Guess who came up with the "Out of Africa" theory
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (60)
sorted by:
Well, it certainly “subverted” (or atleast was part of the effort to subvert) all the prior theories of human racial separation. It allowed every moron on earth to bleet out pat phrases like “there’s more genetic diversity within Africa than outside Africa” and have literally zero idea what they’re talking about, or what their useful idiocy is being used to achieve. “Out of Africa” basically exists to subvert all notions of racial differentiation, since “we wuz Africans 6 gorillion years ago”.
I take less issue with the actual data the theory is based on (basically attempting to reconstruct a history of haplogroup migration), than I do the broad and absurd popular delusions that have been constructed on that theory and data. But one piece I’ll point to debunk the broadest strokes of the theory is to point to the up to 20% of the subsaharan genome which doesn’t appear in any other genome on earth (also referred to by the popsci label “ghost DNA”). Out of Africa has no plausible mechanism by which this reality could exist while also maintaining its core notions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/ghost-ancestors-african-dna-study-detects-mysterious-human-species-idUSKBN2072X9
So now 'subverting' previous theories is a terrible thing. Wait till you hear about plate tectonics.
I don't think it does, and even then, you'd have to show that this was the actual intent of the theory. Also, out of Africa or not, ultimately, all humans share the same ancestors - so why?
I don't care if it stands or falls. The claims made in this thread are strange at best though.
It’s funny you mention that. Did you know plate tectonics was originally conceived of as a “catastrophist” explanation for the evidently rapid shifts in the location of the continents relative to the planet’s poles? In fact, it was a shady campaign of accusations of “Science Denier!” that eventually cowed Wegener and his eventual re-writers into the orthodoxy of the “gradualists”. Now we know that the catastrophist interpretation is far more accurate than the Scientific Establishment™️ could ever allow for
So you accidentally have brought up yet another example of valid theories being smashed and contorted to accommodate dogmatic ignorances. Just found that funny.
No I don’t, I directly addressed this dude why waste a paragraph on this:
Because, like you demonstrate in this pat, one-sentence reduction, it allows for woefully incomplete analysis to appear to be some kind of “ultimately honed in on” insight. Which it’s the farthest thing from. It’s a very messy and broad series of claims based on a very messy and broad array of data and the picture it sets out to paint is so incomplete as to be harmful in its reductionism. let me give it to you in a hypothetical - let’s say atleast 0.1% of every human can be traced to some dna we found in africa - that doesn’t actually say anything of value about the nature of the world, certainly nothing with counteracts the valid study of group differences, yet it’s used, ultimately (as you demonstrated) to dismiss these differences with ideas like “we’re all the same, ultimately”
Yeah, the theory definitely isn’t incorrect because this guy was jewish. It’s an unfortunately reality of the polarization of the current times. I wish it was more clear to me how to introduce nuance back into discussions of black and white.