Treating "science as science" means never having to say you're sorry

The "Out of Africa" hypothesis maintains that human evolution took place in Africa and, from there, humans (Homo sapiens) spread across the globe. The theory is consistent with the fact that, for the last 200,000 years, all modern humans have had the same maternally-inherited DNA. However, a recent study conducted by Spain's national research center on human evolution has found that "Out of Africa" could be flawed.

According to an article from the Agence France-Presse (AFP):

"A new analysis of the dental fossils of human ancestors suggests that Asian populations played a larger role than Africans in colonizing Europe millions of years ago, said a study released Monday.

The findings challenge the prevailing "Out of Africa" theory, which holds that anatomically modern man first arose from one point in Africa and fanned out to conquer the globe, and bolsters the notion that Homo sapiens evolved from different populations in different parts of the globe.

The "Out of Africa" scenario has been underpinned since 1987 by genetic studies based mainly on the rate of mutations in mitochondrial DNA, a cell material inherited from the maternal line of ancestry.

But for this study, European researchers opted to study the tooth fossil record of modern man's ancestors because of their high component of genetic expression.

The investigators examined the shapes of more than 5,000 teeth from human ancestors from Africa, Asia and Europe dating back millions of years.

They found that European teeth had more Asian features than African ones.

They also noted that the continuity of the Eurasian dental pattern from the Early Pleistocene until the appearance of Upper Pleistocene Neanderthals suggests that the evolutionary courses of the Eurasian and African continents were relatively independent for a long period." (more)

And the Scientific American:

All the ancestors of contemporary Europeans apparently did not migrate out of Africa as previously believed. According to a new analysis of more than 5,000 teeth from long-perished members of the genus Homo and the closely related Australopithecus, many early settlers hailed from Asia.

Erik Trinkaus, a physical anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis (who was not involved in the study), says most evolutionary biologists and anthropologists believe there were three major waves of migration from Africa to Europe: the first occurring about two million to 1.5 million years ago during the late Pliocene and early Pleistocene epochs; a second during the mid Pleistocene, roughly one million to 500,000 years ago; and ending with the spread of modern humans, 50,000 to 30,000 years in the past.

The new findings, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, casts doubt on the second migration out of Africa. "[The researchers] are not denying that it happened," Trinkaus says, "just that it was less important than movement across Eurasia."

The study was led by Maria Martinón-Torres, a paleobiologist at the National Research Center on Human Evolution in Burgos, Spain. The research team analyzed the choppers of human ancestors from the Pleistocene and late Pliocene epochs.

"Teeth are the best genetic marker that we have in the fossil record itself," Trinkaus says, because "they are as close as we can get to a reflection of the individual's genetic makeup." The reason: Tooth crowns are genetically determined—and thus reflect an individual's genotype—and are not affected by environmental stress during development.

Scientists found that teeth from African specimens were a different shape or morphology than those from Eurasian samples. The researchers wrote that teeth toward the front of the mouth from Eurasians had more "morphological robusticity," such as a triangular, shovel shape. Their back teeth were smaller and had smoother chewing surfaces; the rear teeth from African samples were larger and the chewing surfaces on them more pointy and jagged. (more)

So, why is this important? Well, in science, it is often said that theories can never be proved, only disproved; yet over the course of the last twenty years, the "Out of Africa" theory has risen to become an "indisputable truth" in the public conscious. In particular, globalists have been selling "Out of Africa" to disseminate their own world view ad nauseam.

Out of Africa" is a powerful tool in the hands of the globalists; the "Out of Africa" theory states that, before stepping foot in Europe or Asia, our human ancestors had evolved into Homo sapiens. Consequently, "Out of Africa" can be used to argue that the differences between the people of the world mean nothing. The globalists can talk about blending the people of earth together and liken this to a "reunification"; a few words about "mother continent" Africa can do the same trick and encourage support for Africa's development, even when our own local communities are suffering.

