The "Out of Africa" hypothesis maintains that human evolution took place in Africa and, "from there", humans spread across the globe. The theory is consistent with the observation that, for the last 200,000 years, all considered to be "people" have had largely similar, maternally-inherited DNA.
But a recent study conducted by Spain's national research center on human evolution demonstrates that "Out of Africa" could be flawed. According to an article from the Agence France-Presse (AFP):
The "Out of Africa" theory states that, before stepping foot in Europe or Asia, our human ancestors had completely evolved and, from that point on again, never would again. 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 more-intelligent, dominant species in both locations. 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 timeline of the original Candelabra model did not match up to current archaeological evidence as well as the timeline for "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 original Candelabra model would have been. The findings in Spain destroy the "oneness" among Homo sapiens that "Out of Africa" conjures. Moreover, as with the Candelabra model, 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 which all peoples evolved, Africa becomes more of the "dangerous and lurid place" that some still see it as, a curse 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 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," [1] Conniff writes.
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 history lessons serve as another example of politically-charged "Out of Africa" promotion. In History of Africa, Shillington writes:
It is interesting that Shillington writes "thus skin deep" as if he has actually proved something. In the book, he dedicates a mere three sentences to the matter, only elaborating on the reasons for skin color change. There is no reference to other differences; Shillington simply ignores them, just as "Out of Africa" would suggest that they should not exist.
But there are differences to detail. Aside the controversial notion of a disparity in cognitive ability (after fifty years of testing, non-mixed Africans continue to score remarkably lower in standardized testing, IQ and aptitude tests), Shillington ignores phenotypic diversities such as cranial size and shape, as well as differences in bone density and chemical concentration. He also skips over the genetic similarities that some cultural groups share, which sets them apart from others suggesting, contrary to "Out of Africa" theory, that regionally-isolated evolution has continued to take place.
Due to the fact that "Out of Africa" has become such a factor in the imperatives that guide our everyday lives, it would be interesting to see what would happen if, due to additional discovery and analysis, perhaps aided by more advanced technology, the theory were to completely fall apart. Unfortunately, it is hard to see a scenario where this would be allowed to happen. Perhaps incentives to publish the new findings would be removed, and incentives to disagree with them would be increased. At that point, even more than now, science would fail to be science - and instead be something of a weapon to promote a doctrine, its power linked only to the inherent power of something being called science by name. One day, we may see the results of this unraveling - and the pushback that follows. Get your popcorn ready.
 |
| Out of Africa, according to World Book Encyclopedia, circa 1980s |
But a recent study conducted by Spain's national research center on human evolution demonstrates 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.And the Scientific American:
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)
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. The reason for this is obvious: globalists have been selling "Out of Africa" to disseminate their own world view and popularize their objectives ad nauseam.
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)
The "Out of Africa" theory states that, before stepping foot in Europe or Asia, our human ancestors had completely evolved and, from that point on again, never would again. 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 more-intelligent, dominant species in both locations. 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 timeline of the original Candelabra model did not match up to current archaeological evidence as well as the timeline for "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 original Candelabra model would have been. The findings in Spain destroy the "oneness" among Homo sapiens that "Out of Africa" conjures. Moreover, as with the Candelabra model, 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 which all peoples evolved, Africa becomes more of the "dangerous and lurid place" that some still see it as, a curse 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 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," [1] Conniff writes.
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 history lessons serve 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. In the book, he dedicates a mere three sentences to the matter, only elaborating on the reasons for skin color change. There is no reference to other differences; Shillington simply ignores them, just as "Out of Africa" would suggest that they should not exist.
But there are differences to detail. Aside the controversial notion of a disparity in cognitive ability (after fifty years of testing, non-mixed Africans continue to score remarkably lower in standardized testing, IQ and aptitude tests), Shillington ignores phenotypic diversities such as cranial size and shape, as well as differences in bone density and chemical concentration. He also skips over the genetic similarities that some cultural groups share, which sets them apart from others suggesting, contrary to "Out of Africa" theory, that regionally-isolated evolution has continued to take place.
Due to the fact that "Out of Africa" has become such a factor in the imperatives that guide our everyday lives, it would be interesting to see what would happen if, due to additional discovery and analysis, perhaps aided by more advanced technology, the theory were to completely fall apart. Unfortunately, it is hard to see a scenario where this would be allowed to happen. Perhaps incentives to publish the new findings would be removed, and incentives to disagree with them would be increased. At that point, even more than now, science would fail to be science - and instead be something of a weapon to promote a doctrine, its power linked only to the inherent power of something being called science by name. One day, we may see the results of this unraveling - and the pushback that follows. Get your popcorn ready.
↸ 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.
