Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy

Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanskii, Scientific Research, May 2012

Abstract

Seven thousand five hundred fifty-six (7556) haplotypes of 46 subclades in 17 major haplogroups were considered in terms of their base (ancestral) haplotypes and timespans to their common ancestors, for the purposes of designing of time-balanced haplogroup tree. It was found that African haplogroup A (originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present) is very remote time-wise from all other haplogroups, which have a separate common ancestor, named β-haplogroup, and originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp. It includes a family of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp. A downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and β-haplogroup, coined the α-haplogroup emerged 160,000 ± 12,000 ybp. A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown; however, the most likely origin for each of them is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south. Haplogroup B is descended from β-haplogroup (and not from haplogroup A, from which it is very distant, and separated by as much as 123,000 years of “lat- eral” mutational evolution) likely migrated to Africa after 46,000 ybp. The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various haplogroups.

[Editor’s Note: The full text is available in PDF format here.]

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • But do we dare take this away from blacks?   after all “man can from africa”  is really is their only claim the fame, and could destroy they seff-steem.  It would also open up the whole “we’re all the same”  argument.  How can two peoples be the same if they have different origins

    • anmpr1

      Next thing you know they’ll be telling us that Cleopatra and the great Egyptian civilization weren’t black.  When all is said and done, it looks like they will pretty much just be left with the recipe for peanut butter and the Super Soaker.  Oh the humanity!

      • The__Bobster

        Errr, they didn’t invent peanut butter either.

        • Sherman_McCoy

          Nope.  Nor the wheel, neither.

          • anmpr1

             But they still have the Super Soaker, so they’ve got that going for them.  And hip hop.  Can’t forget about that…

      • Talltrees

        Actually, Egyptian civilization wasn’t totally Black.  Some were mixed.  Scholars disagree, but it’s been claimed, EuroAsian, Arab, Mediterranean, and African.  Scholars say Cleopatra had olive skin based on her Greek and Persian ancestry.  Her father’s ancestry is unknown.  Paintings and sculptures of her done during her time do not resemble Black features.

    • Self esteem is a very poor substitute for Self Respect…

      But try telling the Uruk that…

      • Sherman_McCoy

        If I am not mistaken, according to Tolkien mythology, the Orks were created by Melkor, perhaps a perverted mutation based upon the Elves.

        From Wiki:n Tolkien’s writings, Orcs are of human shape, of varying size but always smaller than Men. They are depicted as ugly and filthy, with a taste for human flesh. They are fanged, bow-legged and long-armed and some have dark skin as if burned. In a private letter, Tolkien describes them as “squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes… …degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types”.[14] They are portrayed as miserable, crafty and vicious beings.

        Except for the fangs and slant-eyes, I think we might be on to something here!

        • Hi Sherm..

          I remember reading the Rings trilogy when I was very young.  It has always stuck with me.  The movies were spectacular!  Very pro-West, very pro-White.  In fact, there was a minor uproar when they came out about how RAY-CISS! they were.  The race-hucksters and self-hating whites said that the Orcs and Uruk Hai were just substitutes for blacks.

          I’m just obliging them…

          I call them Uruk Hai because, according to the trilogy, Uruks were crossbred by Saruman to be a larger, more vicious version of the standard shorter, squat Orc.  They could also go by day, since they were immune to the sun, though they did not like it very much.

          Sounds pretty similar, doesnt it?

          Oh, I don’t know if it’s a result of mongrelization on the part of the Uruk, but I have noticed quite a few with slanted eyes… Especially on the covers of those tabloid magazines in front of the check out register at the grocery store.

          Far as I’m concerned, if the shoe fits…

  • Heretoday

    I would exercise great skepticism towards anybody claiming to disprove the out-of-Africa model (usually called recent African origin or RAO model).  Remember there is a lot of genetic evidence in favour of it and in spite of what is often heard in pro-white circles there is scant evidence against it.

    Besides, it doesn’t matter, at all.  The difference between a white race that evolved from a black race versus two races that evolved separately and simultaneously is arbitrary.  It may very well be that the RAO model is eventually discarded, but this is not very relevant to our cause.

    • anonymous_amren

       Nonsense. White people (and Aborigines) are proven to be partly descended from Neanderthals. Aborigines are proven to be partly descended from Denisovans. Case closed, you lost, Out of Africa theory is proven false.

      There are parts of the Out of Africa theory that were right and will still be included in the current theory. But overall, it is known to be wrong.

      That doesn’t mean that all the pro-white theories about evolution are right, some of them are biased nonsense from wishful thinking. But the old Out of Africa theory needs to be thrown away, like all theories that have been disproven.