The Candelabra model, on the other hand, theorizes that man's ancestors took form in Africa, spread into Asia and, across both continents independently, evolved towards becoming the more-intelligent, dominant species we call Homo sapiens. Unlike the "Out of Africa" model, the Candelabra model implies that the peoples of earth are rather disconnected and linked together only as common descendants of a species that existed 2,500,000 million years ago.

Fortunately for the globalists, the Candelabra model does not match up with DNA tests, the hypothesized timetables of human development or archaeological evidence as well as "Out of Africa" does. But the new findings in Spain regarding extensive human development in Asia are just as problematic for the globalists as the Candelabra model. The new theory destroys the "oneness" among Homo sapiens that "Out of Africa" conjures. Moreover, Africa loses its importance in regards to the development of European man and Asia becomes more important in this matter. Instead of being seen as the "cradle of mankind" from where the European, Asian and African peoples evolved, Africa becomes, like the Candelabra model suggests, a "dangerous and lurid place" that certain Europe and Asia-bound humans (or near-humans) left behind a long, long time ago. This leaves the multiculturalist and globalist agenda to be seen as less of a reconnecting of "like peoples" and more of a gimmick to advance certain political agendas, such as throwing billions at Africa to try and fix its problems and, on a social engineering level, getting people to support mixing humanity "back together", destroying nations, cultures and ethnic identities in the process.
At the present, "Out of Africa" continues to be used as a political tool. This summer, Smithsonian published the article "The Family Tree, Pruned," by Richard Conniff. The article argues that genealogy is bunk and race does not matter because we humans all came from Africa anyhow. "Our genealogy is identical," Conniff writes.[1]

In actuality, without the "Out of Africa" theory at his side, Conniff's argument falls completely flat in the world of biology. As per the common origin theory, all life forms evolved from the same organism/gene pool and there is a common root for every life form on the planet. All living organisms share a similar genetic code and an identical phylogenetic tree. Thus, just as one could argue that Homo sapiens have the same "genealogy", that argument could be extended to include every living thing on the planet. Of course, Conniff is not arguing that we are "the same" as eels, flagellates or elephants; his focus is on people and his agenda is clear.

Kevin Shillington's work serves as another example of politically-charged "Out of Africa" promotion. In History of Africa, Shillington writes:
"Final evolution of modern human beings, with average brain capacity of about 1450 cc, was clearly complete by 40, 000 BC. Originating in Africa they had spread to all major regions of the world by 10, 000 BC.

...as [modern human beings] spread throughout Africa and colonised the other continents of the world, they adapted to variations in climate and environment. Those in the heart of tropical Africa developed the darkest skin to protect them from the harmful rays of the direct tropical sun. Those moving to cooler climates developed paler skins in order to absorb more of the beneficial rays of the less direct sunlight. The so-called 'racial differences' between the various peoples of the world are thus literally only skin-deep, local adaptations to climate and environment..."[2]

It is interesting that Shillington writes "thus skin deep" as if he has actually proved something. Shillington dedicates a mere three sentences to the matter of racial differences in his book; in all three sentences, he elaborates on the reasons for skin color change. There is no reference to the other differences among Homo sapiens; Shillington just ignores them, implying that they are immaterial because "Out of Africa" suggests that differences should not exist.

But there are differences. Aside the highly controversial notion of a disparity in cognitive ability (after fifty years of testing, non-mixed Africans continue to score remarkably lower on IQ tests), Shillington skips over phenotypic diversities such as cranial types, as well as differences in bone density and chemical concentration.

Due to the fact that "Out of Africa" has become such a factor in our everyday lives, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the theory were to lose favor within the science community. Would the globalists abandon their pet theory? One day, we just might find out. However, because the globalists continue to make progress towards the destruction of our people in the name of building "one humanity", just who "we" will be...nobody can be certain.

[1] Richard Conniff, "The Family Tree, Pruned," Smithsonian, July 2007, 90-97.
[2] Kevin Shillington, History of Africa Revised Edition (Malaysia: MacMillan Publishers Limited, 1995), 6.

Comments