View Full Version : Out of Africa flaws

2012-12-30, 18:10

Out of Africa is seriously challenged by the diversity in languages, which could not have arisen in the narrow timeframe the OOA model suggests. In Febuary 2012 LMU linguist Michael Cysouw has published a commentary in Science which argues that the Out of Africa hypothesis for the origin of language is still not adequately supported by the data.

It takes at least twenty thousand years for two sister languages to lose all semblance of relationship. In other words the Out of Africa timeframe is contradicted by languages, because if all languages did have a common origin, this would have been millions of years before the single emergence of Homo Sapiens which the OOA model predicts occurred no earlier than 200,000 - 100,000 B.P.


Much fossil evidence poses a problem for Out of Africa, as in many places there is clear evidence of regional continuity of traits from Erectus through to archaic Homos, to moderns.

Recent finds provide additional support for trait continuity in East Asia, particularly China.


Its often claimed genetics supports OOA, nothing could be further from the truth.

Palaeoanthropologist John Hawkes, Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin writes in 2010: "These ongoing studies are concluding that present-day genetic variation is inconsistent with a simple model where a random-mating ancestral population gives rise to today's global population by means of a staged out-of-Africa dispersal."


Geographer Akhil Bakshi in his paper subtitled "A critique of the African-origin theory" (2006) has pointed out that the Out of Africa hypothesis is incredibly unlikely given the dangerous geographical barriers: "what was the motivation for him to leave his homeland and migrate across inaccessible forests, deathly deserts and wide oceans and seas to lands and islands thousands of miles away? From the early stage of hominid evolution to, say, 50,000 years ago, when the hunter-gathers settled down to an agrarian life, the population was small, food abundant, and wars had not graduated to more than a bar room brawl, there was no reason or necessity for our ancestors to risk venturing from Africa to as far away as inaccessible Australia and all the places in-between".

The OOA theory is also flawed as Bakshi highlights, as it provides no reason why it occurred in the first place.

Why would people suddenly leave to travel thousands of miles across life threatening terrain?>


I see no archaeological evidence. I mean if a single replacement scenario like OOA happened occurred, we would expect to see an intrusive archaeological culture from the african wanderers. Instead we find nothing. Regional continuity in contrast is what the archaeological record shows. No Palaeolithic cultures were interrupted by Africans.


The OOA theory is poorly supported by the data, I think its only a mainstream theory because of political correctness and it trys to downplay racial trait differences/origins.

2012-12-30, 18:56
Do you have a link stating that it takes 20,000 years for two sister languages to lose all resemblances? I think that's interesting, and it could be true. Does that mean it takes 20,000 years to form a new language family?

If the OOA theory is correct, then humans must have sped through Eurasia, Australasia, and eventually the Americas occupying different environmental niches. These populations could have been small and isolated from one another, and forming the several language families that we have today. The Americas are said to have been settled around 15,000 years ago, yet there are several language families there. Most of the Native American languages and genetics are derived from that first wave 15,000 years ago that probably only spoke one language.

Btw I'm open-minded to a non-African origin for modern anatomical humans, but I still favor the OOA theory.

2013-01-01, 15:26
All these thing would be addressed if there was multiple OOA migrations - or wherever they first appeared. Would that be an OOA scenario? I think it would, or at least an "out of somewhere" scenario. I don't really care about where the exact place was, I think the important issue is common descent vs multiple independent origins. The fact that multiple exoduses also could've resulted in back migration and inter mixture between the lineages kind of muddles the whole thing. The Neanderthal - which is assumed to have been a parallel subspecies or very closely related species, has autosomal DNA which differ from modern humans*. Granted, there's supposedly some inter-mixture, but the Neanderthal is more different from modern humans than modern humans are between each other, from the perspective of genes and autosomal DNA, as well as MtDNA. Even in the sources posted in the Aborigine thread, the study placed the Neanderthal before any divergence from the common root including the Aborigines. Thus, there's a limit to how far back the common ancestry of modern humans can be. It would seem unlikely that the main part of the lineages could originate from Asian Homo erectus if they split from African lineages millions of years ago.

*The genetic study of Neanderthals has apparently been heavily criticized, so I'm not sure how accurate it is. I guess maybe the future will tell.

2013-01-01, 15:47
Don't haplogroups offer conclusive evidence?

2013-01-01, 15:48
Don't haplogroups offer conclusive evidence?
That's what I always thought.

2013-01-01, 16:24
Don't haplogroups offer conclusive evidence?

That's what I always thought.

Then what is this Book Gremlin talking about? MtDNA L3 = End of discussion