Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum

Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Info / News Items / Announcements => Topic started by: goodsamaritan on August 04, 2014, 07:01:33 pm

Title: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 04, 2014, 07:01:33 pm
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SQ9ECzIEXKA/U2UNo7J0ROI/AAAAAAAABT0/eFnfpB9NVGk/s1600/Russian+Geneticists+Disprove+Out+of+Africa+Claim.jpg)

Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.

 Australian historian Greg Jefferys explains that, "The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990?s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still hold on to it."
 
It did begin the early 90’s. And the academics most responsible for cementing both the Out-of Africa theory and the complementary common ancestral African mother – given the name of “Eve” – in the public arena and nearly every curriculum, were Professors Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann.
 
In their defense, the authors of this paper were fully aware that genealogy is not in any way linked to geography, and that their placement of Eve in Africa was an assumption, never an assertion.
 
A very recent paper on Y-chromosomes published in 2012, (Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) only confirms the denial of any African ancestry in non-Africans, and strongly supports the existence of a “common ancestor” who “would not necessarily be in Africa. In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa.”

Central to results of this extensive examination of haplogroups (7,556) was the absence of any African genes. So lacking was the sampling of African genetic involvement, the researchers stated in their introduction that, “the finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid, as well as all non-African groups do not carry either SNI’s M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262”.

 With the haplogroups not present in any African genes and an absence of dozens of African genetic markers, it is very difficult nigh on impossible to sustain any link to Africa. The researchers are adamant that their extensive study “offers evidence to re-examine the validity of the Out-of-Africa concept”.
 
They see no genetic proof substantiating an African precedence in the Homo sapien tree, and maintain that “a more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork”.
 
We regard the claim of “a more plausible explanation” as a gross understatement, since there is absolutely nothing plausibly African turning up in any test tubes. In fact, the researchers made note of their repeated absence stating “not one non-African participant out of more than 400 individuals in the Project tested positive to any of thirteen ‘African’ sub-clades of haplogroup A”. The only remaining uncertainty relates to the identity of this “more ancient common ancestor”. All that can be stated with confidence is that humanity’s ancestor did not reside in Africa.
 
Unfounded accusations of racism have become common as the prevailing Afrocentric hypothesis is constantly being challenged by the growing mountain of conflicting scientific evidence, especially in the evolving field of genetics.

It is now scientifically irrefutable fact that the "human species" has been found to contain a substantial quantity of DNA (at least 20%) from other hominid populations not classified as Homo sapien; such as Neanderthal, Denisovan, African archaic, Homo erectus, and now possibly even "Hobbit" (Homo floresiensis).
 
If not given drugs to prevent infant death, the pregnant body of a rhesus negative mother will attack, try to reject, and even kill her own offspring if it is by a rhesus positive man.
 
The Domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a sub-species of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), and they  produce hybrids.
 
There are numerous other examples of where two separate species (for example with different numbers of chromosomes) can also produce viable offspring, yet are considered separate species. That said, humanity has been shown to be, genetically speaking, a hybrid species that did not all share the same hunter-gatherer ancestry in Africa.
 
Recent sequencing of ancient genomes suggests that interbreeding went on between the members of several ancient human-like groups more than 30,000 years ago, including an as-yet unknown human ancestor. "there were many hominid populations,” says Mark Thomas, evolutionary geneticist at University College London.
 
Recent genetic studies are touting shocking headlines about how ancient humans 'rampantly interbred' and indulged in inter-species interracial sex with multiple mystery sub-races in a "Lord Of The Rings"-style world of different creatures, including mystery DNA - neither human nor Neanderthal, not yet identified.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2oRAQ3YWrWs/U2-WQa1z9yI/AAAAAAAABe4/2C9TqHhk_zQ/s1600/african-dna2.jpg)

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZpdND33Y-WY/U2UPM6kWWJI/AAAAAAAABUM/djjPTRpmHyE/s1600/cromag3.jpg)

http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/05/out-of-africa-theory-officially-debunked.html (http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/05/out-of-africa-theory-officially-debunked.html)

http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/05/russian-geneticists-disprove-out-of.html (http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/05/russian-geneticists-disprove-out-of.html)

Question: Can someone please explain how this "haplo groups" thing works and how I as a lay man can understand this geneticist giberish?
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 04, 2014, 07:07:38 pm
Interesting comments:

-------

See http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ (http://erectuswalksamongst.us/) for the Out of Eurasia Theory

-------

All you have to do is go to a major American (or whatever, but I'm not sure the Louvre wastes floor space on Africa) Art Museum, as I did today and look at the early art from Europe and from Africa. The contrast is beyond striking. It can't be that everyone in Africa was always oppressed.

-------

I think the researchers of this article is searching for the origins of mankind here on this Earth, hoping to discover our origins condescending from ape.
They need to take it one step further and consider off World origins.

Remember, we do have DNA in our body that doesn't correspond with the rest of our DNA.
They call it, "Junk DNA."

I say, Alien perhaps?

Namaste.

