The most recent scientific version of mankind's genesis, now apparently goes something like this:

''Sometime between One Million, and Eight Hundred thousands years ago, a group of people arrived on the shores of Europe. No one else was living here, and through many Millennia, were able to alter their genetic origin, to suit the new, cooler climate''.

The question begging to be asked is, why is it ''obvious'' that humanity came from Africa? Humans from the African continent, are apparently the most genetically diverse on earth, if people spread from Africa as the theory proposes, and ultimately ended up as varying skin toned humans, then surely it is not that odd to suggest the opposite could be true?

After all, even the most disinterested person, someone with no interest in history whatsoever, are at least in possession of the fact that Europeans of light skin get sun tanned or burned, by going into the sun, but no one loses their darker skin tone, unless via interbreeding.

You can only turn darker, having once been light skinned. The ''Out of Africa'' theory has certainly not been proven. The small skeletal remains of a single ancient female called Lucy, cannot be the sustaining glue to a whole, world-wide theory of such magnitude and importance.

Europe, and especially Britain, has had, and still has, the kind of climate that would totally destroy older evidence, and ''Lucy'' could of course, be a hybrid animal, part human and part of the subfamily known as  Homininea. Both humans and apes are said to belong to this life form.

The other problem created by the Out of Africa theory, is that dark skinned Africans, and other related peoples, are actually light skinned under the first three or so layers of skin, seen when scarring or burns have occurred.

Genetics is not the only aspect that plays a large part in both the accepted theory, and this reversal theory. The Academic and Writer, Jared Diamond, had this to say on the subject of intelligence:

''Different varieties of Homo Sapiens have equally high intelligence, but their intelligence only shines forth in certain places. Africa has the wrong geography and climate. It has too many diseases and too few domestic plants and animals''.

With this terrible, but natural disability to deal with, it surely follows that no amount of ''educational propaganda'' can deny the ''contrived proof'' of the Out of Africa theory.

Early Africans could never have found the required intelligence, impetus, or the type of food necessary to feed the brain from their starting point, to the degree that it provided the natural ability of to explore and find new environs.

Educational engineering, has taken away from general view, the way ''modern'' Black societies are seemingly incapable of civilising their communities. Haiti, Liberia, and more recently, the Marxist created South Africa, amongst other nations, are even now tribal, violent, and unstable in everything but their dictatorial style of governance.

The violence at election times, the mass fraud and inability to feed themselves and provide the industrial processes for mass employment, are proof that at no time in history, could early Africans from this environment, have created western civilisation as we know it.

Genetic throw backs, in terms of physical looks, mental abilities, democratic governance, and innovative thinking, would have been in evidence from at least four thousand years ago, coinciding with Stone Henge and other monuments, and commercial innovations such as working with metals or iron, and trading in these manufactured items.

Bruce Parry's excellent BBC series Tribe has in fact, made it impossible to look at the Out of Africa theory with any sensible argument for it. The Babongo Tribe, (Pygmies), are viewed by their very own neighbours as ''second class citizens''. This in itself, is indicative of the natural human condition of being genetically different, and is associated with the natural human reaction within the wider ''Cause and Effect'' concept.

Africa has a long tradition of tribalism, and each tribe, as Bruce Parry's series brilliantly proved, has no ''western'' concept of civilised debate, or use of politically correct wording or terminology that would ensure diplomacy.

They simply go after each other, kill, maim, and take over the villages of their enemies. This is real life, and this, especially in the Gabon, is the essence of why the Out of Africa theory is completely wrong.

Some tribes still eat other humans to this very day. The Gabon forest is humid and very hot, therefore, we are expected to believe these, and people who came from a similar environment, had the natural ability to make a better life elsewhere, whilst at the same time, trying hard to maintain their survival in this relatively unhealthy climate, with disease and lack of nutritional or plentiful foods. 

The humidity itself would render any serious brain power useless, as humidity not only kills, and stifles the ability to do too much physical or mental work, but stunts efforts to undertake even basic daily tasks.

Cold air does the opposite, and enables two things to happen. The first is that, in cold conditions, people are far more likely to think clearer.

