Why doesn't the world know this and why isn't it taught in all schools??? There is no racism, because, there is only one African Human Race!!! We need to make sure all humans are educated.
Your friends are right, because the earliest hominin Graecopithecus was discovered in Europe, and predates every known hominin find in Africa. Although it is true that those ancestors later migrated down into Africa.
Actually we are all from Myanmar. Primeapes from Myanmar are 43 million years old and they lived in colonies like humans. Lucy is only 2 to 3 millions years old and she was the only one there. she did not have a male mate.
We all evolved from black africans. He is right. As the tribes travelled and split up into groups over thousands of years the characteristics changed with environmental factors and gene mutations.
You’ve got it backwards. Look at the supposed closest livening relative. The chimpanzees, pale white/pinkish skin, void of the ability to produce melanin. And I find it difficult to believe that early hominids developed bipedal movement 2-3million years ago and never made it out of Africa in this time with this significant development in travel.
@@heldinahtmlhell Why do you say “improved”, a change isn’t objectively an overall improvement, it is only an improvement to the task of surviving somewhere else.
Haha apparently a lot of TH-cam commenters sure could teach Richard Dawkins something about evolution. Some of you guys should share your TH-cam channel or the books you’ve written.
Well the first actual signs of human intelligence came out of Levant, with the ancient city of jericho starting up around 12 to 10,000bc. Being first settled by the Natufian culture, who would later go on to start the Neolithic period. Levant sitting directly between Egypt and Iraq. It's a good possibility that the early settlers of the Egypt empire and sumerian empire were from Levant. The early settlers of Greece were from turkey, who came out of Levant.What history shows is that humanity evolved in Levant and slowly started to spread out to the rest of the world. There are no documents before the city of jericho and zero signs of real human intelligence out side of Levant at that time. All claims being made really before the Neolithic age are complete guesses or just being made up. Levant mostly were human came from.
@@efe8025 Do YOU know what a "theory" is? Because from the way you're phrasing the question here, you most definitely do not. A theory isn't always just an idea or a thought. There are both PROVEN theories, and unproven. So theories can be true, yet no theory can be false until it is proven to be so. Most dumbass people on Social Media are quick to give their "theroies" without ever thinking about the fact that very smart people in their area of expertise, usually know what the fuck they're talking about, while some dummy sitting at a computer using Google for 5 minutes is almost 100% of the time, wrong. Just because you can say anything at all, doesn't mean you have a theory worth a damn. It just means you have an opinion. A stupid one.
Actually we are all from Myanmar. Primeapes from Myanmar are 43 million years old and they lived in colonies like humans. Lucy is only 2 to 3 millions years old and she was the only one there. she did not have a male mate.
If you from Crenshaw....you most likely came from Louisiana....If u from there....you obviously Haitian descent. If you don't know what a Haitian is....You a clown, blood. Can't run from Africa, kid.
@Charisma Musician So you believe some invisible person just came into reality and made everything instantly? That would be saying matter can be made from literally nothing. Also what is your "god"? A human? A spaghetti monster? A chicken? You have literally 0 proof and I'm pretty sure all religion is a scam for money or people that are too scared to face the fact they they will die... Just stupid.
Don't be a dick. At least they're doing something with their lives to help others. Which is more than I can say for most Atheists.... And I am an Atheist. I just know that the majority of them are complete assholes. Not to mention the fact that they're a bunch of yuppy scum who like to start fights but rarely stick around once the violence starts.
I did 23andme, zero mix, 100% black African. My 23andme showed this. When I did the health portion of it. It showed I carried genes for two different genetic conditions that are most commonly found in people of European ancestry. Yet I do not have any European blood. This would match up with the theory that we all come from Africa and are related. 23andme also showed some of ancestors migrated to Europe and Asia.
Very true. The Africans that migrated into Europe and northwest Asia and stayed in this location for many 1000s of years had a skin tone change or mutation into the current Caucasian looking people. The same thing happened in northeast Asia with this transformation into today's east Asian lighter skin color in east Asia and with other physical features like the more slanted eyes due to living in a the mountains in Siberia and Mongolia regions.
Im black samoan creole and little bit of native and my samoan side has dark skin i use to wonder why when i was young and then i found out we were all from africa and it makes sense.
Doesn't make sense. Humans didn't just magically spring up in Africa. Everything had ancestors that wandered all over the earth. The common ancestor of humans were living in Europe and West Asia, and migrated down into Africa around the time hominids split.
@@ilikedinosaurs4992 Depends on how far back we are going, I live in the UK, I was born in Italy, my parents are African.. but if what you're saying is correct, then TECHNICALLY I'm from the land we now call Europe.
Definitely agree, we are all black africans no matter what skin color i had because the world is so divided because such as race, nationality, and religion is a complete chaos around the world. I had a thought about it to say you know i wish i was a real African human like others.
Every opinion I try to post on this subject it’s immediately removed. It’s not even controversial just a different opinion… obviously TH-cam is afraid of the truth on this subject getting out.
Finally… it took me calling them out, 2 accounts, and 15 minutes for them to grant me the ability to voice my opinion. Injustice to fundamental freedom much.
We all no that the N word is a negative term towards African Americans. A significant percentage of African Americans have Nigerian ancestry because that was where much of the slave trade is from. Sometimes Europeans see Niger instead of Nigeria and the British colonist, which is a significant majority that ran the slave trade with these British Americans being the largest percentage of the slave holders pronounce words differently. The dominant I becomes the lesser I sound and the G isn't this J sound but becomes the G sound with an added G with British colonists. So Nigerians gets turned into the N word by mistake maybe? Maybe not just guessing.
Selective breeding began and Africa where are nice hair lighter skin was chosen over darker skin thus began migrating turned into thousands of years it's a different races
@Reese B humans started changing races while still in africa you had humans with dark brown skin instead of black appear with different hair . these people went into the causus mountain region and then branched off into 3 new races european middle east and indian . dark skin asians also left africa
@Reese B It was not chosen over dark skin in hot climates, that's a lie. The light skin mutation came about in colder climates due to less UV radiation from the sun, and if you see the entire out of Aftica migration theory the same Homosapiens who left Africa 100000 years ago returned a few thousand years later and intermixed with the homosapiens who were still in Africa, then the migration out of Africa occured again. Also most importantly, we have no idea how homosapiens in Africa looked like before they split. They definitely didn't look like modern day sub-saharan Africans.
@@apollo-eu4fk Exactly, most people don't realise the even modern day sub-saharan Africans from West, East and Southern Africa tend to look different. Certain tribes in South Africa like the Xhosa closely resemble East Asians in appearance. I assume they have really strong genetic links with Asians.
This is quite incorrect...based on this europeans are more evolved since they are the last to appear. So how can that be when they were civilized by Africans???
Neanderthal-Homo sapiens interbreeding Neanderthals are known to contribute up to 1-4% of the genomes of non-African modern humans, depending on what region of the word your ancestors come from, and modern humans who lived about 40,000 years ago have been found to have up to 6-9% Neanderthal DNA (Fu et al., 2015). Because Neanderthals likely evolve outside of Africa (no Neanderthal fossils have been found in Africa to date) it was thought that there would be no trace of Neanderthal DNA in African modern humans. However, a study in 2020 demonstrated that there is Neanderthal DNA in all African Homo sapiens (Chen at el., 2020). This is a good indicator of how human migration out of Africa worked: that Homo sapiens did not leave Africa in one or more major dispersals, but that there was gene flow back and forth over time that brough Neanderthal DNA into Africa.