---------

A well written and balanced article... I guess it will be a while yet before mainstream science catches up with the esoteric traditions that have been handed down through the ages. Interestingly Edgar Cayce the 'sleeping prophet' stated at the very beginning of the 20th century that all five human 'root races' appeared simultaneously on Earth on the five continents by the genetic manipulation of existing primate species on those continents. I know that's not 'science' but the latest genetic research is tending to support Cayce's explanation for the arising of humanity on Earth

----------

I have always felt the ancient theory of Z. Sitchin very well could be correct I deeply feel we was genetically altered by a visiting race and that we are a sub-human species....this becomes obvious when you break down the way we only live avg 74-75 yrs...our fingers appear to have webbing,no hair on our bodies that would really protect us like a native horse who is born and is up walking and eating on its on within mninutes after birth...because it is supposed to be here we are not...if we was when we was born we would pop out run down a rabbit or bird or fish and be able to kill it and eat it....and also we be born better equipped to live here with larger muscles and our vision,our spines are not exactly right even the gait when we walk isn't correct...I think we was a slave created race and wehn they was finished they left us...the bible said people like Noah and so many others lived to be around a 1000yrs and I think they was true humans.....this is why there is no missing link found because it might not be on this planet.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: Iguana on August 04, 2014, 07:32:10 pm
Here is the original paper of your first post:
http://file.scirp.org/Html/19566.html (http://file.scirp.org/Html/19566.html)
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566#.U99ttkiMU7A (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566#.U99ttkiMU7A)
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: TylerDurden on August 04, 2014, 09:49:28 pm
The notion that we have alien DNA is all ridiculous and unscientific. It is self-evidently an attempt to replace  belief in God. As G K Chesterton once said:- "When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything."  Personally, I consider the notion of star-travelling aliens to be hopelessly naive. No truly advanced aliens would likely care about some primitive apemen and would not even notice them. Plus, I seriously doubt that organic species could ever travel at FTL speeds. Only AIs might be able to do so.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: eveheart on August 04, 2014, 09:59:56 pm
Question: Can someone please explain how this "haplo groups" thing works and how I as a lay man can understand this geneticist giberish?

Basically, haplogroup is the Holy Grail of geneticists' gibberish. Consider this opening paragraph from a Wikipedia article:

Quote
Haplogroup
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In molecular evolution, a haplogroup (from the Greek: haploûs, "onefold, single, simple") is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor having the same single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation in all haplotypes. Because a haplogroup consists of similar haplotypes, it is possible to predict a haplogroup from haplotypes. An SNP test confirms a haplogroup. Haplogroups are assigned letters of the alphabet, and refinements consist of additional number and letter combinations, for example R1b1. Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups have different haplogroup designations.

Old-school scientific definitions of race were based on that three-race system, Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid. (There was also some sort of limbo for people who were clearly not one of the prescribed races.) Each race was assigned its own hair, nose, complexion, and eyelid fold. With genome mapping and other current knowledge, former definitions of race became meaningless. I think haplogroups have everything to do with replacing race with a concept that is genetically defensible.

The basic idea is that groups of people that live and reproduce together share minor genetic modifications from other groups, and modifications show up over time at a consistent rate, so once could backtrack to see where one group moved away from another group, as would happen when people migrated around the world. What's being tracked presupposes that everybody started out from one common ancestral group, which suggests that haplogroups only have meaning in an Out-of-Africa paradigm.

My sister paid for all of us to get our haplogroup map. My results were no surprise: I'm from an ethnic group that originated in neolithic times in a part of Asia, and the line of migration of "my" haplogroup follows the same path that I could find in any cultural history book.

One limitation of haplogroups is that it uses maternal mitochondrial DNA based on an African Mitrochondrial Eve. By excluding non-African Mitochondrial Eves, haplogroups ignore a vast component of human genetic make-up.

It is very difficult to incorporate the idea of alien ancestors by using genetic science because there is no alien genome map to use for reference. I know you're all hot for the idea of alien ancestry, GS, but I don't think you'll find the evidence your looking for in the human genome. 
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 04, 2014, 10:45:00 pm
Thanks Eve.  The pro alien comments there were not mine.  I just copied all the interesting comments from the web page where I got this topic.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: nummi on August 04, 2014, 10:57:23 pm
The notion that we have alien DNA is all ridiculous and unscientific.
It is not ridiculous and not unscientific. It is absolutely possible and extremely likely. But if you are in denial, due to whatever reason, then of course you won't accept it.

Quote
It is self-evidently an attempt to replace  belief in God.
Are you joking?
This has nothing to do with religions or beliefs.

Quote
As G K Chesterton once said:- "When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything."
Now this is ridiculous and absolute nonsense. Aren't comments given by you supposed to be your comments, not someone else's? Are you speaking for yourself or someone else? How about instead of quoting some other people you actually try to exert your own mind toward finding a realistic and likely scenario? Just takes some objective thinking, just whether it is possible or not, likely or not, and approximately how likely.

Quote
  Personally, I consider the notion of star-travelling aliens to be hopelessly naive.
Naive? It's proved fact. Evidence is all over this planet.
If you are still in denial then you are naive.
Face reality and the likeliest possibilities and scenarios, and stop putting forth such naive nonsense, okay?

Star-traveling aliens exist. Period. There's no debate, no discussion here. This is absolute fact.
Our universe is probably trillions of years old. There have been found planets and stars that are even 30 billion years old in comparison to our planet of about 13 billion years. Now imagine intelligent life rose on a planet there, that would've been billions of years ago. Now imagine how far advanced those alien species would be now. And this is just one example from hundreds of billions of galaxies, hundreds to thousands of billions of planets per galaxy. Do the math, and stop denying what's right in front of you.

If you don't know for certain but it definitely is possible then do not say it is not possible.

