by Billy Roper
I’ve often countered the ‘Out of Africa’ theory with the observation that if it were true, it means that the most virile, adventurous, and energetic early humans immigrated Out of Africa to new habitats where their evolutionary development was accelerated through genetic adaptations to a harsher European climate. The lazier ones stayed in Africa and did not, by definition, evolve as quickly. Therefore, Africans are less evolved than Europeans, which genetic studies prove.
I have some question in my mind about the theory, though, because I hold that genetic adaptations to European climates are more recent, since they are more recessive in inheritance. Lighter hair and eyes, and skin, as well as the other physical, psychological, intellectual, and temperamental attributes of Whites being recessive, and more recent, mankind likely did NOT originate in Europe, then migrate outwards and evolve to adapt to other climates. Had they done so, those African and Asian traits would be recessive, rather than dominant. Because they are dominant, that means they are older, baseline traits.
Alternatively, many anthropologists believe in a multilinear origin for humankind, that is, that the different races literally evolved separately, without a common ancestry. This not only fits with the raw data used in this analysis, and matches the developmental patterns of other similar but distinct species which can cross-breed: donkeys and horses, lions and tigers, et al., but it seems more likely, scientifically. It also happens to match the multi-origin creation story as told in Dual Seedline Christian Identity, by the way.