But I thought there was speculation from a number of archaic fossils that the earliest members of hominids, was living in Europe. Wouldn't that mean we're all European instead of African? 🤔😁
No because the amount of evidence that humanity began in Europe is incomparable to the amount of proof that humanity began in Africa. Also just because a fossil shares a few traits similar to humans does not mean humanity is related to that species as a primary ancestor. Even if humanity began in Europe that theory has to explain why most human diversity is in Africa and not in Europe along with the fact that people with darker skin tones have more dominant genes than peoples of lighter skin tones suggesting that our ancestors had primarily dark skin. So if our ancestors hail from Europe they should have a darker complexion rather than a lighter one. However do you know where most dark skinned people are concentrated? Around the equator where UV radiation bathes the equatorial regions. Europe is distant from the equator meaning that it does not receive as much UV radiation. Therefore our ancestors would not have a need for melanin in those areas compared to equatorial ones. Instead they should have a lighter skin tone which should result in people of lighter skin tones being more genetically diverse and genetically dominant. But current scientific studies suggest that this assumption is not true. So because we understand that darker skin tones are associated with being more diverse and dominant genetically suggests that peoples of darker skin tones have been around longer in modern humanity’s history. Therefore mathematically speaking the chances of humanity beginning with lighter skin-toned humans and in Europe is definitely possible but unlikely. It is kind of like a person claiming they can use Isaac Newton’s equation for gravitation to describe the gravitational force of a black hole better than Einstein’s General Relativity. Even though we have enough sufficient evidence that supports Albert Einstein’s theory of describing such a thing is much better than Isaac Newton’s.
@@keith.anthony.infinity.h "No because the amount of evidence that humanity began in Europe is incomparable to the amount of proof that humanity began in Africa. Also just because a fossil shares a few traits similar to humans does not mean humanity is related to that species as a primary ancestor. " It is irrelevent how many fossils there are in both continents. I was referring to the Graecopithecus fossil which dates back to 7.2m years ago which is a potential earliest hominin ancestor of humans - and if it is, it is up to the scientific community to decide whether or not that qualifies as a true human or not, which is difficult to answer, considering only a jawbone has been discovered so far. The fossil dates back to a completely different era when our common ancestor that we share with today's members of the Pan lineage (chimpanzees), lived in Europe - so it isn't unlikely that the split may have happened before we ventured down into Africa. "Even if humanity began in Europe that theory has to explain why most human diversity is in Africa" When you talk about diversity, keep in mind that that relates to the modern populations - which is far removed from the origin (or transition from its own ancestor, rather) of a species, and has far more to do with where early humans thrived. "people with darker skin tones have more dominant genes than peoples of lighter skin tones suggesting that our ancestors had primarily dark skin" No, this is completely false. Dominant genes does not mean original. It simply means stronger by virtue of Mendel's law. It is known that dark skin evolved in early humans between 1 and 2 million years ago as our fur dropped off to provide the ability for our ancestors to sweat, and therefore, partake in 'persistence hunting.' "So if our ancestors hail from Europe they should have a darker complexion rather than a lighter one" False - through evolution, skin can change to become lighter or darker depending on what nature selects for the individuals. This does not violate Mendel's law. All people and populations evolve through time. By this logic, no one is 'original,' because whether they split up and some stayed while some migrated to another continent, everyone continues to evolve. If, hypothetically, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees had dark skin, and the fur was lost in Europe, early (European) humans would have quickly evolved lighter skin to combat the effects of vitamin D deficiency. "So because we understand that darker skin tones are associated with being more diverse and dominant genetically suggests that peoples of darker skin tones have been around longer in modern humanity’s history" False. More diversity simply means more admixture. It is known that there had been many hominin migrations from Europe and Asia into Africa for as long as hominins have been around. Human migration is not a one way street, people migrated all the time, sometimes back to where their own ancestors lived. It was uncovered recently that there were mass migrations of early humans around 70k years ago from Eurasia into Africa, and modern Africans have a 'ghost lineage' that comprises up to 15% of their dna. Perhaps, that unknown hominin came from Asia? Nobody knows for now. "Therefore mathematically speaking the chances of humanity beginning with lighter skin-toned humans and in Europe is definitely possible but unlikely" That is a subjective statement. Remember, humans did not spawn from nothing, we follow a chain of evolution from a single common ancestor from which all life on earth can also be traced. So if you draw the line backwards through time, we were simply less and less human. So what exactly do you mean by 'human?' Do you mean homo-sapiens sapiens, or homo genus, or basal hominin? If you go back between 7 and 14 million years, our ancestors lived in South Europe. For hundreds of millions of years of our sentient lineage, our ancestors migrated all over the world, before Pangaea split up and after too. The entire world has contributed to the dawn of humanity.
@@ilikedinosaurs4992 yes exactly what I am saying El Graeco is considered to be a possible hominin based off of its jaw fossil. There have been scientists in the community who already suggest that because a jaw has hominin like traits does not mean that is a hominin. For example Oreopithecus has hominin like traits but Oreopithecus is still not a part of the hominin class. Also El Graeco is not part of the hominin class yet either. Another fossil claimed to be hominin-like was Rudapithecus from Hungary with similar teeth make up to humans, teams attempted to classify it as a hominin and possible ancestor of modern humans. But of course all they had was a jaw fossil and nothing else really. Once again this is another bold huge claim without sufficient and rigorously evidence. It is like bringing a homemade bakery to a professional gourmet bakery. And you do realize that modern anthropology bases its discoveries of off mostly genetic and fossil data. It is preposterous to suggest that fossil data is irrelevant that is like saying we should not use the light coming from matter to study what it is made of when it has been proven that light spectra can give those kind of clues. Dominant genes does not mean original. What do you mean by that? It has been shown that the genetics of some African races have been around for thousands of years long before other race groups. And when it comes to dominant genetics that gene pool needs time and higher frequency to become dominant. This means that those who carry that gene pool have been around longer before those with the recessive genes. Also I did research Mendel’s Law does not state “dominant does not mean original”. And you are right about what you said about skin color. It is naturally selected but nature does not just have a species evolve a certain way for no reason. The reason is because they split up right and went to different parts of the planet. The Earth is a curved globe meaning when light hits it from different angles some parts get more UV than others. Melanin is a major determinant of skin color. That is why our hominin ancestors needed melanated fur to protect their skin from potentially dangerous UV. Melanin is beneficial when it comes to processing nuntrients for the body from the sun, assisting the immune system’s strength, and etc. And it is more highly concentrated in peoples who live in UV soaked areas. That is why when some humans went else where they evolved to have a different skin tone because in those areas they did not need melanin. Where as if they were to go to the equator it would not be suitable for them because their skin tone is not adapted to that kind of environment. This is why I say if the first humans were white Europeans how are they going to survive in environments like equatorial Africa to evolve into people who look like me? So if early humans had lighter skin like a European tell me why do we not see a genetic dominance and variety in them? I am so glad you brought up admixture. Admixture happens when two people of distinguishable clans mate with another to have mixed offspring. This is true because on the African continent the first human species had different skin tones along with our dark skinned ancestors the Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Many people think that human migration happens in a snap of a finger, but no. It took time for humans to get around, and what do you think they did during that time of them staying in Africa, mate of course. With who? The ancient Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Now you are dodging the mathematical logic of this. I am not being subjective when I can literally show you statistically how much proof the OOA theory has compared to other theories like OOE or etc. That is not being subjective it is being objective. We are human that is why we call ourselves human to distinguish us from other living beings. Just because we trace back to an an ancestor of a different species does not mean we are that species. It is like saying because red is under the category of color we should not call it red we should call it color. We are Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Plus you are saying that if we trace back far enough our ancestors lived in Europe based off of no sufficient and rigorous proof. The only proof you have is a couple of jaw fossils compared to the rich data provided by nearly complete fossils and genetic data found on the African continent. Do you hear how subjective you sound now, basing claims off of what you feel and want to be true rather than the reality of your claims? I encourage to look at this with a more logical eye rather than some bias view. Me personally I think that this idea of trying to disprove the OOA theory is not to progress knowledge but is motivated by racism and white supremacist ideology. The scales are weighing in terms of which has more proof. My friend the scale has tipped to the side of the Out of Africa Theory because it has more rigorously and sufficiently derived evidence than other theories. So whether you like it or not, modern humanity is more than likely originated on the African continent. And I am getting passionate about this not because I am mad about your claim but because you are making it based off of personalized wants rather than a non-bias mind. That is not how we do science, we do not make huge claims with non-suitable evidence. For example, Einstein’s General Relativity did not come with a claim of it being true without having suitable evidence provided by mathematics, and astronomical experimentation using a solar eclipse for instance.