Quote
No truly advanced aliens would likely care about some primitive apemen and would not even notice them. Plus, I seriously doubt that organic species could ever travel at FTL speeds. Only AIs might be able to do so.
Obviously they did. After all, here we are, without making sense from a natural perspective of how we got to our present state so fast.
The gold mined for thousands of years on this planet, and no doubt other elements also, where is the gold?

Of course could travel at those speeds. That we don't have, in the public, any knowledge of how to do it or that it cannot be done, doesn't mean it cannot be done.
By saying "no, can't be done" without having any objective evidence to support it, you are putting a block to many possibilities in your own mind. You are suppressing your own freedom of thought.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: Cristaraw on August 05, 2014, 12:16:50 am
The study doesn't conclude that Humans are not members of the same species. The study says that they believe that the original Homo Sapiens came from Central Europe / Levant and parts of Russia because more anatomically correct modern human skeletons are found there than they are in Africa.

Also, 30 years of evidence and peer reviewed studies cannot be "debunked" by one study alone. It's an interesting theory, but, it needs more evidence before it displaces the currently accepted OOA theory.

(P.S "Erectus walks amongst us" is a well know white supremacist site, written by one. Linked to by god knows how many WS sites. It uses pseudo science as "references" and some of the references aren't even references at all... Just lines of text written by the author himself.)
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: Iguana on August 05, 2014, 12:26:26 am
Thanks! That's why I gave the link to the original paper, which appears at least to be serious, on the contrary to those other dubious websites.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: TylerDurden on August 05, 2014, 01:47:47 am
Well, we are entering a decadent age, so I guess some people will always be insane enough to want godlike aliens to replace a previous  religious belief.  One would normally expect at least a tiny piece of genuine evidence to be displayed to show that these  mysterious space-travelling aliens exist, but so far that has not been provided.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: Iguana on August 05, 2014, 03:27:10 am
There are plenty UFO’s sightings and physical traces which can hardly be explained by a terrestrial origin. The most likely hypothesis is they are of one or several intelligent extra-terrestrial source(s). Of course, if you don’t search for info on this matter — because of your preconceived idea that no intelligent being could ever have come here from other solar systems, than you won’t know about it.

I’m not speaking about insane theories about reptilians, illuminati,  ET’s hybridizing and/or genetic engineering of us humans by ET’s, but about serious scientific research and reports such as that of J.Allen Hynek and other astronomers, scientists or airlines captains. Even the official US Condon report of 1968, which was apparently mandated to show that all UFOs are natural phenomenon, did not really conclude that way and had to admit that some cases couldn’t be explained by any known phenomenon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Committee)

Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek#UFO_origin_hypotheses
  Dr. Josef Allen Hynek (May 1, 1910 – April 27, 1986) was a United States astronomer, professor, and ufologist.[1] He is perhaps best remembered for his UFO research. Hynek acted as scientific adviser to UFO studies undertaken by the U.S. Air Force under three consecutive projects:

    Project Sign (1947–1949),
    Project Grudge (1949–1952), and
    Project Blue Book (1952 to 1969).

For decades afterwards, he conducted his own independent UFO research, developing the Close Encounter classification system, and is widely considered the father of the concept of scientific analysis of both reports and, especially, trace evidence purportedly left by UFOs.[2] 
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 05, 2014, 07:08:50 am
Question: Can someone please explain how this "haplo groups" thing works and how I as a lay man can understand this geneticist giberish?
Haplogroups (male/patrilineal and female/matrilineal) are just collections of similar haplotypes (and haplotypes are collections of specific genetic variations) that share a common ancestor, organized so as to be able to study human genetics and ancestral "family trees." In other words, it's a convention that is intended to make the work of science easier.

What's being tracked presupposes that everybody started out from one common ancestral group, which suggests that haplogroups only have meaning in an Out-of-Africa paradigm.
Why wouldn't haplogroups also be useful organizational tools in the multiregional model? If Europeans have Neanderthal ancestors, as most scientists currently hypothesize, then why couldn't we use haplogroups to organize Neanderthal genetic trees the way we do with non-Neanderthal lineages (if enough evidence is accumulated)?

If 80% or so of European DNA is supposed to be Neanderthal, as Tyler hinted it might be, then wouldn't that just mean that most of the European haplogroups have Neanderthal origin instead of H. sapiens sapiens?
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 05, 2014, 07:31:50 am
One would normally expect at least a tiny piece of genuine evidence to be displayed to show that these  mysterious space-travelling aliens exist, but so far that has not been provided.

You just consciously choose not to see the tons of evidence of aliens. 
I like you once chose not to see because I was too busy. 
But when I did find the time and chose to investigate alien evidence, I saw that I was late for the party that has been going on for many decades.
This is why I created my thread at http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/what-if-human-origins-from-sumerians-annunaki-and-nibiru-view-movie/ (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/what-if-human-origins-from-sumerians-annunaki-and-nibiru-view-movie/)

What I did find out from the pro-alien camps is that they use GENETICS such as these studies to prove their point.
And they are smiling wider and wider each year as progress in GENETICS catches up with ancient texts.

You genetics buffs here might be able to make sense of this video:

The RH Negative Blood Type: Geneticist Letter to Lloyd Pye (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ1TTBB4vuw#ws)

The RH Negative Blood Type: Geneticist Letter to Lloyd Pye
A geneticist letter to Lloyd Pye mentions that he should research about the genes of the Rhesus factor.