Proven studies and multiple personal experiences in the early part of this century, after terrible heatwaves across Britain, Europe and America, showed that many people died, especially the elderly and very young.

Brains are starved of oxygen, which is equally as important as food for brain development and size. In many cases, an extension of the Spanish style Siesta has to take place through sheer mental and physical stress at the height of the days heat.

The second is that, more water is required, which is not as easily located or safe to drink in hot countries. Thus, before you know it, a whole generation of people have to make do with what they have, and create options open to them where they reside, or within a relatively short distance.

As with the survival and prosperity of all peoples, disease plays a large part in whether a tribe, or community, can produce enough babies to carry them through to the next generation. These natural ''Cause and Effect'' ripples, are played out over Millennia, and no amount of political and social 
engineering, can create a permanent malaise where learning and studying about human life is concerned.

If we did come from Africa, then we should by all accounts have millions of ''throw backs'' as genetic proof via every other generation, children undergoing genetic tracing and character application. These would enable the child to take on the physical characteristics, and mental abilities of a former genetic make-up of non-European origin.

Vikings are a superb example of the reverse of the Out of Africa theory. Although much later in history of course, they, like other Europeans, were known to have traveled, worked, and built communities in countries Europeans were never thought to have visited until the later Middle Ages.

The Vikings were very light skinned, and would have been typical examples of westerners who used their ''cold air'' and meat plenty diet, to feed their large and inventive brains, well enough to adventure outwards, and trade, fight, and live amongst others. Vikings were that well thought of, they were used by Moor leaders as body guards and mercenaries.

If all human life came from Africa, surely by now, those still living there, would not have kept themselves inside the area that has caused them so much horror and famine?

Arabs, Jews and others north of sub-Saharan Africa, seem to have prospered well enough. Any environment that cannot sustain human life, would in fact have been vacated. Desert peoples are still thriving in those regions, and they never felt inclined to leave this home of theirs as far as we know.

The Cantonese went to Africa in the Eleventh or Twelfth centuries, well before European involvement, or knowledge of it's existence was evidenced. They traded with tribes there, but sadly though, not much is mentioned of the treatment that black Africans endured. The Cantonese were, along with Moslem and Jewish traders, amongst the first known in post biblical history, to have taken them into slavery. This itself gives rise to the question: ''If Africans were thought of as equal, why is it that they fell so easily into enslavement''. Were they, even then, not considered as equals?

People who ventured into Sub-Sarahan Africa, obviously came from outside the environment, therefore, no matter how ill prepared they were, whether Jewish, Moslem, Cantonese or European, they prospered once inside it.

European missionaries are the most shining example of living in a hostile region. The other is that, when European governance played its part in the advancement of Africa in terms of Socio-Economics, and the creation of westernised towns and cities, they were not put off by the sheer heat or threat of being boiled and eaten.

Even when the term ''race'' is omitted, one cannot argue with any credence that Africa has produced anything other than what is actually still witnessed. When it's people are left to govern themselves, and related groups are also left unhindered, no proof of a Socio-economically advanced culture has been created.

Haiti’s and Liberia’s inception as nations of freed, former black slaves are proof positive of this. Three nations that are approximately the same age, America, Haiti and Liberia, should have seen comparisons in trade, civilised democratic laws and institutions, and the ability to employ its people en mass, using natural and man made resources and technology.

Liberia started on the road to independence in 1815. Freed slaves, and various European liberals, ensured that sustenance was offered to this exciting new nation, via the American Colonization Society (ACS). Suffice to say simply this: Liberia, and Haiti, should both by now, after nearly two hundred years, have created for themselves a stunning, vibrant economy, culture, and democratic independent societies, without the requirement of foreign aid.

America under European governance did just that, so why not former slaves, who had a generation to copy European civilisation as it progressed towards the high point of Victorian engineering and invention, and commercial and political development?

On mainland Africa, far too much has already been written and filmed on it, to go into pointless details about its unbalanced mix of watered down westernised democracy, tribalist instincts, and degenerate and dictatorial Marxist administration. However, left well alone, and without western aid, in Europe, the United States and Britain, there has never been a time since the freedom of slaves by Wilberforce and others, where Africans or those descended from them, have ever been able to conduct themselves in anything other than a broadly chaotic manner.

