Out of Africa vs Out of Asia human evolution models

Interesting new research provides evidence that the out of Africa model is not correct, and that modern humans share a common ancestor originating in southeast Asia. Paper linked below in case anyone is interested to read it.

Out of Africa is based significantly on the theory of “molecular clock” which is the idea that random genetic mutations occur more or less at the same pace in all living species over time. Because modern African people have the most genetic diversity compared to humans of other races and geographies, it is assumed that Africans have been around the longest. However, this is challenged by pointing out that by using the maximum genetic diversity model it makes more sense that a newly evolved species will saturate its genetic content with new mutations and then relatively quickly slow down the rate of new mutations, quite simply because there exists stabilizing selection pressure on the genome to minimize the spread of new mutations in the new organism. The idea is that genetic mutations = random noise, and the level of noise is synonymous more or less not with how long a species has existed in its present form but rather the inverse of this.

It is argued that African people, because they have the highest amount of genetic diversity within their race compared to other races, are actually among the most recently evolved of modern humans because they still have yet to coalesce and stabilize their genome. They still have a relatively high level of mutational difference amongst people of their race, implying that they have not been subject to as long a period of stabilizing selection pressure that would tend over time to reduce random noise (genetic diversity) within the genome of the species.

Another point has to do with neotany, the propensity for species to evolve over time toward extending those phenotypes more resembling the characteristics of infants or youth of the species. This indicates a tendency toward slowing down of the rate of aging which would result naturally from a longer period of stabilizing selection pushing that species more toward K-strategy (slow life) rather than r-strategy (fast life) in terms of life history strategy. It is well known that Africans are more r-selected and Asians are more K-selected, with Europeans being somewhere in the middle. Neotany would also have been selected for (and is still being selected for) in humans because we (especially men, but women do this too) tend to sexually select for features indicating youth as opposed to advanced age. Youth is a secondary indicator of sexual fertility and health when compared to being older, therefore it is natural that we prefer younger as opposed to older mates. The longer a group has been in existence the longer it would have been sexually selecting for whatever traits it happens to preference, resulting in our case as humans in a slow shift toward more neotanous features in the population. Asian people tend to have the most neotanous features (larger eyes, appearance that looks younger, flatter faces, less body hair, shorter height, “cuter” appearance, etc.). Asian women are often rated as the most physically attractive compared to women of other races, which makes sense from a standpoint of neotany. In contrast, while Asian people tend to have the most neotanous features African people tend to have the least neotanous features. European people are again somewhere in-between when it comes to their levels of phenotypical neotany.

They also go over some other evidence involving Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA. I didn’t review all of this, I was focused mainly on the idea of molecular clock and the meaning of random genetic mutation/noise within a context of selection pressures (Darwinian purifying selection and stabilizing selection (stabilizing the various and most important gene structures around their most optimized forms) and neotany.

Interesting ideas presented here, feel free to post your own thoughts about this issue or other relevant scientific data.

researchgate.net/publicatio … A_findings

I think it’s fascinating and I’ve heard similar stories - East Asia, or the middle East, maybe even Turkey, being the true origin of our particular species. It can be frustrating that we only have little clues rather than solid answers, but life isn’t fun without a bit of anxiety and frustration.

I’d like to know the answer but it’s just a curiosity.

No matter which particular place we started, we are all brothers in humanity.

Once you place human origins in the Fertile Crescent, Middle East, India, then and only then does it make sense how Australian Aboriginals and Sub-Saharan Africans can have genetic connections.

Otherwise they cannot be of the same specie.

I don’t know about that. Can you elaborate?

Yes, we are all humans and we should always look at each other primarily as individuals first and as members of groups second. This is because group membership is not a sure way to assess a person’s traits or characteristics, even if it can be accurate to make group-level assumptions about the average person within a group. Statistics is accurate but statistics belies individuation and the actual truth of individuals. You can’t infer information about a specific instance from a statistical model within the variance of that model.

It has been argued that there is more genetic variation between individuals within racial groups than there is genetic variation between racial groups as averaged to those groups. I am not sure if that is true. While there is certainly a lot of genetic variation within these groups it is also the case that racial groups are genetically distinct enough to continue to be separate groups with their own allele frequencies and traits, namely they remain distinct enough to tell apart based on phenotypes and genotypes.