Lloyd Pye - Ancient Genetic Engineering (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzuLlDEB2sg#)

Humans have too many genetic defects.
He is talking genetic giberish.
Can you translate?
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: eveheart on August 05, 2014, 08:19:36 am
Why wouldn't haplogroups also be useful organizational tools in the multiregional model? If Europeans have Neanderthal ancestors, as most scientists currently hypothesize, then why couldn't we use haplogroups to organize Neanderthal genetic trees the way we do with non-Neanderthal lineages (if enough evidence is accumulated)?

Haplogroups would be useful organizational tools in a multiregional model, but.... the commonly accepted alphanumeric haplogroup nomenclature is designed for the Out-of-Africa migration maps. Personally, I don't know what this would entail, but I imagine that it would be exponentially more complex to have a more realistic model with multiple points of human origin. As it stands now, the evaluation of haplogroups is strongly supportive of migration from a single original point.

Link to a haplogroup map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup#mediaviewer/File:World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup#mediaviewer/File:World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png)
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 05, 2014, 08:22:16 am
Even the Chinese geneticists agree with the Russians in the Multi-Regional hypothesis

Out of Africa' Debunked. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL1USVvPdow#)
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: nummi on August 05, 2014, 08:43:32 am
Well, we are entering a decadent age, so I guess some people will always be insane enough to want godlike aliens to replace a previous  religious belief.  One would normally expect at least a tiny piece of genuine evidence to be displayed to show that these  mysterious space-travelling aliens exist, but so far that has not been provided.
The "elite", illuminati, however to call them. They do not want people to know about those aliens. And so they do not let the knowledge into the public, they also don't let "scientists" and people in general do your so-called "scientific" studying and experimenting and whatnot. They are suppressing truth and ways of finding out truth, have been for centuries. The same "illuminati" designed the scientific method you are valuing so highly, it is with severe flaws and built on a foundation of lies and omission. So even if something was actually seen and was obvious then your precious "science" would not support it, because it is literally designed not to.
That's why there is no "evidence" you are referring to.

But if you throw aside this "science" then you'll notice there is so much evidence, even objective thinking alone provides a lot.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 05, 2014, 10:34:00 am
I personally think I am following science as I understand it from my engineering college.

True science leads to engineering... where you can get predictable successful results with whatever your goals are.

Since I've been healing people... I look at healing more like engineering and less art.

The disagreement with what is scientific can be muddled by "belief" systems...
... I tend to accept whatever evidence comes up
... and change pet theories depending on what evidence comes up.
... never get locked into a belief system.

Too many "scientists" have this "belief" that ancient texts such as bible books and sumerian tablets have no scientific value.  Big mistake.  These texts actually point you in directions which may lead to faster analysis.  I'm reading Genesis right now and LOL it reverberates with human genetic engineering... gold... and many gods... and angels...

Getting human origins right is super important.
Witness these new dna tests like this woman explains hers:
http://youtu.be/TOaVdBIIEgo (http://youtu.be/TOaVdBIIEgo)
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked - Denisovan genome sequenced
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 05, 2014, 11:44:51 am
Denisova - Melanesians and Australoids Ancestor
Denisova - Melanesians and Australoids Ancestor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9HfV3J74JI#ws)
Published on Nov 6, 2013

This is a documentary dedicated to our melanesian brothers telling about Homo Denisova, an Homo Ancestor we can only find in their genes. Melanesians and Australoids own up to 6% of his DNA and up to 40% of his HLA. Further studies have been made since this documentary was released:

"Comparing the genomes of the Denisovan and modern humans from around the world allows the identification of DNA segments particular to the Denisovans, and to modern humans. Thus the Denisovan individual probably had dark hair, eyes and skin. Amongst a number of novel mutations in modern humans, 8 are associated with brain function and nervous system development, and 34 with diseases, including 4 affecting the skin and 6 affecting the eye."
Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

More info on http://www.facebook.com/Negroscopy (http://www.facebook.com/Negroscopy)


Scientists Discover New Race of Human Beings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co62imB4Xvk#)

Uploaded on Dec 23, 2010

UPDATE: Researchers have now been able to sequence the entire Denisova genome http://phys.org/news/2012-02-entire-genome-extinct-human-decoded.html (http://phys.org/news/2012-02-entire-genome-extinct-human-decoded.html)

Professor Chris Stringer: "It's nothing short of sensational - we didn't know know how ancient people in China related to these other humans"

Scientists say an entirely separate type of human identified from bones in Siberia co-existed and interbred with our own species.

The ancient humans have been dubbed "Denisovans" after the caves in Siberia where their remains were found.

There is also evidence that this population was widespread in Eurasia.

A study in Nature journal shows that Denisovans co-existed with Neanderthals and interbred with our species - perhaps around 50,000 years ago.

An international group of researchers sequenced a complete genome from one of the ancient hominins (human-like creatures), based on nuclear DNA extracted from a finger bone.

According to the researchers, this provides confirmation there were at least four distinct types of human in existence when anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) first left their African homeland.

Along with modern humans, scientists knew about the Neanderthals and a dwarf human species found on the Indonesian island of Flores nicknamed "The Hobbit". To this list, experts must now add the Denisovans.

The implications of the finding have been described by Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London as "nothing short of sensational".

Scientists were able to analyse DNA from a tooth and from a finger bone excavated in the Denisova cave in southern Siberia. The individuals belong to a genetically distinct group of humans that were distantly related to Neanderthals but even more distantly related to us.

The finding adds weight to the theory that a different kind of human could have existed in Eurasia at the same time as our species.

Researchers have had enigmatic fossil evidence to support this view but now they have some firm evidence from the genetic study carried out by Professor Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany.