@@keith.anthony.infinity.h Yes, I agree that we don't know enough about El Graeco to classify it as a hominin, due to its physical evidence lacking, but it does not rule out the possibility either. Between 5 and 7 million years of our ancestors' evolution is a big mystery. We don't even know if they lived in Europe or Africa. Both continents (as well as Asia) yield no or little evidence of a potential human ancestor, so it's a grey area. We know that between 7 and 14 million years ago, our ancestors lived in Europe because that's what the fossil record strongly suggests, just like that our ancestors between 2.5m and 5m years ago were in Africa, because that's what the record suggests. So while I agree that most of our bipedal transition happened in Africa between 2.5m and 3.5m years ago, what happened beyond that is unknown.
@@keith.anthony.infinity.h Genetic data? Can you explain how that proves a theory correct or substantiates it, and how certain what data we have is correct.
Common ancestor theory … is based on genes … ( just 1.5 percent… common genes, in the dna studies …however 98.5 percent..much not common ) Due some due diligence, James Tour … explains clearly why Dawkins claims, from this study…is definitely interesting, however not proving Common Ancestry…. Genetics are not proving Dawkins Words …. Far from it ….
According to mainstream geneticist the consensus is race doesn't exist on a genetic level. 'There is no genetic evidence that the groups known as races have "distinct, unifying genetic identities and genes show there is ample variations within races, and there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation between them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other." 'Based on an examination of our DNA, any two human beings are 99.9 percent identical."
Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology or genetics meaning it is a concept created by society rather than a biological reality. Different cultures and societies have different ways of categorizing and defining race. While there are genetic differences between individuals and populations, these differences do not align with traditional racial categories. For example, the genetic variation within racial groups is greater than the variation between them. In other words, individuals within the same racial group can be more genetically diverse than individuals from different racial groups. For example, google the Hadza people they are hunter gatherers who live in Northern Tanzania (Africa) on a genetic level they are more similar genetically to Europeans and Asian than they are to other Africans.
Chinese civilization begins from the Peking man. Peking Man with estimates as far back as 780,000 years ago. This means Chinese have been living in Beijing area from 780,000 years ago. That's not very recent. Chinese are not African.
Peking Man is one of the little branches off Homo Erectus. You didn't evolve from him. And the dating of Peking Man ranges from just 200,000 years (or so) ago to 780,000 years ago.
what is that wasn't the case? feels like he's trying to use science for some moral conclusions. bad idea to mix those - let's say tomorrow we have new scientific evidence - will we reclassify ourselves into multiple species?
And I hear your point I do agree that you should not mix your morality in to science and yes science is always evolving we’re always discovering new things about all topics in old discoveries so if new information is presented an absolutely we would re-classify
Idc who's who, or who came from where just live your life how you want to, believe what u want and in whom you want. Life is too dang short to be debating about all this because, at the end of the day, everyone will have their own batch of evidence that they claim to be correct, some will agree and others will disagree. I for one just don't care because no amount of evidence you provide will get me to believe that you were able to trace back millions of years of genealogies, but I also won't squander your effort of doing so because just as I believe what I want to believe, you believe that your life's work is correct.
Do you believe we can send information like video instantaneously through thin air across the planet on the internet? Fly around the planet in heavy steel vehicles with hundreds of people inside? Just because you don't know how something works is irrelevant to the truth. Keep denying science and knowledge though. So you actually believe generations of people have devoted their lives to create evidence of a fake story of DNA and biogenetic science? Right now thousands of people are years into studying a totally fabricated and fake science... Lol you have no idea how the world and reality works. It's a scary place you live in mate. God bless though right?
@@robsimpson7319 in that case do you actually believe that generations of people have devoted their lives to create evidence of a fake story of God and the principles we should abide by to live a better life? No need to answer I know you believe that, but just because you don't know how someone works doesn't mean you should try to deny their existence. I do have no idea how the world or reality works, I only listen to what others tell me and apply it to my life before I believe in what I feel is the truth. You're right though, It is a scary place we live in mate, but what can I say, God bless.🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿
Actually we are all from Myanmar. Primeapes from Myanmar are 43 million years old and they lived in colonies like humans. Lucy is only 2 to 3 millions years old and she was the only one there. she did not have a male mate.
The earliest anthropoid-primate fossil found was eosimias from China which is 45 million years old. The oldest true primate was also discovered in China, at 56m years old.
To dismiss evolution because it has nothing to say about the origins of the universe is like throwing out your fridge because it can't mow your lawn. Evolution is a theory which expains the diversity of life, nothing else.
@@religionisalie because life does not start in Africa. Only the origin of people who were there first did not leave. We cannot dive down all the way to the start because nobody knows where and how life started. We are the Earth guardians but our dna is different. And since you're trying to defend something you're not aware of, arguing on how we start from 1 places and disperse from another, is irrelevant. And will always stay irrelevant until the universe resets itself.
@@religionisalie Maybe you should give up science and stick with what's going on and why the europeans create lies and misconception about our history and listen to those who are in desperate in needs.
@@njgrant3988 In 1987, a groundbreaking study supported British naturalist Charles Darwin's 1871 theory that all humans (Homo Sapiens) originated in Africa. American geneticist Rebecca Cann and Mark Stoneking, and New Zealand biochemist Allan Wilson, compared mitochondrial DNA, the unique genetic code passed down from female to female in different populations around the world. They discovered an unbroken line that led to one female living in motherfucking AFRICA around 200,000 years ago.
@@njgrant3988 So instead of ASSUMING that I'm "UnAwArE".... How about you OPEN UP A FUCKING BOOK ABOUT BLACK HISTORY YOU DUMB FUCK!!!! I highly suggest the book "The Black History Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained"....
