6 ms·

Would any evidence that contradicts the 'Out-of-Africa' dogma even get considered by Western scientists?

by InfiniteLoup 2y ago

AndrewDucker 2y ago
Sure! If you've encountered some then please share!
- InfiniteLoup 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - AndrewDucker 2y ago
    Nope! I'm just interested in what a fellow HNer has found, if they're interested in sharing. That's why I have discussions on HN, so I can learn from others with more knowledge than me!
  - zarzavat 2y ago
    Even if your theory is correct that the entire academic establishment in the US is conspiring to mislead people, how do you explain research outside the US?
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    Just going to leave us hanging and not share your forbidden knowledge?
  - ripped_britches 2y ago
    Out of Africa way predates DEI. Are you saying this is a 1980s conspiracy?
    - zo1 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
        DEI is a term used by a vague group of people to vilify certain media, or in this particular case, push an anti-science narrative claiming DEI is used in an anti-scientific fashion. It does not allow anyone that questions it to be called racist per se, but the questioning itself is just unsubstantiated and vague. This comment chain started with someone claiming contradictory evidence is not considered; where is this contradictory evidence? I mean sure, if there is an effective suppression campaign going on then said evidence would be gone, but surely there'd be whistleblowers and first hand accounts of scientific oppression and the like? If not, it's more effective than e.g. North Korea's regime in keeping information hidden, and like the moon landings, hundreds of thousands of people would be complicit. Which would be really interesting.
        DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        DEI does exist at universities, but the idea that human evolutionary biologists let their research be directed by DEI concerns is ridiculous. The whole out-of-Africa vs. multiregional debate played out over many years between different research groups, and what ultimately settled it was DNA evidence that heavily favored the out-of-Africa hypothesis. With more data and more findings, it's become clear that modern humans do have some DNA from different populations outside Africa, but out of Africa is still basically correct.
  - enkid 2y ago
    You think the study of archeology, anthropology, genetics, and ecology across the entire Western academic system is being subverted to support DEI using a theory that existed long before the time "DEI" was a known acronym? And you can't provide evidence?
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    > that has an obligation to advance DEI efforts in order to receive grants in the first place, Nah they don't. Anti-"DEI" billionaires like Elon Musk are free to likewise fund research or create "free speech" universities if they so choose. But they choose not to. You sound like you're pushing a theory that anthropology is biased, what do you have to back that claim up?
antman 2y ago
[flagged]
themgt 2y ago
The current "Out of Africa" is really not the same as what you might have learned 2-3 decades ago, despite the branding. David Reich is probably the leading researcher in this field and his description of our best guesses is highly nuanced and open to new data. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj6skZIxPuI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj6skZIxPuI https://www.razibkhan.com/p/out-of-africas-midlife-crisis https://www.razibkhan.com/p/out-of-africas-midlife-crisis
- AndrewKemendo 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    > most advanced While I agree with your assessment from my subjective (european) perspective, this is inherently a value judgement and has no place in discussing genepools. > less evolved humans This is just a straight-up nonsensical concept. > human genetic evolution peaked this is also a nonsensical concept
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    This is complete nonsense. > they have better overall baseline health indicators, sustainable living practices etc… This is a totally ridiculous claim and not supported by any evidence. > So humans left Africa, interbred with neandertal, created a less socialized, more sociopathic hybrid This is one of the more stunningly racist things I've seen on here in quite some time. It's scarcely worth trying to point out that this is a completely baseless claim.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      Oh come on we get barely disguised european scientific racism on HN all the time. Let us have a little hotep shit every once in a while.
      - ch4s3 2y ago
enkid 2y ago
Out of Africa was fought by the majority of Western scientists during the early 20th century because of their pro-European biases. The reason its accepted is because the preponderance of evidence supports it.
- Mountain_Skies 2y ago
  No doubt those biased Europeans felt their theory had the preponderance of evidence behind it. Funny how often the settled science is like that until the incumbent scientists die off rather than because better evidence was considered and adopted by science.
  - anonymousDan 2y ago
    I don't think it's some sort of conspiracy among scientists. A lot of the genetic sequencing techniques simply weren't possible until recently.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  there were also a lot of sociocultural changes coming out of the 60s/70s that changed the scientific conclusions we drew. it used to be that we saw changes in ancient pottery and language and assumed that previous people had been replaced by new people with different techniques. then, in the 60s/70s it became popular that these changes didn’t mark population replacement but were more cultural spread and shift. then genetics came around in the 90s and obliterated the cultural hypothesis and showed that in most of these cases it was largely population replacement. there are lots of theories from the mid-20th that haven’t yet had their ‘genetics in the 90s’ moment.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    > then genetics came around in the 90s and obliterated the cultural hypothesis and showed that in most of these cases it was largely population replacement. I think the current consensus is a fusion of the two stances, particularly as some of the changes have appeared to be too rapid to reflect population displacement, and genetics clearly indicate genetic admixture with varying distinguishing characteristics relevant to the region and timeperiod as opposed to straight displacement. Unsatisfying, I know, but basically any firm position on either side has equally firm arguments against it.
drawkward 2y ago
Yes.
throw3288932 2y ago
> from European fossils dating back 45,000 years It is racist BS. There were modern humans in Australia 60k years ago. Europe was also colonized way before that date. And some modern humans never left Africa.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> Would any evidence that contradicts the 'Out-of-Africa' dogma even get considered by Western scientists? An easy example is that neanderthals, denisovans, h erectus, etc contribute via admixture to Homo Sapien Sapiens and well predate "out of africa" dates by hundreds of thousands of years. It's not a hard stretch to presume that other yet-unnamed branches of modern humans left earlier and admixed the same as the other named groups. I don't think anyone is proposing an extant group of humans that don't have relatively recent roots in africa, though.
whimsicalism 2y ago
yes, see david reich

