all 22 comments

[–]Girondin 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I read this book last year, it relies too much on Rushton and Kemp for me to take it too seriously, both of those figures have very dubious and speculative claims, I wouldn't' recommend it to any blank slatist normie.

However the book is very readable and does argue its point very well. I have much skepticism on recent out of Africa theory after reading it

some quotes and notes of it I made when I read it:

The OoA story is that allspecies of Homo, including even Heidi and the Neanderthals, evolved in Africa. Early man, e.g., erectus, migrated out of Africa, but did not evolve into modern man outside of Africa. The evolution of erectusinto sapienshappened only in Africa, by about 160,000 ya, most likely in NE Africa. That raises the immediate questions, “If modernman was in Africa 160,000 ya why are today’s Africans still primitive according to all the traits discussed in Section II?” Did present day Africans de-evolve from more advanced ancestors and become more primitive?

Another question that pops to mind is, “Why would tropically-adapted Africans leave Africa 65,000 ya when that was right in the middle of the first ice age (about 73,000 to 55,000 ya, pp 31-32), and large numbers of cold-adapted Eurasian hominids were moving south?”

  1. what took them so long to migrate out? 10,000s of years not migrating & it's Hss.
  2. M & N macro haplogroups are found in eurasians, OoA believe they coaslesced in africa, Doesn't it make more sense that this occured in eurasia?
  3. if modern man evolved in africa why is modern s s african so primitive in a varity of traits compared to eurasians?
    1. the explanation that can still hold OoA is recent biological evolution (see John Hawk, Cochran, Nicholas Wade [what I personally believe])
  4. why would tropical adapted people move during a ice age? cold adapted people were heading south. How many times did a southern kingdom beat a northern one? especially at a global scale? Very rare.
    1. the hypothesis usually presented is that Hss had language ability and the others did not.
  5. why did the african erectus become Hss but not asian erectus? It's enviroment was more selected towards modern traits.
    1. why wouldn't language develop there?

The author also wrote a book on Austrian economics (The Pure Logic of Choice), AFAIK it is not online, it is probably a good book judging from his the writing style of this book. If your into that I recommend someone find it and upload it.

[–]Jacinda 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's a while since I read EWAU and like you I thought the author raised some good points. The Unz comments were also, as always, fun to read.

I would love to hear a professional paleologist discuss it particularly as we have more data now and far better techniques to analyze it.

In a sense it doesn't matter how humans evolved; we are all hominids — branches off the same family tree — but it is fascinating to speculate. In my experience, the public is presented with a cartoon version of seemingly settled science while the actual facts are anything but.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Austrian economics (The Pure Logic of Choice)

It's on libgen

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Another question that pops to mind is, “Why would tropically-adapted Africans leave Africa 65,000 ya when that was right in the middle of the first ice age

That date is way too recent. It's needs to be well over 100k ago for various mtdna dates to match up to population movements.

if modern man evolved in africa why is modern s s african so primitive in a varity of traits compared to eurasians?

A harsh climate provides a strong selective pressure for intelligence. Didn't plan for that icy winter? You're dead. Evolution works pretty quickly once you alter environment. It's the reason australoids are so similar to Africans, there was no environmental change to adapt to.

As far as I can tell the expansion out of Africa coincided with the development of fire. Itoght male more sense that further evolutionary changes happened in the new territory too.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It is an old book. We are much closer to africans than we are to chimps or neanderthals.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

We are much closer to africans than we are to chimps or neanderthals.

Wait, how is the last one possible when Neanderthals bred with Humans outside of Africa?

Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1-4% of the genomes of non-African modern humans, although a modern human who lived about 40,000 years ago has been found to have between 6-9% Neanderthal DNA (Fu et al 2015). The evidence we have of Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding sheds light on the expansion of modern humans out of Africa. These new discoveries refute many previous hypotheses in which anatomically modern humans replaced archaic hominins, like Neanderthals, without any interbreeding. However, even with some interbreeding between modern humans and now-extinct hominins, most of our genome still derives from Africa. Neanderthals could not have contributed to modern African peoples’ genomes because Neanderthals evolved and lived exclusively in Eurasia and therefore could not have bred with the humans living in Africa at that time.

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding#:~:text=Neanderthals%20have%20contributed%20approximately%201,(Fu%20et%20al%202015).

Edit: And to make these matters more complicated, keep in mind that many African slaves brought to the new world had sexual relations with their slavemasters. This is why it's more accurate to call Black Americans an entirely new ethnic group, since they have 20% White genes running inside them.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What don't you understand by 1-4%?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The 4% is the more recent contribution.

Unless you have an example of Europeans going back to Africa, mating with native Africans, and then returning back to Europe again.

I can only think of White South Africans or Rhodesians that matches that definition.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The 4% is the more recent contribution.

Okay? The majority of both sub-Saharan African and European DNA is the same species. Neanderthals are not the same species. Even if you use the earlier 6-9% contribution.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Apologies, I was reading your post wrong.

I agree we share more DNA with Africans.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

There are so many lines of evidence showing Africans being wholly different from all other races, not the least of which are all these genetic ones. Any way you slice it, Africans are another subspecies of hominid and we mix with them to our own peril.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They recently found up to 20% of a "ghost species" DNA in sub saharan Africans. https://www.sciencealert.com/the-ghost-of-an-unknown-extinct-hominid-has-been-found-in-a-modern-human-genome

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

There are so many lines of evidence showing Africans being wholly different from all other races

Africans are another subspecies of hominid and we mix with them to our own peril.

Considering we're much closer to Africans than Neanderthals, and white ancestors bred with Neanderthals, genetic difference alone isn't an issue here. If a low IQ white chooses to marry a higher IQ black it can be eugenic. It really doesn't matter with the limited amount of miscegenation that goes on with Africans anyway.

https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/7uis/plot_of_genetics_of_human_races_chimps_denisovans/

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If a low IQ white chooses to marry a higher IQ black it can be eugenic.

No it cant

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

IQ is 80% heritable as an adult so it can be.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No it is not eugenic

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We've been through this before. This was what you said:

Africans that have higher IQ don't matter, because of reversal to the mean.

Regression to the mean does not invalidate the fact that IQ is 80% heritable. It is eugenic for a bottom-tier white woman to choose a high IQ successful black over a poor low IQ homeless white.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh, no point taking the same argument again then. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Cope

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not cope, just a waste of time if we already discussed it and you didn't understand the concept.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You first.