It's a simple classification system. Do you have gills? Not a fish. Do you a spine? Not an invertebrate. Do you have leaves? Not a plant. Etc. etc. Humans are mammals. The rest follows.
When they are trying to save there own as That’s when they want to claim to be African 🤣 and these Neanderthal can’t be trusted he still lying to ya faces my brother don’t fall for it
Actually we are all from Myanmar. Primeapes from Myanmar are 43 million years old and they lived in colonies like humans. Lucy is only 2 to 3 millions years old and she was the only one there. she did not have a male mate.
I believe in the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster. Prove me, that my belief is wrong and yours isn't, cause my 'God' claims, that he is more right than others too, so he has to be right... I guess. ^^
@@yourewrongabouteverything YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH litteraly its irrefutable all human lifencame from africa but no everyone isnt african theye mixed with neanderthals and evolved into diffrent things so just pick up a book or continued to b3 blinded by bigotry
@@jamesanthony5681 I trust the truth. The people who analyse DNA are just makes a guess. We should focus on AI and let it do the examination for us. I don't trust people like him. We humans make mistakes.
@@jamesanthony5681 I am not denying. I just don't think homosapiens were from Africa. There is still a possibility that homosapiens arrive from a continent which is may be submerged right now and then settled in Africa. DNA is just a small part of this. We still need more evidence.
Religious people have died fighting for a truth they themselves corrupted, killed for an unverified heaven, and lived an entire life in subjugation and fear of unproved gods, devils and hells.
People need to understand that this “we are all from Africa” doesn’t mean what they think it means. We’re NOT the descendants of the human Africans. Our ancestors at that time were NOT humans they were APES. Just a bunch of apes in Africa because they liked the weather. Africa was simply a place to them. Those apes eventually migrated to the other continents and evolved rapidly and differently which is why we have different ethnic groups today. So genetically speaking we do NOT originate from Africa, we originate from the ape, and the apes evolved into humans all over the world.
First of all apes cant walk that much distance and migrate they have to bipedal Even if apes did evolve diffrenly at different places they all would end up being different species and woundf be able to mate or reproduce we had African ancestors through haplogroups dna testing
Religion is a socially acceptable version of heroin, it's a prop which fucks people up and over. And as Blaise Pascal so aptly put it: Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
@khanusmagnus577 Evolution is a proven fact. New species have been seen to emerge from others, by geographical changes, by food changes. What do you think science means by evolution exactly....
![เกิดใหม่ทั้งทีก็เป็นสไลม์ไปซะแล้ว ซีซั่น 3 - ตอนที่ 67 [ซับไทย]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/he_uIQ-Xv_Q/mqdefault.jpg)
There is a group of people that you might know that is gonna be very upset about this
😂😂😂 they won’t watch this video I can assure you that.
They can seethe and cope all they want. Facts don't change just because their feelings get hurt.
@D3xterJettster They aren't fact they are made up BS by black supremacist of Afrocentrism
The lack of education, and resistance to education, in these comments is astounding.
Why doesn't the world know this and why isn't it taught in all schools??? There is no racism, because, there is only one African Human Race!!! We need to make sure all humans are educated.
A great question indeed, but unfortunately the answer is completely obvious: Religion
@@Tsuroerusu Agreed
Recent evidence actually suggest that Dawkins is wrong, and that humans evolved via simultaneous local transition through the globe
@@mw-fj6dd you mean the Multiregional hypothesis?
Chris A.k.a. PandaGayBro yes that’s what I’m alluding to
I was explaining this to all my friends and they said I’m stupid
Your friends are right, because the earliest hominin Graecopithecus was discovered in Europe, and predates every known hominin find in Africa. Although it is true that those ancestors later migrated down into Africa.
You are
Beta male
@@ilikedinosaurs4992yea human-- like not modern human....there's a difference in brain capacity first of all. Humans evolved from primates.
Yes we all are Africans ...ppl should stop fighting, hating, discriminating & killing each other over ethnicity, race, religion, caste, region etc
Actually we are all from Myanmar. Primeapes from Myanmar are 43 million years old and they lived in colonies like humans. Lucy is only 2 to 3 millions years old and she was the only one there. she did not have a male mate.
@@amazinghowto9703 we aren’t...
We are all from alabama actually read some religious books bro
Humans: We can't because they believe in a different religion and looks different from me.
Agreed, we are all one species, brothers and sisters (not in the incestous sense lol), fuck the minor differences! :)
As a black person yes all human life originates from africa but no we are not all africans
If you rewind the script, it would all back track to Africa. We are a African species and an African animal like it or not.
Hey is there anyway I can don’t the whole interview/discussion?
We all evolved from black africans. He is right. As the tribes travelled and split up into groups over thousands of years the characteristics changed with environmental factors and gene mutations.
You’ve got it backwards. Look at the supposed closest livening relative. The chimpanzees, pale white/pinkish skin, void of the ability to produce melanin. And I find it difficult to believe that early hominids developed bipedal movement 2-3million years ago and never made it out of Africa in this time with this significant development in travel.
No proof.
"Changed" = improved
@@heldinahtmlhell Why do you say “improved”, a change isn’t objectively an overall improvement, it is only an improvement to the task of surviving somewhere else.
Look at the respective societies of these racial groups.@@AdamWood-dx7xm
Me after watching this video
Alexa play: My Nigga My Nigga by: YG
Haha apparently a lot of TH-cam commenters sure could teach Richard Dawkins something about evolution. Some of you guys should share your TH-cam channel or the books you’ve written.
@@HeavenCanWait7-333 you don't even know what is a 'theory', do you?
@@HeavenCanWait7-333 chill, just answer "no, I don't", no need to write all that to prove it.
Well the first actual signs of human intelligence came out of Levant, with the ancient city of jericho starting up around 12 to 10,000bc. Being first settled by the Natufian culture, who would later go on to start the Neolithic period. Levant sitting directly between Egypt and Iraq. It's a good possibility that the early settlers of the Egypt empire and sumerian empire were from Levant. The early settlers of Greece were from turkey, who came out of Levant.What history shows is that humanity evolved in Levant and slowly started to spread out to the rest of the world. There are no documents before the city of jericho and zero signs of real human intelligence out side of Levant at that time. All claims being made really before the Neolithic age are complete guesses or just being made up. Levant mostly were human came from.
@@efe8025 Do YOU know what a "theory" is? Because from the way you're phrasing the question here, you most definitely do not. A theory isn't always just an idea or a thought. There are both PROVEN theories, and unproven. So theories can be true, yet no theory can be false until it is proven to be so. Most dumbass people on Social Media are quick to give their "theroies" without ever thinking about the fact that very smart people in their area of expertise, usually know what the fuck they're talking about, while some dummy sitting at a computer using Google for 5 minutes is almost 100% of the time, wrong. Just because you can say anything at all, doesn't mean you have a theory worth a damn. It just means you have an opinion. A stupid one.
@@efe8025 there are two meaning to the word theory …. You clearly only know about 1 lmao ppl look so stupid when they say what you just did
I feel like going to Africa 😊
Yes you should come. Choose between Eastern or Southern African countries to visit. You will love it.
My ancestors are calling me
So that grants everyone n word pass?