Where does this leave the Out of Africa theory? Presumably, those in agreement with the theory, will regard decades of ''European'' slavery, third world debt caused by the ''Anglo-Saxon model'' of debt/credit, and good old ''racism'', as the reasons for which emerging nations and communities are bereft of such opportunities.

Intelligent and free thinking individuals, will of course find this pathetically mundane, and typical of politically correct leftist propaganda. The ''Anglo-Saxon Model'' of capitalism, described as devilish by a recent left-wing South American leader, complaining about the world wide recession and the impact on Latino and black nations, is not even Anglo-Saxon. It is in fact Jewish. The Norman King William, or ''William The Conquerer'', had as part of his entourage, Jewish money lenders, and it was this mix of exotic ''war chest'' filling, and Jewish expertise in lending money at highly disproportionate rates (Usery), that has led to this system of debt slavery and world wide problems associated with such debt.

At any rate, the why's and wherefore's of a system that has been protected and encouraged via modern education, and media manipulation, are largely irrelevant for this theory. The simple fact remains: Considering all the pluses and minuses of our current society, the argument for the ''Out of Africa'' theory, requires further examination, along with other obvious anomalies regarding ancient European migration and emigration.    

By 500,000 years ago, not long enough to change that much from 800,000 to one million years of a supposed ancient African gene pool, human beings had apparently ''reached'' Boxgrove, in what is now West Sussex, England.

The remains of these former human beings looked like we do, and acted with intelligent foresight. Boxgrove is not even the earliest site where ''Britons'' occupied this nation. A 700,000-year old site in East Anglia, was discovered in 2002, and shows the Out of Africa theory to be well short of both evidence in terms of genetic modifications, time, and aptitude in building a recognised society.

Both Boxgrove man, and the earlier Heidelbergensis human remains, so named after they were found in Heidelberg, Germany, have proven that the European from whence we all came, had both a civilised and ritualised angle on life and death.

No amount of pushing the boundaries of science to suit a Socio-Political agenda, can explain away the relatively short, 300,000 or so year gap in the difference required, to alter genetics and physical characteristics from African to European.

In some areas of Europe, the footprints of early mankind, have been accompanied by hand prints. The people they were from, steadied themselves, as they climbed up a thin track alongside a steep valley. Standing up, and using hands that look like modern humans, is an act far from some unthinking, half-human being that made its way from Africa only a few Millennia previously.

The possibility of a European, or Indo-European beginning for humans, is not as far fetched as the accepted version. If Europeans ventured out from their colder, or even moderately warmer than today climate, it would answer many of the questions that have emerged in recent decades. Saint Brendan (The Navigator), is said to have been the first European to reach what is now the Americas.

Other revelations, such as the discovery of ''Kennewick Man'', who was found on the banks of Columbia River, Washington USA in 1996, proves that much earlier European migration was the reason for his remains being buried there. Originally, experts reasoned he could only have been there sometime in the 18th or 19th centuries. However, carbon dating created a rather uncomfortable truth... he was nearly ten thousand years old.

Moving briefly to China. The very arid desert environment, and the salty sand in one region of China, kept certain mummies in excellent condition. Some of the mummies are at least 4,000 years old, and have Indo-European features such as red or blond hair.

Others were found to have been around six foot tall, which is a physical trait of taller, Nordic folk. Further reading on this subject is located by purchasing a copy of ''The Mummies of Urumchi'' by Elizabeth Wayland Barber.

If Europeans had been created by ancient immigrant peoples from Africa in the distant past, there would surely have been constant archeological and skeletal evidence, not only in Britain and Europe, but elsewhere on earth. The remains of what became known as the ''Red Haired Loulan Beauty'', also throws the ''Out of Africa'' theory out of line somewhat.   



