morpheus24:


If you didn't click on any of the links I posted

morpheus24:

Amujale:


You are a vile and senseless Eurocentric bigot that cannot read nor understand written text properly.

Its either you post your argument with the relevant sources and authors or you can STFU and stop trolling the thred.

morpheus24:
Morphues contention 1; Africans left the continent at least 100,000 to 150,000 yeas ago following possibly two paths. DNA evidence points to the population dispersals by tracking back mitochrondial DNA back to Africa with the oldest link residing in the Khoi people of Southern Africa L0


https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/africa-cradle-humanity1.htm

https://www.thoughtco.com/out-of-africa-hypothesis-172030

morpheus24:


https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/africa-cradle-humanity1.htm

morpheus24:


https://www.thoughtco.com/out-of-africa-hypothesis-172030

Amujale:



Try again.

The links you post are speculative at the best and outright gibberish at the very least.

Again I ask to to tell us your argument backed up with sources and their authors.

Amujale:


Below is the content of the above link:

“If you look hard enough, you'll find any number of theories about just where human beings originated -- and who knows? Maybe we really were banished from a Mesopotamian Garden of Eden, or we really did stumble out of a crashed spaceship. The prevailing theory among scientists, however, is that the first Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and, between 56,000 and 200,000 years ago, migrated into other lands.

'Some anthropologists actually refer to this theory as the out of Africa II theory, as it involves a previous African exodus by tribes of Homo erectus, followed by the scattering of H. sapiens that eventually became human civilization. This wave of migration steadily washed over the entire world for tens of thousands of years. The pockets of primitive hominids, such as Neanderthals, eventually disappeared. Perhaps they weren't able to compete with H. sapiens for limited resources or weren't as capable of adapting to survive the constant rigors of a prehistoric Earth. To learn more, read How Human Migration Works.”

An hypothesis, a Eurocentric speculation.

A total lack of understanding.

A broken-biscuit and widely UnAfrican view of the world in every way shape or form.

The lack of the ability to admit the simple truth.

Amujale:


You clearly have been brainwashed to hate yourself beyond recognition.

I say you are wrong, the links you have posted are wrong and their arguments are based on flawed concepts as the ones highlighted above.

Amujale:


Below is an extract of the above link:


“The Out of Africa (OoA) or African Replacement Hypothesis is a well-supported theory that argues that every living human being is descended from a small group of Homo sapiens (abbreviated Hss) individuals in Africa, who then dispersed into the wider world meeting and displacing earlier forms such as Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Early major proponents of this theory were led by British paleontologist Chris Stringer and in direct opposition to scholars supporting the multiregional hypothesis, who argued that Hss evolved several times from Homo erectus in several regions”

An hypothesis, a Eurocentric speculation.

A total lack of understanding.

A broken-biscuit and widely UnAfrican view of the world in every way shape or form.

The lack of the ability to admit the simple truth.

morpheus24:
...

morpheus24:

...

Amujale:
Here is morpheus24 source:

Grabianowski, Ed. "How Human Migration Works." Dec. 27, 2007. (May 1, 2009)https://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution/human-migration.htm

Defeated argument.

From way back in early 2009 their hypothesis was comprehensively defeated by Dr Hendrik Clarke and Professor Martin Bernal in what is popularly chastised as “The Great Debate”.

Amujale:
Here is morpheus24 source:

Grabianowski, Ed. "How Human Migration Works." Dec. 27, 2007. (May 1, 2009)https://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution/human-migration.htm

Defeated argument.

From way back in early 2009 their hypothesis was comprehensively defeated by Dr Hendrik Clarke and Professor Martin Bernal in what is popularly chastised as “The Great Debate”.

morpheus24:


Dr Hendrick Clarke is a historian and not an anthropologist or geneticist. He made no comments that I have come across that have to do with the origins of man in the Americas.

Amujale:
Here is morpheus24 source:

Grabianowski, Ed. "How Human Migration Works." Dec. 27, 2007. (May 1, 2009)https://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution/human-migration.htm

Defeated argument.

From way back in early 2009 their hypothesis was comprehensively defeated by Dr Hendrik Clarke and Professor Martin Bernal in what is popularly chastised as “The Great Debate”.

Amujale:

If the premise of an hypothesis is deemed to be wrong, then the conclusion is said also to be wrong.

The difference between African historians, scholars and academics and their Eurocentric counterparts with regards African history is as follows;

Africans base their studies on genuine research and analytical processes whilst Eurocentric’s base theirs on false premise and disingenuous speculation.

Dr Cheikh Anta Diop’s and Dr Ivan Sertima ‘s conclusion are used everywhere in the world today.

Proving beyond reasonable doubt that “They Came. Before Columbus”.

Their combined effort contains within them various scientific, analytical and visual proof:

Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) from the Americas found in the stomach of mummified African royalty. Tested and proven to be accurate.

Cotton from the Americas present in the green houses of African royal families. Tested and proven to be accurate.

According to Dr. David Imhotep, the author behind the book “The First Americans Were Africans: Documented Evidence,” “Egyptian artifacts found across North America from the Algonquin writings on the East Coast to the artifacts and Egyptian place names in the Grand Canyon” are all signs of an early arrival in the Americas by Africans. This is also paired with a much earlier account of Black people with incredible skills at sea. Back in 445 B.C.E, the Greek historian Herodotus wrote of King Ramses III leading a team of Africans at sea with astounding seafaring and navigational skills.

A Polish professor called Andrzej Wiercinski revealed the discovery of African skulls at Olmec sites in Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas and Monte Alban.


Some people insist that Africans couldn’t have made it to the New World first simply because they didn’t have the skill and resources to sail across the Atlantic.

As it turns out, that’s completely false. Historians have discovered evidence that suggests Africans are masters at building ships and that it was actually a part of their tradition.

Shipbuilding and sailing are over 20,000 years old in the Sahara, and cave wall paintings of ancient ships were displayed
in National Geographic magazine years ago.

With those shipbuilding skills and the navigation skills that were noted by other historians of the time, the myth that Africans wouldn’t have been able to sail to the New World becomes officially debunked.

As Dr. Julian Whitewright, a maritime archaeologist at the University of Southampton, explained, the voyage from Africa on ancient ships was “quite a plausible undertaking, based on the capabilities of the vessel of the period and historical material stating it took place.”