It is hard to parse out the science and truth from the ideology and politically correct or psychologically motivated aspects when it comes to this sort of thing. It has been pointed out that humans are quite well able to understand and accept things like genetics and its importance and reality when it comes to plants and non-humans, but once we start talking about humans it becomes “too personal” for us and our own emotions and motivations start clouding our judgment. In fact these days it has become common to hear people say crazy things like “race is only a social construct”. Something similar happened to science under the Soviet Union, there was a strong political push for theories to espouse environmentalism over genetics, a kind of more fluid Lamarkian evolutionary model (which isn’t to say that no such influences actually occur, I have seen some interesting evidence that it is possible for our behaviors/choices to influence and be passed on genetically to our offspring, but even if this does occur in some ways it would represent an exception to the rule). Everything, even plants and animals, were supposed to be subject primarily to these kind of purely environmental influences. We should always keep in mind how prone science is to sensing and adhering directly or indirectly to the politically correct dogmas and incentives of the day, especially in so far as the funding for those sciences is tied into government grants or universities.

Another thing about genetics, there is strong political and social pressure today not to talk about subjects that link genetics to things like intelligence or personality. Despite that intelligence and personality are in fact highly genetic. I think this aversion comes from a misunderstanding that is really a conflation of two things: traits like intelligence and personality on the one hand, and value or worth on the other hand.

Just because one person is smarter than another person doesn’t mean he or she has more value or worth. Value/worth is not contingent upon IQ, nor upon one’s personality. There are many aspects to this idea that can be fleshed out more specifically to include individual contexts and caveats, all in the end supporting this idea of the conflation mentioned above being a false one. Which isn’t to say that it is ENTIRELY false, but more like 90-99% false. Or something around that level.

But the relation of both or each is conflated merely in an apparent political gesture , reduced to a conformational level and f bias, , not a measure gotten by polls, that can justify the 80-90 spread, but aside with that paradoxical gathering of supposed value, the problem is that genetic linkage it’s self or with the traits associated there from, or subject to a meta ontological-metaphorical sub ordinance, not at all justifiable, for the better (few) or that much worse for a majority opinion poll’s politicization, for rarely do the unpopular notion of a psycho logistic narrative win out on that score.

The politics of experience spell trouble in paradise, even in f, and in the halls of ivory studded academia of the two folded(conflated) fields of political psychology or/and in the annals of the psychology of mobs.

For instance, the scaling of the bastillion of Trump’s alleged oversubscribed patriots , a work in progress(ion)

bro wut

Any Anthropological Origin hypothesis needs to connect all species of prehistoric homo sapiens, and Neanderthals, together.

Out-Of-Africa hypothesis cannot do this.

It makes much more sense for all homo/“human” to arise somewhere like India.

Because India is a focal point between Sub-Saharan Africans SSA, Sentinelese Islanders, Australian Aboriginals. India has more genetic and genealogical haplogroup diversity than SSA. There needs to be connection between these dark ‘black’ skinned races, to the Caucasoid races (of Afghanistan). Then an origin would need to account for the Northern European Neanderthals, and how they went extinct (probably genocide, mix of warfare and starvation). The entire American continent is negligible because East Asians clearly crossed the Bering Strait at some point, without bringing wheel technology with them, much later in history compared to the previous groups. The American Native Indian races were the ‘last’ human emigrants.

I was recently told that Australian Aboriginals did not have bow and arrow technology, and the Sentinelese did not have fire making technology.

Early human migrations brought technologies with them, so these account for hypotheses of origin.

And in the simplest of terms, OOA Theory does not account for the spread of human genealogy across the planet right now. SSAfricans are not genetically connected to Mongolian East Asians, for example, neither are they genetically connected to Neanderthals.

How old are you? Late 20s I guess, 28?

I used to believe that propaganda too, when I was younger. Now I don’t. Individuals are too rare to quantify, and exceptions reinforce the rules. What are the rules? Genes. It’s all genetic. Behaviors are directly, genetically heritable. 1-for-1.

You should ask yourself why propaganda is so negative against genetics, biology, heritability of traits, in the mainstream, but unquestioned in the Academic realm. Why is the contradiction so severe and blatant? Once you figure that out, things make more sense.

The public are sold lies, which the private intelligencia know without doubt, are absolutely false.

Why is there a stigma against Eugenics, for example? Meanwhile, the global elitists practice it themselves? Eugenics for me…not for thee.

Why not?

Examine how people act. Sure people claim to value ‘Equality’, but then look how the masses fall over themselves in hordes, when it comes to obeying “Science” and “trusting the experts”. Who are these Experts??

(Smart people)

People have a compulsion to seek out, and obey, Authorities.

What you are doing, perhaps without realizing it, is treading the line of what is politically ‘correct’ to say…publicly, versus privately.

It’s false that blacks don’t have any Neanderthal DNA, they do. It’s just very minimal compared to Asians and whites.

I don’t subscribe to OOA either, but not for the reason you mention. Because of the reasons I listed in this thread having to do with the paper I linked. India being a “focal point” doesn’t really matter, we are talking about things that occurred 2 million years ago. Lots of migrations took place during and after that. Researchers in the article I linked did the phylogenetic tree and found its roots in Asia. They use Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tracing. They also explained why Asians, especially east and southeast Asians are the most likely “out of” point historically and geographically for the modern humans. It doesn’t really matter that much which part of the planet modern humans originated from, but it is interesting to think about.