The mummy unearthed in the ''Taklimakan desert'', is that of a female with long reddish blond hair, discovered near Loulan, in 1979. She was five feet tall, with a high nose, and was buried wrapped in goatskin, a woolen cape, leather shoes and a hat trimmed with goose feathers. Her body is a minimum of 3,800 years old, although tests of the remains of the wooden coffin of a mummy found near her own burial, suggest she could be up to 6,000 years old.

When arguing against a politically and socially engineered set of ''accepted principles'' regarding Europeans and other peoples on earth, it is prudent to remind both the genuinely interested reader, and any troublesome, pro-establishment tooth comb user that, this article is not meant as an opportunity to disrespect other peoples on the planet.

In fact, it is just the opposite. As we grow to understand why and how theories should be debated, and grow to accept changes in scientific advances, it is the wonderful diversity of human life that enchants both the average reader, and those considered ''experts''. The theory of this Author, will hopefully create the right atmosphere for even greater debate on the subject of where and how humans became social animals, and not just robots rooted in their own intellectually stunted theatre of knowldege.

When the ''Human Genome Project'' was politically hijacked, both Tony Blair, and Bill Clinton alluded to the ''fact'' that, ''race does not exist''. Yet, on the other hand, Scientists claimed that Mongoloid skulls did not appear in the fossil records until around 10,000 years ago.

In addition, one writer added this little spoiler when commenting on the earliest Europeans: ''someone who looks like they have just come from the Congo, is stretching the evidence beyond credibility''.

So, let's look at the basics. Out of Africa theorists enjoy considerable status, whether a typical student, a scientist, or archeologist. But what about those who do not believe the theory?

How can a relatively short thesis, such as this one, get across an alternative viewpoint without the cry of racist, bigot, or crank? It's not that difficult, when you consider the amount of duplicity of the Out of Africa proponents, and the sheer hatred by political and educational leaders, of the European ethnic group. This group is now classed as a ''world minority'' by ''The United Nationalist Nations'', as it consists of between ten and eight percent of the earth's human populace. 

Something like these anomalies sums up the stupidity of this unnecessary complex situation: ''There is no such thing as race''. But there is such a thing as racism. ''There were no humans in Europe until around 800,000 years ago''.

But suddenly, there are skeletal remains of Caucasian types found on mainland Europe, and Britain who look European. “White Americans are both genetically weaker and less diverse than their black compatriots'', Cornell University found.

If genetics is weaker, and less diverse amongst White people of European origin, then why is there such a massive gap in civilisation, crime rates, and the general well being of each population?

Those studying this topic, also found that ''Europeans had many more possibly harmful mutations than did Africans''. Let's look at this with open minds.

Africans were more diverse in one argument, but in another, Europeans had more harmful mutations than did Africans. Taking genetics as the starting point, genes are not only ''designed'' for the long term, and enable us to pass on ancient characteristics to each subsequent generation, and according to the experts, they mutated harmfully for Europeans, but were stable and superior in Africans.

Harmful mutations would, surely not, have ended up with Europeans not being able to survive harsh conditions, such as the many Ice Ages. This period is now known to have been populated by not only mere survivors, but large enough populations to have come through Ice Ages, and put down roots once more.

Another anomaly goes like this, from a Black American expert: ''It’s been known for years that all non-Africans are descended from a small group, perhaps only a few dozen individuals, who left the continent between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago'.

Apologies for the inability of anyone to take this seriously, or to grasp all this, but we must take into account what experts, and others interested in this subject really think, and why this is so.

Scientists, Archaeologists and others in academia, have produced enough evidence to prove the existence of those Indo-Europeans, whose remains are very similar to our own bone and facial structure. Why then, do we now have to take on board the ''fact'' that only 50,000 to100,000 years ago, black Africans decided, with all of the problems identified in previous chapters (lack of nutritional food and impetus through humidity and heat, diseases, and lack of water etc etc.), to leave their land, and try to discover new pastures?

We have already, with some experts help, found that 700,000 years ago, skeletal remains showed that early man, in Caucasoid (European) form, had communities that were stable and that prospered.

Even at the proposed 100,000 years ago, the amount of time that the fossil records apparently show regarding human beings from Africa emigrating, is far too late to have had a genetic impact on people already here. The gap is some 600,000 years.