I ain't from Africa I'm from Crenshaw Mafia
True but you have African roots, which unfortunately you can't change like citizenship
Actually we are all from Myanmar. Primeapes from Myanmar are 43 million years old and they lived in colonies like humans. Lucy is only 2 to 3 millions years old and she was the only one there. she did not have a male mate.
@@amazinghowto9703 Can you share your source if any. I love keeping my mind open for more learning....
@@kevinayusa He is talking about the origin of primates, which wasn't even in Myanmar, it was in China before that.
If you from Crenshaw....you most likely came from Louisiana....If u from there....you obviously Haitian descent. If you don't know what a Haitian is....You a clown, blood.
Can't run from Africa, kid.
Imagine believing in an invisible man in the sky and calling others crazy for thinking their invisible friend is the wrong one
I heard( i dont know how much of it is true) there may be a gap in between the mutation for human
@Charisma Musician So you believe some invisible person just came into reality and made everything instantly? That would be saying matter can be made from literally nothing. Also what is your "god"? A human? A spaghetti monster? A chicken? You have literally 0 proof and I'm pretty sure all religion is a scam for money or people that are too scared to face the fact they they will die... Just stupid.
Don't be a dick. At least they're doing something with their lives to help others. Which is more than I can say for most Atheists.... And I am an Atheist. I just know that the majority of them are complete assholes. Not to mention the fact that they're a bunch of yuppy scum who like to start fights but rarely stick around once the violence starts.
My invisible friend said you are going to a place that doesn't exist, but is supposedly very hot.
I would hate to be you 😅
I did 23andme, zero mix, 100% black African. My 23andme showed this. When I did the health portion of it. It showed I carried genes for two different genetic conditions that are most commonly found in people of European ancestry. Yet I do not have any European blood. This would match up with the theory that we all come from Africa and are related. 23andme also showed some of ancestors migrated to Europe and Asia.
u 1st Hu3m/_
lucky
Very true. The Africans that migrated into Europe and northwest Asia and stayed in this location for many 1000s of years had a skin tone change or mutation into the current Caucasian looking people. The same thing happened in northeast Asia with this transformation into today's east Asian lighter skin color in east Asia and with other physical features like the more slanted eyes due to living in a the mountains in Siberia and Mongolia regions.
Nobody is 100% anything. You dont have to be ashamed that you came from the zoo lol
@@Jblah are you talking about all humans? Living in a city is more of "in a zoo" vs the actual wild
23andme isn’t accurate and i doubt it said that you were black African because dna doesnt show race.
Im black samoan creole and little bit of native and my samoan side has dark skin i use to wonder why when i was young and then i found out we were all from africa and it makes sense.
Everyone reading this comment came from Africa.
Right
Doesn't make sense. Humans didn't just magically spring up in Africa. Everything had ancestors that wandered all over the earth. The common ancestor of humans were living in Europe and West Asia, and migrated down into Africa around the time hominids split.
@@ilikedinosaurs4992 Then we're all from Europe and Asia... the point is, we're all from the same place. We all got common ancestors.
@@manofculture8666 You are African?
@@ilikedinosaurs4992 Depends on how far back we are going, I live in the UK, I was born in Italy, my parents are African.. but if what you're saying is correct, then TECHNICALLY I'm from the land we now call Europe.
Definitely agree, we are all black africans no matter what skin color i had because the world is so divided because such as race, nationality, and religion is a complete chaos around the world. I had a thought about it to say you know i wish i was a real African human like others.
We're all Eurasians. Not Africans.
We are humans
We look different cuz of generation's of inbreeding
Inbreeding causes mutations to increase very much
If Humans are not native to Europe, Asia, the Middleast, and the America's. Then we are invasive 😶
turns out humans came from europe not africa. look it up
@@johnnyblazem5326 How lol? Explain to me why Africa has dominant traits and light skin is recessive? Africans who can have blue eyes and blond hair.
@@BiG-JuPO1O1 Don't believe me look it up
@@johnnyblazem5326 You wish
@@BiG-JuPO1O1 Look it up its true.
Every opinion I try to post on this subject it’s immediately removed. It’s not even controversial just a different opinion… obviously TH-cam is afraid of the truth on this subject getting out.
Finally… it took me calling them out, 2 accounts, and 15 minutes for them to grant me the ability to voice my opinion. Injustice to fundamental freedom much.
Now let’s talk about the hate speech of white Americans that are just over looked. Someone over at TH-cam have any answers for me?
so can we all say the N word?
No bcoz you still don't think you originated from Africa
We all no that the N word is a negative term towards African Americans. A significant percentage of African Americans have Nigerian ancestry because that was where much of the slave trade is from. Sometimes Europeans see Niger instead of Nigeria and the British colonist, which is a significant majority that ran the slave trade with these British Americans being the largest percentage of the slave holders pronounce words differently. The dominant I becomes the lesser I sound and the G isn't this J sound but becomes the G sound with an added G with British colonists. So Nigerians gets turned into the N word by mistake maybe? Maybe not just guessing.
@@midnight-2021 not just towards African Americans, but also towards Africans.
Can blacks start practicing chattel slavery on whites??
NO We BLACKS ARE THE ONLY NIGUS LOOK IT UP IN THE BIBLE
WE ARE ALL ONE DIVINE EVOLUTIONARY BEING. ACCEPT IT. EMBRACE IT. ❤ CELEBRATE IT.
NO.
Yes. Of course 😃
No we're not...lol! Where the hell do you think that word "Divine" comes from, you dimwit.😂
Cringe , get some bitches
@@felixalbrecht8637how are you this delusional
So we all are immigtants
😅this dude is nervous asf explaining his take on african history. I’m guessing it’s cause he didn’t wanna slip up and let info out to the public
That's why COVID got the entire world...
No were all oceanic
This means i had the n word pass all along and i didnt even know it.
The journey were the n-words we passed along the way
Selective breeding began and Africa where are nice hair lighter skin was chosen over darker skin thus began migrating turned into thousands of years it's a different races
No
@Reese B humans started changing races while still in africa you had humans with dark brown skin instead of black appear with different hair . these people went into the causus mountain region and then branched off into 3 new races european middle east and indian . dark skin asians also left africa
What??? That's not how it happened, the concept of race or light skin being considered superior was never the case 10000 or 5000 years ago.
@Reese B It was not chosen over dark skin in hot climates, that's a lie. The light skin mutation came about in colder climates due to less UV radiation from the sun, and if you see the entire out of Aftica migration theory the same Homosapiens who left Africa 100000 years ago returned a few thousand years later and intermixed with the homosapiens who were still in Africa, then the migration out of Africa occured again. Also most importantly, we have no idea how homosapiens in Africa looked like before they split. They definitely didn't look like modern day sub-saharan Africans.
@@apollo-eu4fk Exactly, most people don't realise the even modern day sub-saharan Africans from West, East and Southern Africa tend to look different. Certain tribes in South Africa like the Xhosa closely resemble East Asians in appearance. I assume they have really strong genetic links with Asians.
In the troll world human origin is from Antarctica, lol!
This is quite incorrect...based on this europeans are more evolved since they are the last to appear. So how can that be when they were civilized by Africans???
Every single life form on earth is not "more or less evolved" than one other. Please stop spreading psuedoscience.
