"Out of Africa" theory crushed? Meet the Petrolona man

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Usually has a religious connotation tinged with whit supremacy.... well or white supremacy tinged with Christianity..


.. part of It is usually the whole “Adam was perfect and we have gotten worse since then” which is the opposite of science.

Plus you have all the additional myths around the creation of the different races..

They all want to be a descendent of the right one of Noah’s sons... all the Shem and hamm stuff..

People here are bizarre
White supremacy? Really

You think we come from apes and you are talking about people coming from apes and you are talking white supremacy, how do you figure that
How do you even conceive such insanity

White supremacists are upset we came from African apes not Greek apes, really
How do you figure that in reality, in a real world

More than likely the first man was Chinese

a reply to: LightYearsAgo

Those two are obsessed with Nazis they see them everywhere.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Out of Africa theory is fixated primarily on modern humans going back to 50k years ago, while the morphology of this skull strongly suggests 250k years in age. We are talking about pre Neanderthal vs sapiens, two different species in two different eras.

How did this become a religious debate?

How did an apes skull become a racism, white supremacy issue
This place is going downtown the toilet

a reply to: LSU2018

The vast majority of evidence supports the OOA theory. It seems like the only evidence that supports anything else is kind of sketchy at best. The fact that the people that support these alternative theories, while ignoring thousands of other peer reviewed sources, pretty much always say (as evidenced in this thread,) "There's no way humans originally came from Africa," without really explaining why kind of makes their motives for supporting these other theories suspect.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Why is it that people that question OOA theory always have to preface their comments with, "There's no way humans could have come out of Africa?" Just looking at physical features versus environment, sub-Saharan Africa seems like the ideal location to support a species of bipedal ape with less hair.

So what reason do all of these people have that makes them think it's impossible for hominids to originate in Africa?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why is it that people that question OOA theory always have to preface their comments with, "There's no way humans could have come out of Africa?" Just looking at physical features versus environment, sub-Saharan Africa seems like the ideal location to support a species of bipedal ape with less hair.

So what reason do all of these people have that makes them think it's impossible for hominids to originate in Africa?

How would I know, I believe in creation

What I can’t fathom is how this is even remotely related to white supremacy
Next someone will tell me the skull was from a male transgender hominid whom wanted to be addressed as Ms

No, it does not negate the "Out of Africa" theory at all. The "Out of Africa" theory shows, conclusively, that ALL of us--every last one--is descended from Mitochondrial Eve, who lived in Africa. That's not to say that there were not prior migrations, just that we're not related to them. They died off. The Sahara Desert has been called the "Great Pump" because it goes through repeated cycles of green vs desert over and over again. Every time it is green, it sucks in Homo sapiens and others, who travel and settle there. Every time it returns to desert, those populations leave, north as well as south, so yet another wave of humanity gets pushed out of Africa to roam about Europe and Asia. The earlier migrations did not survive. The progenitors of Eve did, thus "Out of Africa" still works EVEN IF this skull it totally legit, which is FAR from proven.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Out of Africa theory is fixated primarily on modern humans going back to 50k years ago, while the morphology of this skull strongly suggests 250k years in age. We are talking about pre Neanderthal vs sapiens, two different species in two different eras.

How did this become a religious debate?

The troll on post #4

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Fact of the matter is, nobody really knows because nobody is certain and neither is carbon dating. That skull could be 1,000 years old or 5,000,000 years old. None of the theories are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Fact of the matter is, nobody really knows because nobody is certain and neither is carbon dating. That skull could be 1,000 years old or 5,000,000 years old. None of the theories are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

There's always room for doubts when people don't know the facts. Or refuse to accept them.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Fact of the matter is, nobody really knows because nobody is certain and neither is carbon dating. That skull could be 1,000 years old or 5,000,000 years old. None of the theories are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

There's always room for doubts when people don't know the facts. Or refuse to accept them.

Or if the methods used aren't accurately tested. Unless you have a time machine to accurately test your method then the method isn't proven.

a reply to: LightYearsAgo

Most of the American conspiracy theories , especially involving those concerning creation , usually have a Christian origin..

Someone trying to make the point Africans are descended from hamm and Europeans from Shem.. it has been awhile..

Non-Christians later jump on board and remove the theology.

a reply to: LightYearsAgo

The white supremacy is the most obvious part..

The kkk types have been trying to separate out the races or make it where Europeans were “the first”... because Adam was perfect so couldn’t have been African.

a reply to: schuyler

It shows nothing conclusively, nothing is written in stone.

These theories are all outdated and do not even consider the possibility of ghosts in our makings,

Like horizontal gene transfers or transposons.




