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.
''When will we finally know the truth I wonder?''ReplyDelete
Well well well... that is very interesting. The PC crowd won't like it,... LOLReplyDelete
We won't get the truth until "project white-European extinction' is complete. Amazing how such obvious hate is glossed over under the guise of being something good. PC = pure crapReplyDelete
I couldn't agree more!Delete
It is always a plesure to see that there still are some who support the thought I have known for many many years.ReplyDelete
This has been known for a long time.ReplyDelete
I read this book, for example, some 5 years ago
Slowly, oh so slowly, does the truth catch the lies.
This wasn't a conspiracy. The Out of Africa and the Bering Land bridge et al theories were the best theories at the time. We know so much more today about maternal mitrochondria and have found many more possible hominids. There will probably always be the best theories at the present time when it comes to the development and dispersal of homo sapiens.ReplyDelete
Yeah - that's the same like the "evolution" or "big bang" theory.Delete
Crazy how far mind control goes.
It would've existed as a theory, but it wouldn't have been pushed so hard unless the mainstream ideological agenda was benefited by it. Now it's still not renounced by the cultural Marxist crowd (no achievable degree of proof is enough for them to accept something they don't want to be true... They demand absolute 100% proof so that when it can't be provided they can continue to believe wha they want to believe.)Delete
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.ReplyDelete
Modern gene mapping shows the human population was at one point reduced to a handful of individuals and certain genetic abilities were lost including the production of some proteins - damaged. Thus meat eating became acceptable among humans. Our ancestors recorded the tragic event at Gen 7:21-23. Animal genes were also reduced same way. Those taken in groups of seven remained Vegan, while those taken two-by-two retained a shallower gene pool and became the predators. All are no longer vegan...Delete
Humans never could've developed the brains we have (and we never would've needed them) had we ever been vegans.Delete
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 EarthReplyDelete
If you open The Pleiadian Mission by Randolph Winters, that based on www.theyfly.com, you will learn that humankind has a 3.6 billion year history, in this Dern Universe; in this Great Time, a Great Time being 314 trillion years.ReplyDelete
If you want to believe that 4 million years ago your forebears were chimps, that's your problem.
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.ReplyDelete
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?
I considered the "out of Africa theory" BS as soon as I heard about it. What is amazing is the number of presumably smart people that totally bought into this study as being totally factual and beyond reproach.ReplyDelete
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.ReplyDelete
Billy Meier and FIGU contact notes:ReplyDelete
"Darwin was a deceiver in relation to the Man-Ape Evolutionary Line Theory because he secretly worked on ape bones and ape skeletons with a filing utensil, in order to adapt them into his claim and false theory and to present it to those scientists at that time who occupied themselves with the evolution of animals and humans."
"...terrestrial human beings [will] find the proof that their former Ur-Ur-Ur-ancestors came to the SOL system from alien solar and planetary systems to settle on Mars before emigrating to Earth. When they do, the first proof may also be found that mankind's earliest ancestors -- the genetically-manipulated people, or rather their descendants -- were refugees and exiles who originated in the Sirius regions... terrestrial Man did not originate on the planet Earth and, furthermore, he is not the only human life form in the Universe."
Guys, i suggest you all should take a look at this:ReplyDelete
basically, it totally destroys the out of africa "theory"
excellent blog! ive added you to my feedly and recommended you to other blogs that support our cause. you are much appreciated.ReplyDelete
indeed. which is weird because if we were gone, they would be considered the new "white" people and still be hated by 98% of the world. its almost suicidal.ReplyDelete
Why are they hated so much anyway?ReplyDelete
It's just plain common sense and obvious that we white people are not from blacks. The PC scientists basically say we came from AFrica and just somehow turned white and developed blue or green eyes straight hair and some of us blond or red hair magically.ReplyDelete
there exists a competing theory that human kind incarnated in several locations on earth as evidence points to different genetic group make ups.ReplyDelete
400 people is a tiny sample through. It be more interesting to repeat it in some of data that contains tens of thousands of sample being built in the UK and US, don't know of any similar project aiming to do the same in Russia.ReplyDelete