Thursday, 23 February 2017

Debunking the Out of Africa Theory

Out of Africa theory map showing origin, time period, and migratory routes out of Africa

Recently, I was re-reading the out of Africa theory, you know the one that is a conclusion based on mitochondrial mutations and mutations in the sex chromosome carried by men.

Very interesting. A very logical argument and very convincing because of this.

I could not help imagining myself tapping the scientists involved on the back, but as this image unfolded, the realisation started to dawn that there was something very wrong with the theory, something that makes it bogus, scientific crap, or, maybe just a tiny fragment of a whole truth that it cannot speak for or stand for.

So, I retracted my hand and moved back ... into the shadow of self, to think this over.

My attention had been called to another scientific fact that contradicted the theory. This one is found in the theory of evolution, particularly the survival of the fittest bit ... and it has to do with the known issue of the adverse effects on survivability as well as the genetic diversity of the group that is left with in-breeding as the only method of procreation.

One thing has become very clear from archaeological remains from the era the Out of Africa theory deals with, and it is that human groups were very small at the time the migrations out of Africa are supposed to have taken place. There were no large cities with millions of inhabitants, just clusters of villages with but a handful of people. Archaeological remains have it that these settlements seldom grew till they had hundreds of people.

Moving forward from that time to the present, we have to admit the genetic diversity found among sub-Saharan Africans is impossible if small groups of human beings, made smaller by constant migrations of people from their numbers, were left to breed their way into the future.

Such genetic diversity as is found on the continent does not occur spontaneously within a small population except by magic, and this has nothing to do with the real world but fiction.

There is only one way this can happen, and this is by constant migrations away from the group, and, as the different environments cause differences to arise between the separated people, remigration occurs before the negative effects of in-breeding have taken hold, otherwise one group will fail to breed with the other because they will find them too ugly or, there will be breeding but the offspring will not be very viable beings.

Remigrations back to Africa must have been repetitive for the current genetic diversity on the continent to happen. They must have become the norm at some point in pre-history, maybe even history, if we remember the populations that migrated into Ancient Egypt.

Fact of this matter is this, that people who had moved away from Africa into colder northern climes returned to Africa, then others moved away again but, after undergoing genetic alterations under different environmental circumstances, they flowed back into the African blood pool.

This is how Africa got genetically diverse.

Though this theory fails to pinpoint the exact geographical location where the first homo sapiens sapiens evolved, it shows very clearly that the Out of Africa theory misses the point ... by a wide margin, and also that it, like my theory, cannot pin point the origin of this species to which we belong.

The Out of Africa theory can fit perfectly into my theory once it is expanded upon, but it cannot be the explanation of the whole. It is, in fact, a tiny subset of my theory, and it is just a matter of time before it is officially exposed for the fraudulent attempt to racially delineate the origins of homo sapiens sapiens that it is.

No comments: