no way they can have a copy of Siberia in Antarctica.

>>15307809
Why should they lie? Just to make right wingers uncomfortable?

>>15307821
the funniest part is how the whole continent tries to claim egypt and the pyramids when every one of ancient egypt's elites/scientists/etc were no darker than a paper bag

>>15307809
Africans evolved naturally from monke. Then the aliens came, experimented with africans and created whites and mongoloids. Every other race is a mix of these threes, except abbos, who come from monke too.

>>15308001
>>15307821

>>15308001
because light skin was a trait of aristocrats lmao. if you had light skin it meant you werent working out in the sun. lol.

>>15308016
go to /x/

>>15308018
the sahara was not always a desert lmao

>>15307809
It's literally scientism propaganda to justify the mass migration of non-whites into Europe.

>>15308018
You have to be a real historically illiterate brainlet to think people migrated from the Messpotamia in the Fertile Crescent, across the Mediterranean to Europe to do precisely fuck all, if anything retard their civilisation, and then go BACK to to Egypt and start building pyramids.

>>15308215
But the graphic says the opposite.

If you go far back enough, yes, we are out of Africa. But you'd have to go back millions of years, not hundreds of thousands, to find the last common African ancestor of humanity.

>>15307809
QRD:
>New life is born in the most fertile place.
>It migrates to the more hostile places,
>where evolutionary pressure increases ability.

The logic checks out anon. In fact this is a pattern that should be universal, true even for life in distant galaxies: There will always be a gradient of intelligence away from the warmest areas. The only question (which is maybe what you were wondering about in the first place) is whether the thing that migrated out of Africa was human or pre-human. It doesn't really matter one way or the other. I think it's safe to say that great apes originated in Africa.

I remember learning about the out of Africa theory in an ancient history class in 10th grade. What nonsense.

>>15307809
It's all about how you define the terms for speciation, you can twist it any which way. Early homonids are found all over the planet. Early modern humans (EMH) found in Africa 300k years ago are genetically quite distinct from early european modern humans (EEMH) found in in Europe ~50k years ago, how you define common ancestors is a matter for debate since EEMH do not entirely stem from EMH. The problem is that EEMH also interbred with Neanderthals who were in Euope much earlier. These all descend from Homo Heidelbergensis which, of course, was found in Heidelberg, Germany.

The choice of defining speciation points is largely arbitrary and political. In general the out of Africa genetic bottleneck myth has proven to be a myth though.

>>15307809
it doesn't have "some credibility", it's undeniably true, only someone not familiar with the evidence would ever say otherwise (unless they were lying)

>>15309614
>Early modern humans (EMH) found in Africa 300k years ago are genetically quite distinct from early european modern humans (EEMH) found in in Europe ~50k years ago
intellectual dishonesty
compare modern humans found in Africa ~100 kyr ago instead, and you suddenly find they're responsible for the vast majority of the genome of everyone on the planet
curious

The internet was a mistake.

>>15309897
Nah, you are being intellectually dishonest, racist and/or ignorant. Probably all three at once. Out of Africa migration of L3 mtDNA has largely been disproven with modern evidence, it is a Eurasian backflow:

>The possibility of an origin of L3 in Asia was also proposed by Cabrera et al. (2018) based on the similar coalescence dates of L3 and its Eurasian-distributed M and N derivative clades (ca. 70 kya), the distant location in Southeast Asia of the oldest known subclades of M and N, and the comparable age of the paternal haplogroup DE. According to this hypothesis, after an initial out-of-Africa migration of bearers of pre-L3 (L3'4*) around 125 kya, there would have been a back-migration of females carrying L3 from Eurasia to East Africa sometime after 70 kya.

These Basal Eurasians in turn then mixed with Neanderthals (mostly maternal component from the former, paternal from the latter) to form the new EEMH. The point though is this:

>. The study instead concluded that such a genetic makeup in present-day Europeans stemmed from Near Eastern and Siberian introgression occurring predominantly in the Neolithic and the Bronze Age (though beginning by 14,000 years ago), but all EEMH specimens including and following Kostenki-14 contributed to the present-day European genome and were more closely related to present-day Europeans than East Asians.

Therefore they are distinct EMHs who's modern descendants are more related to precursor homonids than any other modern group, implying distinct genetic components not found elsewhere.