That being said, given that we have to work with what we have, I think at least the idea of ARABIA as a major dispersal corridor I think is basically right. But only if we stop treating it as a clean "sapiens" migration route. I believe that Arabia was occupied early given some of the fossils they have found in the levant and other areas that predate some of the other main major dispersal dates OOA models were using. Seems like at ~100K years ago maybe even earlier arabia was humid enough for early hominin populations to occupy, move through, contract into, and radiate out of.

But I still think the actual process was much MESSIER than the standard story suggests. I don't imagine a single finished species called Homo Sapiens crossing out of AFRICA then marching through Arabia, and cleanly founding Eurasia. I think Arabia was probably one hub in a broader Afro-Eurasian Homo metapopulation, with repeated pulses, local extinctions, absorptions, ghost lineages, back-migrations, and introgressions. Some groups may have moved north toward the Levant and Anatolia, others east toward Iran, India, and Southeast Asia, and others may simply have disappeared or been absorbed into later populations.

Also to me a major tell that the entire model is a sham is that all of these afro-centric models have "sapiens" as a ONE SPECIES supposedly radiating and replacing other hominid species in eurasaia after they already had other hominids there. Like obviously neanderthals and denisovans were already in eurasia for a very long time, and they treat this as an anomaly. You look at a european sample and say there is a certain percent "neanderthal" and then the rest is all a SINGLE "homo sapiens" cluster. But this is clearly a convenient modeling choice based on what DNA we have available and it keeps getting post-hoc modified with "ghost population" epicycles. For instance recently there were papers suggesting west africans have massive contributions from an unknown ghost hominid. IMO the way to look at it is that we are looking at the tip of the iceberg of actual hominid subspeices. Otherwise how the FUCK do you get NIGGAS being massively visibly morphologically different from a modern BIRDSHIT or chinese person through ~70K years of supposed "selection". It's complete BULLSHIT.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877364&forum_id=2/#49962712)

What about the Neanderthal DNA factor? Everyone other than nigs has the same amount of Neanderthal DNA, which suggests one bottleneck at some point

Any response to this? If it wasn't for this I'd be apt to prefer your hypothesis that there were tons of different "human" groups going around in different times and places, rather than a single ancestral population

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877364&forum_id=2/#49962727)

Also, it isn't really true that everyone outside of africa has the same amount of Neanderthal DNA. I think the figure is somethingl ike 1-4% Neanderthal ancestry in non SSA pops, but it varies. East asians can even show somewhat higher neanderthal ancestry than BIRDSHITS. Some NIGGAS have small amounts too due to back migration.

So there was probably a major post-neanderthal admixture pop that contributed heavily to later non-africans,b ut that population itself was likely already composite and admixed with other hominin groups. The Neanderthal signal just happens to be visible because we have Neanderthal genomes vs. other shit that could exist and we haven't even named yet or lack the physical evidence for. Thta doesn't mean the rest of the genome is clean "sapiens". Just that we can't assign the rest based on models that we have.

Another way to put it is that I think these models are basically implicitly requiring some layer of the graph to function as a clean reference pop. In reality EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is a sampled composite rather than some origin point. Every single reference pop is itself downstream of unsampled structure. When your model says that pop X is 60% A and 40% B, it is basically saying that relative to the currently sampled reference panel and chosen graph (and other modeling choices) you can best-fit or compress it like that. But you have to remember that A and B themselves are unresolved mixes of something else.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877364&forum_id=2/#49962742)

What I don't understand is how come we haven't been able to isolate/identify any other DNA patterns from any other "breed" of sapiens hominids who would have also contributed to various groups of "modern humans"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877364&forum_id=2/#49962770)

As for why we have not isolated more breeds or lineages I don't think it is totally true that we have not. There are already papers arguing for ghost archaic ancestry in West Africans, and deeply divergent ancestry in Khoisans. The issue is that these are much harder to identify than Neanderthal or Denisovan ancestry because we don't have reference genomes for most of these groups. Neanderthal ancestry is easy to label because we have Neanderthal genomes. But if the source population has no fossil genome, then you just get these indirect statistical residuals.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877364&forum_id=2/#49962775)