This means our momma in Africa might be a cold, or a mosquito bite or a parasitic infection... Or maybe it was the shrooms.. They did not look good.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: LightYearsAgo

easy its called european exceptionalism

Europeans believed at one time they were the height of civilisation
and considered all others savage
specifically African tribes , and others indigenous peoples they discovered on their travels

stating that civilisation started from Africa which we know already
but stating that homo sapiens came from Africa in the hands of white supremacists this upsets them because their ancestors would have undoubtedly been dark skinned
if all human life came from Africa

but from a origin in the Caucas region , would likely mean they are lighter skinned or "white"

its just purely for supremacists to say that Homo sapiens were white first

its pathetic

I don’t care where my European ancestors originated, or if the first humans in Europe were black as coal. Oh, it’s interesting all right — whatever the truth may be — but it isn’t important. It’s what we became and accomplished that matters.

My white ancestors created the greatest civilization that has ever existed: Western Civilization. Virtually everything you enjoy today and take for granted in modern life was created by white men. To list their accomplishments would require an encyclopedia. This Internet, powered by electricity, with which you used a smart phone, tablet or perhaps a PC to send a message to this website, is just a sample of the unparalleled achievements of “Europeids.”

If you’re of European descent, take pride in it. We’ve committed our share of sins, as have all great civilizations and ethnic groups. But we’ve given a lot in return. And almost without exception, immigrants want to move to a white-majority nation. Why is that?

Everyone should be proud of his or her ancestors. It’s even encouraged by the Left — unless you’re white.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I am not pointing at the OP’s author... but they put out these journals that appear scientific, but they are really just planting fodder for the open kkk types to refer to when publishing openly racist stuff..

I’m sure plenty stumble onto the faux scientific artical and were fooled..

a reply to: Scapegrace

“My ancestors created the greatnest civilization in the world!!”


Your ancestors might have dug ditches..



Y’all about fake and ridiculous logic..


“ Western civilization “ a term so broad no scientific person still uses it I bet ..
has only dominated the world for like 200 years..


Before that the mongols would gang up every few hundred years and smack down everyone..


Western civilization got lucky and took the lead during the invention of gunpowder..


The chinese fielded incredibly elaborate armies and fortifications and had vast trade networks..



Europe was just who was standing at the end when the music stopped..

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Scapegrace

“My ancestors created the greatnest civilization in the world!!”
Your ancestors might have dug ditches..
Y’all about fake and ridiculous logic..
“ Western civilization “ a term so broad no scientific person still uses it I bet ..
has only dominated the world for like 200 years..
Before that the mongols would gang up every few hundred years and smack down everyone..
Western civilization got lucky and took the lead during the invention of gunpowder..
The chinese fielded incredibly elaborate armies and fortifications and had vast trade networks..
Europe was just who was standing at the end when the music stopped..

That’s so ignorant it is embarrassing

China took the lead in gunpowder, obviously.
The West a word still well used as it still distinguishes from third world and developing, did you not attend school?

The reformation brought education, medicine, and the industrial revolution. It’s so sad you are so ignorant you don’t know what you have today because of education and health.

Antibiotics save lives, millions of lives, probably even yours, already
You are unable to appreciate what you have been gifted


The Mongols, really, empires rise and fall, the Mongols were just another empire rising and falling.

The West, what we have now is unmatched by any empire ever and you dismiss it to mongols, crazy dribble
If the West is so bad, why does everyone want to live in the West

The owner of that skull was no more modern human than an autistic kid with downs syndrome and the elephant man disease at the same time. Look at the his forehead, he doesn't have one.

The european tribes north of the Mediterranian coastal areas would've never been more than the white version of African tribes who were also pagans running around in animal skins and paint. The only difference is that Rome conquered and occupied the pale skinned ones and they rubbed off on their cultures and societies over hundreds of years of rule.

That and the percentage of part neanderthal the ethnic locals are increases the further north you go.

Same with the east asians except it's Denisovan vs Neanderthal, thus the slanted eyes. Whites get the hairy cave man features of Neanderthal and asians get the shortness and slanted eyes of Denisovans. Blacks don't have either because they never left Africa. West asians and middle easterns are caucasian and have Neanderthal.

An early migration of black africans went through India into Southern Asia and Australia before Australia became an island then got stuck there. Thats why aboriginies are black skinned and wide, flat noses. They don't have any non-homo dna either.

Neanderthals were really fallen angels and whats called the sons of seth in the bible. They were aliens and whites have superior dna from them. That's why they conquered the world.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: paraphi

Of course the age of the skull is controversial. Tests in the 1980's showed it to be much younger - say 160,000 to 240,000 years old. The original view that the skull was 700,000 years old was based on where it was found in the cases, and it is plausible that it ended up where it did to to geological or environmental issues e.g. being washed there.

Even then other fossils found in the same layer belong to species that existed ~350 ka. I really have no idea how Poulianos came up with 700 ka.
I also have to wonder why the OP is so dead set on wanting Out of Africa to be incorrect.

Why are you so dead set on him being wrong?