  • Sherman_McCoy

    What?  What all dis haplo-mumbo-jumbo sposed to mean?  Dis jis be mo racism, dats wot it be!

    • It’s just the White Man’s mojo, Sherm…

      Just trust us and go back to sleep. 🙂

  • Evolution through imperfect reproduction and some kind of selective process isn’t just a scientific theory explaining the origin of the species, it’s also a mathematical idea that leads to evolutionary algorithms.  Now, back in Darwin’s time, there were a variety of ideas about how evolution could happen.  Darwin championed imperfect reproduction and natural selection.  Lamarck believed instead that acquired characteristics would be inherited, so giraffes are the product of several generations of horses craning their necks, which I suppose is a reasonable guess in the absence of any idea of genetics.  The USSR decided that the very idea of genetics was heresy.  They famously hurt their agricultural output for it.
    What do you dispute about evolution?  Do you disagree that people have genes that are passed on to their children?  Do you disagree that this reproduction involves occasional errors which can give rise to new traits?  How do you think only certain Caucasoid groups have light-colored eyes?  How do you think that blond hair developed, twice, among the Caucasoids and among a certain offshoot of black pacific islanders?
    Liberals, while acknowledging evolution elsewhere, believe in a bizarre kind of creationism where, quote, “Modern anthropology has proven that all races are the same in innate abilities”. Well actually, they’ve retreated from that, but if you refused to say that 20 years ago you would be considered a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.  Oh, it would have been unthinkable to say naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews even ten years ago.

    • anonymous_amren

       He doesn’t dispute anything about evolution except that it has the audacity to actually study the history of the world, and report their findings rather than brainlessly parroting his religious dogma.

      He just wants to burn witches. He’s the same as the liberals who deny race and demonise and punish heretics.

  • Africans have invented everything from peanut butter to nuclear submarines. They even landed on the Moon first as this documentary proves titled ” The Old Negro Space Program.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6xJzAYYrX8

  •  black folks suffer from an unbearable grandiose sense of self,  they hardly needed yt to fill their heads with their own greatness

  •  out of africa does not mean out of negroes

  • This ONLY PROVES
    blacks like to cannibalize and eat whites.

  • The__Bobster

    http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/#peanutbutter

    Peanut Butter

    George Washington Carver (who began his peanut research in 1903)?

    No!

    Peanuts, which are native to the New World tropics, were mashed into paste by Aztecs hundreds of years ago. Evidence of modern peanut butter comes from US patent #306727 issued to Marcellus Gilmore Edson of Montreal, Quebec in 1884, for a process of milling roasted peanuts between heated surfaces until the peanuts reached “a fluid or semi-fluid state.” As the product cooled, it set into what Edson described as “a consistency like that of butter, lard, or ointment.” In 1890, George A. Bayle Jr., owner of a food business in St. Louis, manufactured peanut butter and sold it out of barrels. J.H. Kellogg, of cereal fame, secured US patent #580787 in 1897 for his “Process of Preparing Nutmeal,” which produced a “pasty adhesive substance” that Kellogg called “nut-butter.”

  • Nope.  Not the Turks.  Aztecs. 

    Aztecs had a food that was made from peanuts smashed into a paste hundreds of years ago.  I don’t think peanuts even existed in the Old World until it was ‘discovered’ by european explorers and brought back. from the New World.

    Of course, I’m not a Uber-Expert on the history of the peanut..

    What’s important is that G.W. Carver did NOT invent ‘peanut butter’…. Modern Peanut Butter was invented, I think, by Kellogg (of cereal fame)… he called it ‘nut-butter’.

  • zimriel

    Ken, you’re probably misspeaking. Tut was in the 18th Dynasty. They came down from Upper Egypt – that’s southern Egypt (that river flows northbound).

    Rameses II, though, was 19th – Lower Egypt. I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if *he* was more northerly. He might even be (literally) Caucasian – the Hurrians (from the Caucasus) and similar tribes had smashed their way into Lower Egypt centuries before, under the Hyksos.

  • zimriel

     What’s really sad about the Egyptians post-Rameses III (1200 BC) or so is that the Nubians (700 BC) were about the best Pharaohs they’d had, from five centuries before to – well, now.

  • zimriel

     Alexander forced his generals – like Ptolemy – to marry Persians, so Talltrees is right; she was probably half Persian.

    But I’m not buying this “olive skin”. Greeks and Persians then were not Greeks and Persians now.

  • whitechildren

    This is good info. But the anti-whites will always think up something new to attack whites and try to de-construct white society in an effort to continue white genocide.