What about Rh negative blood types only 15% of the world and none of it could be traced back to Africa 🤔.
Evolution and random mutations
I am not African, i am Westafrican.
Okay
If we are all African, where did the so-call Neanderthal come from ? Could they be Early Europeans, if thats a fact that would make us different
Neanderthal-Homo sapiens interbreeding
Neanderthals are known to contribute up to 1-4% of the genomes of non-African modern humans, depending on what region of the word your ancestors come from, and modern humans who lived about 40,000 years ago have been found to have up to 6-9% Neanderthal DNA (Fu et al., 2015). Because Neanderthals likely evolve outside of Africa (no Neanderthal fossils have been found in Africa to date) it was thought that there would be no trace of Neanderthal DNA in African modern humans. However, a study in 2020 demonstrated that there is Neanderthal DNA in all African Homo sapiens (Chen at el., 2020). This is a good indicator of how human migration out of Africa worked: that Homo sapiens did not leave Africa in one or more major dispersals, but that there was gene flow back and forth over time that brough Neanderthal DNA into Africa.
Doctor is high af! 😂
He makes a good case for European colonization of Africa. They are just reclaiming their ancestral lands.
But I thought there was speculation from a number of archaic fossils that the earliest members of hominids, was living in Europe. Wouldn't that mean we're all European instead of African? 🤔😁
No because the amount of evidence that humanity began in Europe is incomparable to the amount of proof that humanity began in Africa. Also just because a fossil shares a few traits similar to humans does not mean humanity is related to that species as a primary ancestor. Even if humanity began in Europe that theory has to explain why most human diversity is in Africa and not in Europe along with the fact that people with darker skin tones have more dominant genes than peoples of lighter skin tones suggesting that our ancestors had primarily dark skin. So if our ancestors hail from Europe they should have a darker complexion rather than a lighter one. However do you know where most dark skinned people are concentrated? Around the equator where UV radiation bathes the equatorial regions. Europe is distant from the equator meaning that it does not receive as much UV radiation. Therefore our ancestors would not have a need for melanin in those areas compared to equatorial ones. Instead they should have a lighter skin tone which should result in people of lighter skin tones being more genetically diverse and genetically dominant. But current scientific studies suggest that this assumption is not true. So because we understand that darker skin tones are associated with being more diverse and dominant genetically suggests that peoples of darker skin tones have been around longer in modern humanity’s history. Therefore mathematically speaking the chances of humanity beginning with lighter skin-toned humans and in Europe is definitely possible but unlikely. It is kind of like a person claiming they can use Isaac Newton’s equation for gravitation to describe the gravitational force of a black hole better than Einstein’s General Relativity. Even though we have enough sufficient evidence that supports Albert Einstein’s theory of describing such a thing is much better than Isaac Newton’s.
@@keith.anthony.infinity.h "No because the amount of evidence that humanity began in Europe is incomparable to the amount of proof that humanity began in Africa. Also just because a fossil shares a few traits similar to humans does not mean humanity is related to that species as a primary ancestor. "
It is irrelevent how many fossils there are in both continents. I was referring to the Graecopithecus fossil which dates back to 7.2m years ago which is a potential earliest hominin ancestor of humans - and if it is, it is up to the scientific community to decide whether or not that qualifies as a true human or not, which is difficult to answer, considering only a jawbone has been discovered so far. The fossil dates back to a completely different era when our common ancestor that we share with today's members of the Pan lineage (chimpanzees), lived in Europe - so it isn't unlikely that the split may have happened before we ventured down into Africa.
"Even if humanity began in Europe that theory has to explain why most human diversity is in Africa"
When you talk about diversity, keep in mind that that relates to the modern populations - which is far removed from the origin (or transition from its own ancestor, rather) of a species, and has far more to do with where early humans thrived.
"people with darker skin tones have more dominant genes than peoples of lighter skin tones suggesting that our ancestors had primarily dark skin"
No, this is completely false. Dominant genes does not mean original. It simply means stronger by virtue of Mendel's law. It is known that dark skin evolved in early humans between 1 and 2 million years ago as our fur dropped off to provide the ability for our ancestors to sweat, and therefore, partake in 'persistence hunting.'
"So if our ancestors hail from Europe they should have a darker complexion rather than a lighter one"
False - through evolution, skin can change to become lighter or darker depending on what nature selects for the individuals. This does not violate Mendel's law. All people and populations evolve through time. By this logic, no one is 'original,' because whether they split up and some stayed while some migrated to another continent, everyone continues to evolve. If, hypothetically, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees had dark skin, and the fur was lost in Europe, early (European) humans would have quickly evolved lighter skin to combat the effects of vitamin D deficiency.
"So because we understand that darker skin tones are associated with being more diverse and dominant genetically suggests that peoples of darker skin tones have been around longer in modern humanity’s history"
False. More diversity simply means more admixture. It is known that there had been many hominin migrations from Europe and Asia into Africa for as long as hominins have been around. Human migration is not a one way street, people migrated all the time, sometimes back to where their own ancestors lived. It was uncovered recently that there were mass migrations of early humans around 70k years ago from Eurasia into Africa, and modern Africans have a 'ghost lineage' that comprises up to 15% of their dna. Perhaps, that unknown hominin came from Asia? Nobody knows for now.
"Therefore mathematically speaking the chances of humanity beginning with lighter skin-toned humans and in Europe is definitely possible but unlikely"
That is a subjective statement. Remember, humans did not spawn from nothing, we follow a chain of evolution from a single common ancestor from which all life on earth can also be traced. So if you draw the line backwards through time, we were simply less and less human. So what exactly do you mean by 'human?' Do you mean homo-sapiens sapiens, or homo genus, or basal hominin? If you go back between 7 and 14 million years, our ancestors lived in South Europe.
For hundreds of millions of years of our sentient lineage, our ancestors migrated all over the world, before Pangaea split up and after too. The entire world has contributed to the dawn of humanity.
@@ilikedinosaurs4992 yes exactly what I am saying El Graeco is considered to be a possible hominin based off of its jaw fossil. There have been scientists in the community who already suggest that because a jaw has hominin like traits does not mean that is a hominin. For example Oreopithecus has hominin like traits but Oreopithecus is still not a part of the hominin class. Also El Graeco is not part of the hominin class yet either. Another fossil claimed to be hominin-like was Rudapithecus from Hungary with similar teeth make up to humans, teams attempted to classify it as a hominin and possible ancestor of modern humans. But of course all they had was a jaw fossil and nothing else really. Once again this is another bold huge claim without sufficient and rigorously evidence.
It is like bringing a homemade bakery to a professional gourmet bakery.
And you do realize that modern anthropology bases its discoveries of off mostly genetic and fossil data. It is preposterous to suggest that fossil data is irrelevant that is like saying we should not use the light coming from matter to study what it is made of when it has been proven that light spectra can give those kind of clues.
Dominant genes does not mean original. What do you mean by that? It has been shown that the genetics of some African races have been around for thousands of years long before other race groups. And when it comes to dominant genetics that gene pool needs time and higher frequency to become dominant. This means that those who carry that gene pool have been around longer before those with the recessive genes. Also I did research Mendel’s Law does not state “dominant does not mean original”.