"A species of early human living in Europe evolved," according to Professor Paabo.

"There was a western form that was the Neanderthal and an eastern form, the Denisovans."

The study shows that Denisovans interbred with the ancestors of the present day people of the Melanesian region north and north-east of Australia. Melanesian DNA comprises between 4% and 6% Denisovan DNA.

David Reich from the Harvard Medical School, who worked with Svante Paabo on the study, says that the fact that Denisovan genes ended up so far south suggests they were widespread across Eurasia: "These populations must have been spread across thousands and thousands of miles," he told BBC News.

One mystery is why the Denisovan genes are unique in modern Melanesians and are not found in other Eurasian groups that have so far been sampled.

'Fleeting encounter'

Professor Stringer believes it is because there may have been only a fleeting encounter as modern humans migrated through South-East Asia and then on to Melanesia.

No one knows when or how these humans disappeared but, according to Professor Paabo, it is very likely something to do with modern people because all the "archaic" humans, like Denisovans and Neanderthals disappeared sometime after Homo sapiens sapiens appeared on the scene.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: Iguana on August 05, 2014, 02:03:39 pm
That's why there is no "evidence" you are referring to.
But if you throw aside this "science" then you'll notice there is so much evidence, even objective thinking alone provides a lot.

There’s plenty of rational scientific evidence available. You don’t want to see it and you believe in all kind of harebrained conspiracy theories.

Or you are yourself an alien mandated by your pairs to discredit the fact that they are here, because they don't want us to really know it in an indisputable way.  ;D
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: TylerDurden on August 05, 2014, 03:10:22 pm
There have been several conclusive UFO studies/projects done and they all show that no aliens exist. All that one can state is that a very small percentage of the sights they checked could not be attributed to a manmade or nature-made phenomenon. That in turn does NOT imply alien origin, merely that the scientists could not explain them right now, that's all.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 05, 2014, 03:31:31 pm
Tyler, what form of evidence is convincing to you, personally?
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: nummi on August 05, 2014, 03:40:23 pm
There’s plenty of rational scientific evidence available. You don’t want to see it and you believe in all kind of harebrained conspiracy theories.

Or you are yourself an alien mandated by your pairs to discredit the fact that they are here, because they don't want us to really know it in an indisputable way.  ;D
I never said they aren't out there, in fact I've said the opposite, that they are out there, and it is very likely they even are here on this planet right now.

I suppose what I meant under "science" would have done better with more detailed elaboration... This mainstream "science" is designed in a way that many many possibilities and occurrences are not explainable by it, some aspects of reality this "science" simply ignores but if someone looked at them then could even with this faulty one explain to some extent at least. And thus many of these "out of this world" things are labeled as fantasy and impossible "by default" (for example for a long time this same science has said FTL speeds are not possible), either by not even looking at it because the default directions of science don't look that way, or by denying by purposeful design what is right in front of people. This at least was the original intent of "illuminati" created science, all so people would not find out about true reality via purposefully designed false way of looking at things. Though the designed "science" is gradually coming out of the closet, so to speak, so more and more of the previously claimed "impossible" is being explained even by this "science".
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: nummi on August 05, 2014, 03:51:01 pm
There have been several conclusive UFO studies/projects done and they all show that no aliens exist. All that one can state is that a very small percentage of the sights they checked could not be attributed to a manmade or nature-made phenomenon. That in turn does NOT imply alien origin, merely that the scientists could not explain them right now, that's all.
Can not explain right now? Refer to what I've said about science here. Also, since you say they cannot explain at the moment then scientists shouldn't take an "absolute" stance about anything, yet they do.

You're saying they cannot explain it right now, which suggests they do not know. But they say it wasn't so, it cannot be so, that it is not possible, is not a possibility. That's lying right in our face. It can be, it is possible, it is a possibility, and if you lift the veil of designed forced stance of opposition and denial from yourself then you will come to see it actually has been and is.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: Iguana on August 05, 2014, 06:02:12 pm
There have been several conclusive UFO studies/projects done and they all show that no aliens exist.
?? I’m not aware of any studies/projects concluding that, although as I said, I did read all the serious books I found on that issue. Please let us know which specific studies you talk about. 

Quote
All that one can state is that a very small percentage of the sights they checked could not be attributed to a manmade or nature-made phenomenon. That in turn does NOT imply alien origin, merely that the scientists could not explain them right now, that's all.
It doesn’t necessarily imply an alien origin, but it’s the most likely hypothesis, the most simple and the one best explaining the facts . What other hypothesis would you suggest for confirmed sights, radar records and physical traces that “could not be attributed to a manmade or nature-made phenomenon”? If it’s not natural and not man-made, then under what new category would you classify it? How would you name this new category?

I never said they aren't out there, in fact I've said the opposite, that they are out there, and it is very likely they even are here on this planet right now.
Ok, at least we cant exclude that possibility. It’s even very likely, I agree with that.

Quote
I suppose what I meant under "science" would have done better with more detailed elaboration... This mainstream "science" is designed in a way that many many possibilities and occurrences are not explainable by it, some aspects of reality this "science" simply ignores but if someone looked at them then could even with this faulty one explain to some extent at least. …
You plainly confuse science with scientism!