Would any evidence that contradicts the 'Out-of-Africa' dogma even get considered by Western scientists?

AndrewDucker 2y ago

Sure! If you've encountered some then please share!

InfiniteLoup 2y ago
[flagged]
- AndrewDucker 2y ago
  Nope! I'm just interested in what a fellow HNer has found, if they're interested in sharing. That's why I have discussions on HN, so I can learn from others with more knowledge than me!
- zarzavat 2y ago
  Even if your theory is correct that the entire academic establishment in the US is conspiring to mislead people, how do you explain research outside the US?
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  Just going to leave us hanging and not share your forbidden knowledge?
- ripped_britches 2y ago
  Out of Africa way predates DEI. Are you saying this is a 1980s conspiracy?
  - zo1 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
      DEI is a term used by a vague group of people to vilify certain media, or in this particular case, push an anti-science narrative claiming DEI is used in an anti-scientific fashion. It does not allow anyone that questions it to be called racist per se, but the questioning itself is just unsubstantiated and vague. This comment chain started with someone claiming contradictory evidence is not considered; where is this contradictory evidence? I mean sure, if there is an effective suppression campaign going on then said evidence would be gone, but surely there'd be whistleblowers and first hand accounts of scientific oppression and the like? If not, it's more effective than e.g. North Korea's regime in keeping information hidden, and like the moon landings, hundreds of thousands of people would be complicit. Which would be really interesting.
      - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        DEI does exist at universities, but the idea that human evolutionary biologists let their research be directed by DEI concerns is ridiculous. The whole out-of-Africa vs. multiregional debate played out over many years between different research groups, and what ultimately settled it was DNA evidence that heavily favored the out-of-Africa hypothesis. With more data and more findings, it's become clear that modern humans do have some DNA from different populations outside Africa, but out of Africa is still basically correct.
- enkid 2y ago
  You think the study of archeology, anthropology, genetics, and ecology across the entire Western academic system is being subverted to support DEI using a theory that existed long before the time "DEI" was a known acronym? And you can't provide evidence?
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  > that has an obligation to advance DEI efforts in order to receive grants in the first place, Nah they don't. Anti-"DEI" billionaires like Elon Musk are free to likewise fund research or create "free speech" universities if they so choose. But they choose not to. You sound like you're pushing a theory that anthropology is biased, what do you have to back that claim up?

