Reconsideration of the “Out of Africa” Concept as Not Having Enough Proof

Abstract

This is an overview of the "Out of Africa" (OOA) concept and the concept is based upon experimental data. The article shows that said concept is based on data which are-as a rule-interpreted by the OOA proponents in a one-sided manner, that is to "prove" the OOA concept. The Y-chromosomal haplogroup tree in its most ancient part includes a number of nodes-haplogroups, which in the current classification are named A0-T, A1, and A1b. Bearers of those haplogroups are not identified in Africa or elsewhere. However, those three haplogroups are assigned by the proponents of the OOA "by default" to be the "African" haplogroups, which "automatically" makes all non-Africans "African descendants". In fact, each of the three haplogroups represents a split into African and non-African haplogroups. As a result, the evolution (Y-chromosomal) tree produced at least five waves of migrants to Africa (haplogroups A00, A0, A1a, A1b1, and B), while the rest of the tree consists of four non-African (by origin) haplogroups, that is A0-T, A1, A1b, and BT, along with the downstream subclades of the latter. The tree is confirmed by the analysis employing STR (Short Tandem Repeat) and SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) mutations of the Y-chromosome. Indeed, according to many data, the tree shows a deep split between African and non-African (by origin) lineages. The last split, from haplogroup A1b (into African A1b1 and non-African-by origin-B) occurred 160,000 ± 12,000 years before present. Haplogroup B is by origin a nonAfrican haplogroup, which is very distant-time-wise-from haplogroups A, by at least 250 -300 thousand years, and could not possibly have descended from haplogroups A1a or A1b1, or their subclades. A similar pattern is observed with the mtDNA haplogroup tree, which shows a deep split between African L0 and non-African (by origin) haplogroups L1-L6. The article shows how recent OOA studies (as well as earlier ones) employ biased interpretations to artificially "prove" the OOA concept. The article shows that the same data can be-and more justifiably-interpreted as incompatible with the OOA concept, and giving support for a "into Africa" concept. It seems that from times of Neanderthals (seemingly having pale skin and fair hair, based on the identified Neanderthal MCR1 melanocortin receptor), our ancestors, of both Africans and non-Africans current populations, lived outside of Africa, apparently in Eurasia or maybe in Europe.

Continuity of European Languages from the Point of View of DNA Genealogy

“…The ancestors of present humankind did not develop in Africa about 50,000 to 100,000 years ago but elsewhere (Klyosov & Rozhanskii, 2012b, Klyosov, Rozhanskii, & Ryabchenko, 2013, Klyosov, 2014a, where they had common ancestors from which there split the Denisovans about 800,000 (657,000 to 973,000) years ago and Neanderthals about 400,000 (326,000 to 482,000) years ago (Fu et al, 2013).…”

Words for the Animal Elephant/Mammoth in Relation to the DNA Genealogy Data

“…to 100,000 years ago but elsewhere (Klyosov & Rozhanskii, 2012b;Klyosov, 2014a, Fuss et al, 2017, Hublin et al, 2017, where they had common ancestors from which there split the Denisovans about 800,000 (657,000…”

A Comment on the Paper: Were the First Europeans Pale or Dark Skinned? (by C. Winters, Advances in Anthropology, 2014, 4, 124-132)

“…He writes in the beginning of the paper-"Klyosov claims that the first Europeans were fair (pale) skin", and "Klyosov argued that…ancient Europeans were fair (pale) skin and that most African haplogroups were the result of a back migration of pale skinned Europeans". However, this is not the case in the paper (Klyosov, 2014). The words "Europeans" and "skin" are never used in the paper next to each other, or in any other combination.…”

“…The words "Europeans" and "skin" are never used in the paper next to each other, or in any other combination. There is nothing in the paper (Klyosov, 2014) regarding skin color of Europeans. There is nothing in the paper about "back migration of Europeans" to Africa, let alone "pale skinned Europeans".…”

“…There is nothing in the paper about "back migration of Europeans" to Africa, let alone "pale skinned Europeans". Those are all inventions of Mr. Winters. In other words, the paper (Klyosov, 2014) has nothing to do with the title of Mr. Winters article-"Were the first Europeans pale of dark skinned?" Apparently, Mr. Winters was seriously confused.…”