And you are right about what you said about skin color. It is naturally selected but nature does not just have a species evolve a certain way for no reason. The reason is because they split up right and went to different parts of the planet. The Earth is a curved globe meaning when light hits it from different angles some parts get more UV than others. Melanin is a major determinant of skin color. That is why our hominin ancestors needed melanated fur to protect their skin from potentially dangerous UV. Melanin is beneficial when it comes to processing nuntrients for the body from the sun, assisting the immune system’s strength, and etc. And it is more highly concentrated in peoples who live in UV soaked areas. That is why when some humans went else where they evolved to have a different skin tone because in those areas they did not need melanin. Where as if they were to go to the equator it would not be suitable for them because their skin tone is not adapted to that kind of environment. This is why I say if the first humans were white Europeans how are they going to survive in environments like equatorial Africa to evolve into people who look like me? So if early humans had lighter skin like a European tell me why do we not see a genetic dominance and variety in them?
I am so glad you brought up admixture. Admixture happens when two people of distinguishable clans mate with another to have mixed offspring. This is true because on the African continent the first human species had different skin tones along with our dark skinned ancestors the Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Many people think that human migration happens in a snap of a finger, but no. It took time for humans to get around, and what do you think they did during that time of them staying in Africa, mate of course. With who? The ancient Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Now you are dodging the mathematical logic of this. I am not being subjective when I can literally show you statistically how much proof the OOA theory has compared to other theories like OOE or etc. That is not being subjective it is being objective. We are human that is why we call ourselves human to distinguish us from other living beings. Just because we trace back to an an ancestor of a different species does not mean we are that species. It is like saying because red is under the category of color we should not call it red we should call it color. We are Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Plus you are saying that if we trace back far enough our ancestors lived in Europe based off of no sufficient and rigorous proof. The only proof you have is a couple of jaw fossils compared to the rich data provided by nearly complete fossils and genetic data found on the African continent. Do you hear how subjective you sound now, basing claims off of what you feel and want to be true rather than the reality of your claims? I encourage to look at this with a more logical eye rather than some bias view. Me personally I think that this idea of trying to disprove the OOA theory is not to progress knowledge but is motivated by racism and white supremacist ideology. The scales are weighing in terms of which has more proof. My friend the scale has tipped to the side of the Out of Africa Theory because it has more rigorously and sufficiently derived evidence than other theories. So whether you like it or not, modern humanity is more than likely originated on the African continent.
And I am getting passionate about this not because I am mad about your claim but because you are making it based off of personalized wants rather than a non-bias mind. That is not how we do science, we do not make huge claims with non-suitable evidence. For example, Einstein’s General Relativity did not come with a claim of it being true without having suitable evidence provided by mathematics, and astronomical experimentation using a solar eclipse for instance.
@@keith.anthony.infinity.h Yes, I agree that we don't know enough about El Graeco to classify it as a hominin, due to its physical evidence lacking, but it does not rule out the possibility either. Between 5 and 7 million years of our ancestors' evolution is a big mystery. We don't even know if they lived in Europe or Africa. Both continents (as well as Asia) yield no or little evidence of a potential human ancestor, so it's a grey area. We know that between 7 and 14 million years ago, our ancestors lived in Europe because that's what the fossil record strongly suggests, just like that our ancestors between 2.5m and 5m years ago were in Africa, because that's what the record suggests. So while I agree that most of our bipedal transition happened in Africa between 2.5m and 3.5m years ago, what happened beyond that is unknown.
@@keith.anthony.infinity.h Genetic data? Can you explain how that proves a theory correct or substantiates it, and how certain what data we have is correct.
reject humanity, return to pa po pe
We’re all Puerto Rican
Common ancestor theory … is based on genes … ( just 1.5 percent… common genes, in the dna studies …however 98.5 percent..much not common )
Due some due diligence, James Tour … explains clearly why Dawkins claims, from this study…is definitely interesting, however not proving Common Ancestry…. Genetics are not proving Dawkins Words …. Far from it ….
According to mainstream geneticist the consensus is race doesn't exist on a genetic level. 'There is no genetic evidence that the groups known as races have "distinct, unifying genetic identities and genes show there is ample variations within races, and there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation between them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other."
'Based on an examination of our DNA, any two human beings are 99.9 percent identical."
@@mystic22g4 if race has no genetic component, how come no black kids are born in China to Chinese parents? Or Asian child to Latino parents? Etc.
Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology or genetics meaning it is a concept created by society rather than a biological reality. Different cultures and societies have different ways of categorizing and defining race.
While there are genetic differences between individuals and populations, these differences do not align with traditional racial categories. For example, the genetic variation within racial groups is greater than the variation between them. In other words, individuals within the same racial group can be more genetically diverse than individuals from different racial groups.
For example, google the Hadza people they are hunter gatherers who live in Northern Tanzania (Africa) on a genetic level they are more similar genetically to Europeans and Asian than they are to other Africans.
💯
We are all human beings of earth and not afican. Race are created by human beings.
You gotta be crazy as hell to think were apes, my ancestors are from outer space 👽👽
We are all fish and that makes everyone a gay fish.
Chinese civilization begins from the Peking man. Peking Man with estimates as far back as 780,000 years ago. This means Chinese have been living in Beijing area from 780,000 years ago. That's not very recent. Chinese are not African.
You didn't evolve from Peking man. That was a Homo Erectus. Every person you see migrated out of Africa 60,000 years ago.
Peking Man is one of the little branches off Homo Erectus. You didn't evolve from him.
And the dating of Peking Man ranges from just 200,000 years (or so) ago to 780,000 years ago.
what is that wasn't the case? feels like he's trying to use science for some moral conclusions. bad idea to mix those - let's say tomorrow we have new scientific evidence - will we reclassify ourselves into multiple species?
And I hear your point I do agree that you should not mix your morality in to science and yes science is always evolving we’re always discovering new things about all topics in old discoveries so if new information is presented an absolutely we would re-classify
Facts are facts. If that happens then yes
Idc who's who, or who came from where just live your life how you want to, believe what u want and in whom you want. Life is too dang short to be debating about all this because, at the end of the day, everyone will have their own batch of evidence that they claim to be correct, some will agree and others will disagree. I for one just don't care because no amount of evidence you provide will get me to believe that you were able to trace back millions of years of genealogies, but I also won't squander your effort of doing so because just as I believe what I want to believe, you believe that your life's work is correct.
This really bothers you a bit mate 😂😂😂😂 this is you 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹.........lmmfaoooooo what a joke
@@ernestwilliams6123 you good bro? You sound like you're having a bad day. Get well my guy.🙏🏿🙏🏿
Do you believe we can send information like video instantaneously through thin air across the planet on the internet? Fly around the planet in heavy steel vehicles with hundreds of people inside? Just because you don't know how something works is irrelevant to the truth. Keep denying science and knowledge though. So you actually believe generations of people have devoted their lives to create evidence of a fake story of DNA and biogenetic science? Right now thousands of people are years into studying a totally fabricated and fake science...
Lol you have no idea how the world and reality works. It's a scary place you live in mate. God bless though right?