Literally no idea what you are talking about, sorry. Nothing I said was propaganda.

“It’s all genetic” is false. Genes determine the rough general outline or map, experience fills it in specifically. Using twin studies researchers can get good estimations of the heritability index of many different traits, from intelligence to political orientation to personality traits. Link here, look at the table on the third page and you will see heritability index for the various listed traits: local.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dme … curdir.pdf.

A heritability index of 0.5, for example, would mean that 1/2 of the causality for the variability between people along that given trait dimension is due to the genes one inherits from one’s parents, and the other 1/2 of the causality is due to environmental factors such as nutrition, upbringing, disease, experiences, etc.

Because the propaganda is rooted in communist theory and ideology. That is a big reason. Also because propaganda and the people who push it and believe it is necessarily anti-intellectual and untrue. It is designed to be subversive and lead people away from the truth, making them vulnerable to manipulation and social-psychological control.

Good thing none of what I posted here has anything to do with any propaganda.

Because eugenics is seen as dehumanizing and immoral, as violating the rights of human beings. Of course the “global elites” as you say practice eugenics just as they practice things like human sacrifice and pedophilia, because they are immoral and enjoy pushing their immorality to its limit. If you find yourself agreeing with anything these insane cultists do or believe you better take a hard look at yourself.

Why would having differing IQ cause someone to have more or less value or worth as a person? I am talking about moral value, not utilitarian value. Yes being more intelligent means you have more value in things like a career, generally speaking it means you can be more productive if you choose to be. But in terms of moral value having to do with good and bad, IQ isn’t much of a factor. The high IQ person can be an evil piece of shit, while the low IQ person can be a very good person. Intelligence doesn’t really map onto moral goodness, at least as far as I’ve been able to determine. Of course there is more to expand on here, since intelligence doesn’t reduce to IQ. And at the very high extreme of ACTUAL intelligence (philosophical intelligence) holding immoral positions would be impossible since they involve contradictions and denials of reality, therefore untruths. But that’s quite rare and most people, especially the psychopathic “global elites” are nowhere near this kind of edified high level of philosophical intelligence.

We might agree that criminals have less moral or less overall human value compared to the non-criminals. Or at least those criminals who cause lots of harm and death to others. In so far as this is true, at least from the perspective of value attributed by society or by the average person, while it is true that low intelligence predicts violent criminality to a degree it doesn’t predict overall criminality. Like I was saying above, think about the sociopathic “global elites” and how many countless people they harm and kill on a regular basis. How much damage and harm they cause to the human race. Those people are for the most part relatively high IQ.

Once again, no idea what you’re talking about. What I am saying here is objectively true, not propaganda. I never said you shouldn’t examine how people act. I never said valuing “Equality” in the pathological way brainless loonie leftists do is something we should do. I never said anything about “trusting experts”. You seem to have quite a few preconstructed biases and assumptions that you’re bringing to this discussion and incorrectly attributing to me.

I meant IQ according to Utilitarian value, not Moral value. I agree that low and high IQ people can have the same moral value. That is a difference of context then.

This demonstrates the previous point though. Genetics does involve moral value, and especially under the context of Liberalism and the idea of “human equality”. That’s the propaganda I referred to. Westerners / Americans especially, are indoctrinated under the presumption of Human Equality, and that genetics has a very low influence on things regarding society and social position, such as Race, such as the proposition in the United States that an ethnic or racial ‘minority’ does have, or ought to have, “every advantage” a white person has. All of this, Liberalism, runs contrary to the very notion of factual, realistic, genetic inheritance.

Because Genes would mean that people are NOT born equal, do NOT have an equal moral value, nor possibly should they. But this is not a matter for debate in Western Civilization. Racial Hierarchy is generally rejected since the defeat of Nazism in 1945. This didn’t stop the Eugenicists from pressing onward though, in silence. Thus there are two different contexts of Genetics…as something to be cultivated (making you a Eugenicist), or something to be denied (making you a Liberal).

Since you don’t even see the propaganda I alluded to, it bolsters my point to me. How are you not aware of these differences? I went to a public school in the US. To me, the indoctrination and propaganda are very, very clear.

Well then yeah, in many cases (certainly not all cases, or perhaps not even most cases) it stands to reason that in terms of utilitarian value a person with higher intelligence is more valuable compared to a person with less intelligence. Then again there are so many other factors to consider. Such as personality factors like conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, also intellectual honesty, ambitiousness, personal drive and motivation, one’s character, one’s learned specific skills and talents based on experience and practice over time. And after all that we still can’t help to bring in the moral dimension, since as I already pointed out (and which is still highly applicable to your utilitarian-only context) a highly intelligent person who is psychopathic and basically an evil fucker will have a lot less “utilitarian value” compared to someone who isn’t evil and has somewhat lesser intelligence. You can’t forget to factor in the negative value, utilitarian or otherwise, resulting from the actions of evil people (criminals for example).