Can not explain right now? Refer to what I've said about science here. Also, since you say they cannot explain at the moment then scientists shouldn't take an "absolute" stance about anything, yet they do.
A genuine scientist would never take an absolute stance about anything, but most so called “scientists” stick to preconceptions until their death. Such an attitude is contrary to the scientific method and the very purpose of science. Still, many sincere scientists who have seriously studied the UFO phenomenon admit that at least some facts could best be explained with the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

Quote
You're saying they cannot explain it right now, which suggests they do not know. But they say it wasn't so, it cannot be so, that it is not possible, is not a possibility.
The ones who say so aren’t scientists. Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science  by William Broad and Nicholas Wade is a must read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth)

Note: we are off topic. What about splitting it? I Think there's already a thread about UFOs.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 05, 2014, 09:26:25 pm
can you do it? split off the alien talks here and merge it with the aliens thread?
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: Iguana on August 05, 2014, 10:37:35 pm
Sorry, I can't since I'm no longer global moderator!
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: TylerDurden on August 05, 2014, 11:46:08 pm
Tyler, what form of evidence is convincing to you, personally?
An alien spaceship hovering near a large human city with lots of reliable media reports and photos etc.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: TylerDurden on August 05, 2014, 11:51:39 pm
?? I’m not aware of any studies/projects concluding that, although as I said, I did read all the serious books I found on that issue. Please let us know which specific studies you talk about. 
It doesn’t necessarily imply an alien origin, but it’s the most likely hypothesis, the most simple and the one best explaining the facts . What other hypothesis would you suggest for confirmed sights, radar records and physical traces that “could not be attributed to a manmade or nature-made phenomenon”? If it’s not natural and not man-made, then under what new category would you classify it? How would you name this new category?

  I cannot recall the titles of those studies. Just that  there was one British one and one American one, both airforce-based.

And, no, the alien hypothesis is not the simplest  of conclusions, it is the most difficult one to come up  with, and the most unlikely.  The small number of genuinely unexplained ones will inevitably fall into a category of those natural or manmade  events that current science or current observation cannot explain. Logically, one can assume that, given a few more decades of scientific advancement, the percentage chance of real unexplained events occurring will be much smaller as improved technology etc. will better explain formerly unexplainable circumstances.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: nummi on August 05, 2014, 11:56:25 pm
You plainly confuse science with scientism!
Truth is I don't even know what scientism is, other than it's regarded as something similar to religions... Can't confuse something with something I don't even know what it is.

Learning about this and much else, I've got it sort of planned, mid august mind first into all kinds of stuff, without a deadline (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net) as it has a lot of information). Until then some diet and lifestyle corrections. Some later time, don't know when, when I've more or less exhausted that site and possibly some others, I'll probably start looking toward books.

As scientists determine what science really is then this means they can correct it. And they are correcting it, though it takes effort to get rid of preconceptions and biases and lies already prevalent. Slow progress. Eventually they should get to a point where "science" has to be rewritten down to the very foundation, as already some, if not all, founding principles are false (in the regard how people are taught science and how because of that they easily become to see the world). I remember what and how science was taught in school, a bit in university also, it's just messed up nonsense to an extensive degree, omits so much relevant, focuses on what isn't relevant, etc. All to form biases into people, to keep them from seeing the world as it actually is.

There probably is a thread about UFOs, but the problem with these kinds of topics is that they are all interconnected. It's hard to stay in one topic if something relevant to it pops up from another.
Also, if someone is ignoring the obvious or has a different understanding of something or is lacking some relevant information then it always tends to divert to "what is evidence" and "what is science" or similar, and onward from there. It's the "why can't you understand?"
The more I argue the more I realize how pointless arguing is. Best to do research, look at possibilities and impossibilities and not ignore anything relevant, and figure out myself. More or less...
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: Iguana on August 06, 2014, 05:38:09 am
  I cannot recall the titles of those studies. Just that th there was one British one and one American one, both airforce-based.
Looks like you are badly informed and that you don’t even seek infos because you didn’t have a look at the links I provided. There were at least 3 US Air Force reports, which are listed in the Wikipedia page about J. Allen Hynek that I provided the link for.  There is also the US official Condon Committee report I mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Committee. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Committee.) And then there is the French COMETA report http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_cometareport01.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_cometareport01.htm)

Quote
Originally published in France in 1999, the Cometa Report (titled UFOs and Defense: What Should We Prepare For?) made a valuable contribution to the subject of UFOs.
The following is extracted from an opening statement contained in the report from French Air Force General Denis Letty and gives valuable background data on Cometa and its findings.

    “The accumulation of well-documented sightings made by credible witnesses forces us to consider from now on all of the hypotheses regarding the origin of unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, and the extraterrestrial hypothesis, in particular.”

The document continues:

    Although no characterized threat has been perceived to date in France, it seemed necessary to the former auditors of the Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nationale (IHEDN) to take stock of the subject. Along with qualified experts from extremely varied backgrounds, they are grouped together to form a private in-depth fact-finding committee, which was christened COMETA. This committee was transformed into a COMETA association, which I chair.

COMETA members included:

            Air Force General Bruno Le Moine, weapons engineer

            General Pierre Bescond

            Chief of Police Denis Blancher

Those who contributed to the study included:

            Edmond Campagnac, former Technical Director of Air France

            Squadron Commander Michel Perrier

            Air Force General Joseph Domage

Among the subjects covered within the report are: the testimony of French pilots who had seen UFOs; close encounters in France; aeronautical cases from around the world; radar-based UFO incidents; and political, religious and scientific implications relating to the UFO mystery.

Quote
And, no, the alien hypothesis is not the simplest conclusions, it is the most difficult one to come up  with, and the most unlikely.