@@robsimpson7319 in that case do you actually believe that generations of people have devoted their lives to create evidence of a fake story of God and the principles we should abide by to live a better life? No need to answer I know you believe that, but just because you don't know how someone works doesn't mean you should try to deny their existence. I do have no idea how the world or reality works, I only listen to what others tell me and apply it to my life before I believe in what I feel is the truth. You're right though, It is a scary place we live in mate, but what can I say, God bless.🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿
Actually we are all from Myanmar. Primeapes from Myanmar are 43 million years old and they lived in colonies like humans. Lucy is only 2 to 3 millions years old and she was the only one there. she did not have a male mate.
lol mingalarpar
The earliest anthropoid-primate fossil found was eosimias from China which is 45 million years old. The oldest true primate was also discovered in China, at 56m years old.
Cos that is what they want to hear ....all bs ,10 years later they change the story
You can run but you can't run forever. 😂😂
soo true
This is 🧢 asf
Word, G?
God created Adam and Eve and thats it, not all the nonsense the people talk about
Keep telling yourself that, Darling. 😉
Evidence ?
And the earth was created 6000 years ago eh?
@@dfdxdfdydfdz Earth: That sweet of you, it's great to know I'm still young and fresh.
@@dfdxdfdydfdz I can give you an exact date
Humans are not apes or monkeys
Ok
men are soil and females came from a male's rib right?
lol
@@claireglory only a fool says in his heart there is no God
@@chasedavion9790 so men are mud and females are bones right?
@@claireglory so when you die an are buried what will your body turn into
Lies
To dismiss evolution because it has nothing to say about the origins of the universe is like throwing out your fridge because it can't mow your lawn. Evolution is a theory which expains the diversity of life, nothing else.
@@religionisalie because life does not start in Africa. Only the origin of people who were there first did not leave. We cannot dive down all the way to the start because nobody knows where and how life started. We are the Earth guardians but our dna is different. And since you're trying to defend something you're not aware of, arguing on how we start from 1 places and disperse from another, is irrelevant. And will always stay irrelevant until the universe resets itself.
@@religionisalie Maybe you should give up science and stick with what's going on and why the europeans create lies and misconception about our history and listen to those who are in desperate in needs.
@@njgrant3988 In 1987, a groundbreaking study supported British naturalist Charles Darwin's 1871 theory that all humans (Homo Sapiens) originated in Africa. American geneticist Rebecca Cann and Mark Stoneking, and New Zealand biochemist Allan Wilson, compared mitochondrial DNA, the unique genetic code passed down from female to female in different populations around the world. They discovered an unbroken line that led to one female living in motherfucking AFRICA around 200,000 years ago.
@@njgrant3988 So instead of ASSUMING that I'm "UnAwArE".... How about you OPEN UP A FUCKING BOOK ABOUT BLACK HISTORY YOU DUMB FUCK!!!! I highly suggest the book "The Black History Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained"....
How do you hear to someone says that we are apes 🦍 damn u Richard the best word express you is complete maniac
wtf are you talking about of course we are apes. he is 100% right. we are also mammals.
modern chimpazees are our cousins we humans and chimps both have common ancestor and thus are related to each other
It's a simple classification system. Do you have gills? Not a fish. Do you a spine? Not an invertebrate. Do you have leaves? Not a plant. Etc. etc. Humans are mammals. The rest follows.
When they are trying to save there own as That’s when they want to claim to be African 🤣 and these Neanderthal can’t be trusted he still lying to ya faces my brother don’t fall for it
You do realize that Neanderthals also came from Africa as well right? We are all Africans at the end of the day. Regardless of skin tone.
And where do you think humans came from before they were human? Primates didn't evolve in Africa. The evolutionary origin was Asia.
😂😂😂😂
Do not believe this.. we are made by God created in his image made as humans. We did not derive from apes. Come on.
Actually we are all from Myanmar. Primeapes from Myanmar are 43 million years old and they lived in colonies like humans. Lucy is only 2 to 3 millions years old and she was the only one there. she did not have a male mate.
Good thing it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what can be proven.
no no we were made in an intergalactic mcdonalds. the best mc donalds chef very carefully developed our universe from his sweat
I believe in the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster. Prove me, that my belief is wrong and yours isn't, cause my 'God' claims, that he is more right than others too, so he has to be right... I guess. ^^
congratulations, you are an official idiot of TH-cam.😊
😂 Doctor speak for yourself...I am 100 % native American, not a single trace of black blood in my DNA.
S u dummy. Go back to school
Africa ➡️ Asia ➡️ north america
@@fridaynight3181nope that was disproven only you monkeys came from Africa 😂
@@fridaynight3181 😂 😂 😂 😂 source : Dawkins
@@yourewrongabouteverything YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH litteraly its irrefutable all human lifencame from africa but no everyone isnt african theye mixed with neanderthals and evolved into diffrent things so just pick up a book or continued to b3 blinded by bigotry
This has already been proven to not be true, people's skeletons don't match the story.
I’m sure you know better than an evolutionary biology professor from Oxford
@@project-pe6ly yes, I do.
@@project-pe6ly Give him a cookie and hope publishes a book about things he knows.
Because evolution and breeding with neanderthals ....um?😕🤨
@@jamalwilliams3674 shhh don't tell him anything just leave him be and let the rest of the world laugh at him
I don't trust this guy.
Don't doesn't matter L bozo now stay a pack
Then trust the science. Namely, DNA.
@@jamesanthony5681 I trust the truth. The people who analyse DNA are just makes a guess.
We should focus on AI and let it do the examination for us. I don't trust people like him. We humans make mistakes.
@@krishanSharma.69.69f DNA tells you a LOT. Look up genetic markers.
@@jamesanthony5681 I am not denying. I just don't think homosapiens were from Africa. There is still a possibility that homosapiens arrive from a continent which is may be submerged right now and then settled in Africa.
DNA is just a small part of this. We still need more evidence.
😂😂😂😂this is so much non sense.
Okay white supremacist
Religious people have died fighting for a truth they themselves corrupted, killed for an unverified heaven, and lived an entire life in subjugation and fear of unproved gods, devils and hells.
@@religionisalie '''Religion is a global anti-black hoax!!!'' 😂 😂 😂
People need to understand that this “we are all from Africa” doesn’t mean what they think it means. We’re NOT the descendants of the human Africans. Our ancestors at that time were NOT humans they were APES. Just a bunch of apes in Africa because they liked the weather. Africa was simply a place to them. Those apes eventually migrated to the other continents and evolved rapidly and differently which is why we have different ethnic groups today. So genetically speaking we do NOT originate from Africa, we originate from the ape, and the apes evolved into humans all over the world.
First of all apes cant walk that much distance and migrate they have to bipedal
Even if apes did evolve diffrenly at different places they all would end up being different species and woundf be able to mate or reproduce we had African ancestors through haplogroups dna testing
Apes cant migrate that far humans anomatically modern humans oldest ones have been found in Africa it makes sense that humans migrated from Africa
No the modern human originated in Africa
@@theace3164No, I'm batman
@@theace3164🦇
we are not it s proven wrong
Go on, how is evolution proven to be wrong...
Religion is a socially acceptable version of heroin, it's a prop which fucks people up and over. And as Blaise Pascal so aptly put it: Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
@@killerrabbit2693 Go on , prove evolution is true and we wuz all kangz 😂 😂 😂
@khanusmagnus577
Evolution is a proven fact.
New species have been seen to emerge from others, by geographical changes, by food changes.
What do you think science means by evolution exactly....