I don’t remember saying anything about genetics itself having to do with moral value.

Yes but you’re conflating two different issues here. The first issue of the liberal-progressive ideological idea of “Human Equality” is basically a reduction to the categorical level of the conceptual space having to do with valuation-as-such. Stripping out all specific markers and differences between people, the question of valuation can be categorically applied at the most basic minimally-contextual level as what appears to be a universal baseline with respect to all humans. This is simply the overlapping of the categorical level-as-such of “value” with the categorical level-as-such of “human”. Those two concepts are overlapped and equated by this stripping-away of the contextual specifics and differences, a sort of attempt to get to the most baseline fundamental level of what these concepts mean. You can call that propaganda if you want to, clearly that does have something to do with it, but it is not really the main point of what is going on with regard to the idea.

The other issue which is separate is the issue of genes and their influence on things like society, SES, race, etc. and yes genes have a huge influence in all of these areas. Liberalism-leftism doesn’t like to admit this because it generates a lot of problems and cognitive dissonance for them, so they (being relatively intellectual dishonest to begin with, since we are talking about leftists after all) simply deny and ignore it, and attack/smear/defame/threaten/cancel anyone who says these sort of things.

I can certainly see why both of these (Human Equality and the denial of the key role of genes) take root in liberal-leftist people and movements. But remember to keep these separate in your analysis since they are in fact two distinct issues.

Right, however if you look at “equal moral value” in the minimally-contextual, maximally-categorical way I mentioned above, you can see how people would consider “anything genetically human” to have the same BASIC level of moral value. That is essentially the core of that argument. The leftists take it much further, but taking it further isn’t necessary for defending the actual argument itself at its basic level.

Yes I see these things too, obviously. But I am making a more specific point about the issues here. I don’t like to see important ideas and concepts conflated, simplified or misrepresented. We are probably not opposed on these issues in general, but I am trying to take a more complete picture of everything.

BTW eugenics does continue in the present day, mainly in the form of abortion. Abortion is targeted primarily at the lower class (which has the knock-on effect of targeting black people more than the people of other races). This has an arguably positive eugenic effect on the population, purging from the gene pool many instances of genetic configurations that would have resulted in higher-than-average levels of things like narcissism, psychpathy, mental illness generally, low intelligence, low impulse control, neuroticism, antisociality and generally the personality traits more common to anyone who would actually be capable of murdering their own child in the womb. That being said, I am not in favor of abortion just because it may have this positive eugenic effect on the population at large. But that would be a separate issue to discuss.

Interestingly too, SES is somewhat heritable. I am not sure how much but I believe it’s around 0.3. So roughly 1/3 of the difference between people with regard to their SES has to do entirely with the genes they inherit from their parents. The rest would come down to environmental factors, random influences, etc.

I don’t want to stray too far from the topic here.

When I got into Anthropology as a hobby, the most important thing I learned was how technology was carried and transferred by ancient human tribes. In the era before farming, Hunter-Gatherers dominated, and had rudimentary technologies like fire-starting from striking flint, spears, blowdarts, rock throwing slings, and then eventually the development of bows and arrows. For example I wasn’t educated as a child that Asian migrants into the Americas did not have wheel technology. So when I learned that as a young adult, it was mind-blowing to see how much of an oversight that is. But it has a political-correctness to it, as though it denigrates the Native Americans or demonstrates a lack of Civilization. Modern Liberals see such “inconvenient facts” as personal insults. I try to side-step these.

But I did not study Anthropology in a college or university. I studied on my own, after I had finished college. And so I was not in an environment of political-correctness.

I learned that the Vikings had kidnapped all the best looking British females, out of the British Isles, for centuries. Again, another politically ‘inconvenient’ fact, which lends to the modern stereotype of “British Beauties” (meaning that most British women are viewed as ugly compared to all other European countries). This is an argumentative topic, but it makes Anthorpological sense. If your best-looking females are kidnapped, decade after decade, after decade, for Centuries, then this will cause Genetic results, such that Scandinavian women are more sexually attractive on average (they are, according to dating sites), and British women are less sexually attractive.

Then I studied Haplogroups and how they spread around the world. Here is where I deviated from OOA Theory. It didn’t make sense, doesn’t make sense to me. It makes more sense for technologies to be centralized (in the Fertile Crescent) and expand outward from there, the first indications of human ‘Civilization’, agriculture and farming too.

Hunter and Gatherer societies/tribes are much more rudimentary and simplistic by comparison. Nomadic human tribes versus Sedentary.