How do you come up with such an strongly affirmative statement which is  just the opposite of mine? What is the most likely hypothesis, according to you? Did you seriously study the matter? Did you even read the first of Hynek books? Any other books or reports? Please, inform yourself before talking about a subject you seem to know very little about! 

Quote
The small number of genuinely unexplained ones will inevitably fall into a category of those natural or manmade events that current science or current observation cannot explain.
Isn’t that statement of yours in total contradiction with your former one below ?
All that one can state is that a very small percentage of the sights they checked could not be attributed to a manmade or nature-made phenomenon.

Quote
Logically, one can assume that, given a few more decades of scientific advancement, the percentage chance of real unexplained events occurring will be much smaller as improved technology etc. will better explain formerly unexplainable circumstances. Logically, one can assume that, given a few more decades of scientific advancement, the percentage chance of real unexplained events occurring will be much smaller as improved technology etc. will better explain formerly unexplainable circumstances.
Hmmh… this could be seen as a good example of scientism for Nummi!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)

Anyway, the UFO sightings that "could not be attributed to a manmade or nature-made phenomenon" can be well explained today by the extraterrestrial hypothesis. What is so odd about it for you? The Earth is very far from being the only object in the universe! Future hypothetical explanations are irrelevant: the scientific method commands to provisionally take a currently available explanation  rather than say that it can’t be explained now but will be in the future.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: Iguana on August 06, 2014, 02:57:46 pm
See this article reporting events which have been documented elsewhere:

Top U.S. airmen to accuse Air Force of cover-up as they claim UFOs have been deactivating nuclear missiles since 1948

By Daniel Bates
Updated: 14:58 GMT, 28 September 2010
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1315479/Aliens-interfered-weapons-UFOs-deactivating-nuclear-missiles.html#ixzz39anblVDi (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1315479/Aliens-interfered-weapons-UFOs-deactivating-nuclear-missiles.html#ixzz39anblVDi)

An interesting reader's comment below the article:

Quote
"The evidence that there are objects which have been seen in our atmosphere, and even on terra firma, that cannot be accounted for either as man-made objects or as any physical force or effect known to our scientists seems to me to be overwhelming... A very large number of sightings have been vouched for by persons whose credentials seem to me unimpeachable. It is striking that so many have been trained observers, such as police officers and airline or military pilots. Their observations have in many instances... been supported either by technical means such as radar or, even more convincingly, by... interference with electrical apparatus of one sort or another..." From the foreword to a book written by British UFO researcher Timothy Good, Above Top Secret, in 1987.

Lord Hill-Norton (GCB), Chief of Defense Staff, Ministry of Defense, Britain; Chairman, Military Committee of NATO; Admiral of the Fleet; Member of House of Lords.



Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: TylerDurden on August 06, 2014, 04:02:26 pm
You are missing the point. For UFOs to exist over here, one has to postulate aliens with a far higher technology level, capable of FTL travel. That assumption requires  not only the existence of life elsewhere, but also the existence of intelligent life, plus the ability to travel at FTL speeds, the curiosity needed to investigate humanity(after all, the logical stance of an alien civilisation towards humanity would be indifference). The "Great Filter" theory  not only explains why advanced aliens are NOT over here but also helpfully  explains why no mass  interstellar communications  have ever  been detected by  SETI etc.
Title: Re: UFOs
Post by: Iguana on August 06, 2014, 05:14:02 pm
Tyler, I gave you the link for this paper of Jean-Pierre Petit, former head of research at the CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), expert on MHD, cosmology and other topics, author of several peer review papers published by reviews such as ‘Physical letters A’:

Interstellar Travel Problem
http://www.jp-petit.org/science/interstellar_travel/interstellar_travel1bis.htm (http://www.jp-petit.org/science/interstellar_travel/interstellar_travel1bis.htm)

The existence of life elsewhere is increasingly considered probable; amino acids have been found on meteorites and we know now there is water on some extra-solar-system planets. That of aliens with a far higher technology level is a logical inference because thinking we are the most advanced species in the whole universe is extremely unlikely and stupidly anthropocentric. If more advanced societies exist in the Galaxy, they would of course have discovered us before we discover them.

A theory can explain “why advanced aliens are NOT over here but also helpfully  explains why no mass  interstellar communications  have ever  been detected by  SETI”, but what is the value of such a theory if aliens are in fact over here and don’t communicate in the way we suppose they would? You even suppose no aliens would “have he curiosity needed to investigate humanity”! It looks like ourselves are extremely interested in investigating hunter-gatherers societies and would be even more curious to investigate extra-terrestrial beings and societies!

Facts prevail on suppositions and unverified theories, so check the facts first and theorize consequently afterwards.