antman 2y ago

[flagged]

themgt 2y ago

The current "Out of Africa" is really not the same as what you might have learned 2-3 decades ago, despite the branding. David Reich is probably the leading researcher in this field and his description of our best guesses is highly nuanced and open to new data. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj6skZIxPuI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj6skZIxPuI https://www.razibkhan.com/p/out-of-africas-midlife-crisis https://www.razibkhan.com/p/out-of-africas-midlife-crisis

AndrewKemendo 2y ago
[flagged]
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  > most advanced While I agree with your assessment from my subjective (european) perspective, this is inherently a value judgement and has no place in discussing genepools. > less evolved humans This is just a straight-up nonsensical concept. > human genetic evolution peaked this is also a nonsensical concept
- ch4s3 2y ago
  This is complete nonsense. > they have better overall baseline health indicators, sustainable living practices etc… This is a totally ridiculous claim and not supported by any evidence. > So humans left Africa, interbred with neandertal, created a less socialized, more sociopathic hybrid This is one of the more stunningly racist things I've seen on here in quite some time. It's scarcely worth trying to point out that this is a completely baseless claim.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    Oh come on we get barely disguised european scientific racism on HN all the time. Let us have a little hotep shit every once in a while.
    - ch4s3 2y ago

enkid 2y ago

Out of Africa was fought by the majority of Western scientists during the early 20th century because of their pro-European biases. The reason its accepted is because the preponderance of evidence supports it.

Mountain_Skies 2y ago
No doubt those biased Europeans felt their theory had the preponderance of evidence behind it. Funny how often the settled science is like that until the incumbent scientists die off rather than because better evidence was considered and adopted by science.
- anonymousDan 2y ago
  I don't think it's some sort of conspiracy among scientists. A lot of the genetic sequencing techniques simply weren't possible until recently.
whimsicalism 2y ago
there were also a lot of sociocultural changes coming out of the 60s/70s that changed the scientific conclusions we drew. it used to be that we saw changes in ancient pottery and language and assumed that previous people had been replaced by new people with different techniques. then, in the 60s/70s it became popular that these changes didn’t mark population replacement but were more cultural spread and shift. then genetics came around in the 90s and obliterated the cultural hypothesis and showed that in most of these cases it was largely population replacement. there are lots of theories from the mid-20th that haven’t yet had their ‘genetics in the 90s’ moment.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  > then genetics came around in the 90s and obliterated the cultural hypothesis and showed that in most of these cases it was largely population replacement. I think the current consensus is a fusion of the two stances, particularly as some of the changes have appeared to be too rapid to reflect population displacement, and genetics clearly indicate genetic admixture with varying distinguishing characteristics relevant to the region and timeperiod as opposed to straight displacement. Unsatisfying, I know, but basically any firm position on either side has equally firm arguments against it.

drawkward 2y ago

Yes.

throw3288932 2y ago

> from European fossils dating back 45,000 years It is racist BS. There were modern humans in Australia 60k years ago. Europe was also colonized way before that date. And some modern humans never left Africa.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

> Would any evidence that contradicts the 'Out-of-Africa' dogma even get considered by Western scientists? An easy example is that neanderthals, denisovans, h erectus, etc contribute via admixture to Homo Sapien Sapiens and well predate "out of africa" dates by hundreds of thousands of years. It's not a hard stretch to presume that other yet-unnamed branches of modern humans left earlier and admixed the same as the other named groups. I don't think anyone is proposing an extant group of humans that don't have relatively recent roots in africa, though.

whimsicalism 2y ago

yes, see david reich