With all due respect, I consider the opinion of high ranking military commanders, astronomers, trained observers such as airline and military pilots, police officers, etc. more valuable than that of someone like you who pronounce a definitive and absolute verdict without having really studied the topic and the reported facts.   
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: TylerDurden on August 06, 2014, 08:03:07 pm
I did not state that mine was a definitive viewpoint, it wasn't. It was simply the most logical viewpoint, that was all.
 Your viewpoint that advanced aliens exist and travel to Earth all the time requires far more proof in order to  have even a slight chance of being seriously considered. For example, ships going at FTL speeds ought to be exhibiting Cerenkov radiation. The Drake equation points out numerous barriers to the notion of aliens and humans ever being able to interact. For example, it points out that civilisations, like species, have a finite lifetime, so, for all we know,  different galactic planets might  only produce  intelligent life once every 100 million years or so before that sentient life ultimately becoming extinct and never leaving their home solar system.
The point is that aliens are by definition alien by nature and would therefore be extremely unlikely to possess the same characteristics as humans re curiosity or whatever.  In terms of resources, any aliens travelling the stars would likely have access  to an infinite amount of resources(see the Drake Equation and things like the Dyson Sphere). for example), so they would not need to be hostile to humans in order to get extra resources, and there would be no need to be friendly either. Indeed, the sheer alienness of the alien would mean they likely would neither understand us or  even ever  want to communicate with us.
Title: Re: UFOs
Post by: Iguana on August 07, 2014, 05:21:07 am
I did not state that mine was a definitive viewpoint, it wasn't. It was simply the most logical viewpoint, that was all.
 Your viewpoint that advanced aliens exist and travel to Earth all the time requires far more proof in order to  have even a slight chance of being seriously considered. For example, ships going at FTL speeds ought to be exhibiting Cerenkov radiation.
For macroscopic objects, even approaching the speed of light is not possible, and that is certainly a law of physics that nothing can change. But there might be other ways to travel over astronomic distances in a reasonably short time, ways that we currently ignore or could only guess, for example in JP Petit cosmological model with twin universe: ours of matter and its twin of anti-matter (an idea originally due to Andreï Sakharov). 
http://www.jp-petit.org/science/f300/a301.htm (http://www.jp-petit.org/science/f300/a301.htm)

Quote
The Drake equation points out numerous barriers to the notion of aliens and humans ever being able to interact. For example, it points out that civilisations, like species, have a finite lifetime, so, for all we know,  different galactic planets might  only produce  intelligent life once every 100 million years or so before that sentient life ultimately becoming extinct and never leaving their home solar system.
The Drake equation, or Green Bank equation, is based on a whole set of conjectures. Anyway, most advanced civilizations possibly or probably destroy their environment and thus self-destroy before being able to travel to other solar systems. This process that some have called “galactic selection” (for example Harrison in “Cosmology, the Science of the Universe” http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/physics/cosmology-relativity-and-gravitation/cosmology-science-universe-2nd-edition (http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/physics/cosmology-relativity-and-gravitation/cosmology-science-universe-2nd-edition)) would ensure that civilizations able to travel in a galaxy are not destructive. Even if the race at their origin goes into extinction as, yes, every living species has a limited lifetime, possibly another race could carry over their technology. Just conjectures again, but who knows?     

Quote
The point is that aliens are by definition alien by nature and would therefore be extremely unlikely to possess the same characteristics as humans re curiosity or whatever.
Yes, and it also means we can’t know their psychology and motives by analogy with ours. Perhaps they are less curious than us… or are perhaps they are more curious! Most intelligent animals are curious, though, and the more intelligent they are, the more curious they appear to be - and it seems to be the same for human individuals!   

Quote
In terms of resources, any aliens travelling the stars would likely have access  to an infinite amount of resources(see the Drake Equation and things like the Dyson Sphere). for example), so they would not need to be hostile to humans in order to get extra resources, and there would be no need to be friendly either. Indeed, the sheer alienness of the alien would mean they likely would neither understand us or  even ever  want to communicate with us.
If they were really hostile, they would probably have destroyed us long ago. They don’t appear to be very friendly either. We can understand the behavior of animals, but animals can’t understand much of ours. So, logically, a more intelligent/advanced race would understand our behavior and motives but we would be unlikely to understand theirs. In fact, it looks like it’s happening exactly this way.

Again , check the reports and facts about UFOs first and go into conjectures, hypothesis and theories afterwards. The irrational opposite method would be like asserting in 1522 that we can’t circumnavigate around the world because it’s flat and thus Magellan expedition is a hoax. 

Interesting discussion, by the way!   
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: sabertooth on August 07, 2014, 11:31:31 am
"The UFO challenges the assumptions of science" Terence Mckenna
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYJqhMAgOcs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYJqhMAgOcs)
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: TylerDurden on August 07, 2014, 03:49:14 pm
Moving to a universe of antimatter from one of matter would blow up any aliens!

So far, it does seem extraordinarily unlikely that FTL travel can ever happen, let alone similiar nonsense such as wormhole travel. This greatly reduces the chance of aliens ever going near us.

The Fermi Paradox has a large number of possibilities, most of which have a much higher chance of being the case than the notion of aliens being among us.
Title: Re: UFOs ("Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked)
Post by: Iguana on August 07, 2014, 04:09:26 pm
Moving to a universe of antimatter from one of matter would blow up any aliens!

Yes.
Title: Re: "Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 10, 2014, 10:19:36 pm
Haplogroups would be useful organizational tools in a multiregional model, but.... the commonly accepted alphanumeric haplogroup nomenclature is designed for the Out-of-Africa migration maps. Personally, I don't know what this would entail, but I imagine that it would be exponentially more complex to have a more realistic model with multiple points of human origin. As it stands now, the evaluation of haplogroups is strongly supportive of migration from a single original point.

Link to a haplogroup map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup#mediaviewer/File:World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup#mediaviewer/File:World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png)
Yes, I'm familiar with the Out-of-Africa Y-DNA-haplogroup tree model. What I meant was, the multiregional proponents could create and support their own tree based on their views, which would be a more complex model, like you indicated. This is a start, though it doesn't have the haplogroups on it:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Multiregionaltheory.svg/300px-Multiregionaltheory.svg.png)

It would be interesting to see the alternative.