We know that humans have not changed that much in that time period. Skeletons have been unearthed showing large frames (6 feet tall), large brains, and tools which enabled them to kill prey, and create suitable and permenant living conditions.

We must take into account also, the vast amount of time required to see a change in pigmentation, or cellular adaptation. Skin colour is caused by environmental pressures.

Here is an undeniable modern example. People who have become used to the warmer climate of say, of India, who were originally from Dundee in Scotland, have shown that no matter what colour hair they had, generally speaking, the hair, and skin colour remained the same. Once enough time has past, many of the third or fourth generation, will go darker, but as seen by ''red haired north Africans'' from the Berber tribe, a throw back in hair colour of the original gene pool will show through. It is a well proven fact that, the Berber peoples are more closely related to Irish people, than equatorial Africans.

This ''Reversing The Myth'' theory certainly looks at worst, plausible, but at best, potentially a genuine opportunity to completely re-write the whole human story with evidence that cannot be far wrong, if only through the obvious. The Scottish people in question, were Jute makers, and some travelled to India, to where the jute actually came from. It was once again, the Europeans who engaged in mass employment, technological advances, and a westernised economic system, that allowed those in the industry born in India, to prosper and look after their families. The Dundee Jute makers, although darker skinned after a while, returned to being starkly white after they had been back home for a few years. Genetic origins always remains constant, at least in terms of the lifetime of humans as thinking, active and civilised beings. 

''Look far enough back in history my friend and you will find that at one time, white skin was synonymous with the conditions of wretchedness, barbarism, ignorance, physical ugliness, and a host of other negatives''.

An internet based Science and cultural organisation (Rasta Livewire), proposed this diatribe as part of its ''theory for Out of Africa''. This author has explained in an earlier chapter, of the wish that intellectually serious ideas, should not be used to cause distress, to anyone from other cultures, or to disrespect other races.

When faced with challenges that are based solely on ''racist'' comments from certain corners, we have no option but to argue our corner with points and views that go far deeper, and far higher than they are capable.

Sometimes it pays to be free from outside influences, such as commonly held viewpoints, and politically correct scientific doctrines. As the sayings go: ''Out Of The Mouth Of Babes'', and ''Children Can Be brutally Honest'', it is better to simply use common sense when formulating a hypothesis, and mulling it over for years if necessary, as this Author has done.

Now, with much newer, and quite frankly, enlightening honesty from those who wish not to hide behind politically sensitive doctrine coming into public view, we can see the value of simple common sense. Many people have already come to the conclusion that the ''Out of Africa'' theory, was far too simplistic, far too leftist, and far too easy for Liberals to latch on to.

The most brilliant example of how scientific fraud can engulf the world, was ''Piltdown Man''.  In 1912, a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, was thought to have been the resting place of Mankind's ''missing link''. Without going into too much boring detail, and adding to the embarrassment of the families of those involved, the whole thing was proven to be a hoax. It was an amalgamation of three separate species: a human skull from the medieval era, the 500-year-old bottom jaw of a Sarawakorangutan, and the fossilised teeth of a Chimpanzee.

A more shameful episode for British archaeology and science in general, would be hard to find, until now possibly.

With so much to lose, and with the systems that we have today, although far more advanced technologies and operating systems are available than back then, it is not beyond the pale to think why the ''Out of Africa'' theory would be pushed beyond any credibility.

With many ice ages, then warmer periods being apparent in Europe, Human like bones and flint tools are relatively hard to locate. Excitingly though, each time evidence is documented, a new, and far older age for Human existence seems to shock the experts.

An example of this, although yet to be confirmed, is found at Orce, in southern Spain. Archaeologists reckon they can date undoubtedly man made stone tools, going back as far as 1.5m years. Should this find turn out to be technically and scientifically scrutinised and then corroborated, the Out of Africa proponents would have to come up with evidence beyond that age, that showed ancient African immigration into southern Europe.

The reverse ''Out of Europe'' theory, simply provides an account that only differs in terms of the route taken by early man. Routes out of Europe were many, and land-bridges would have made this alternative option, not only viable in terms of finding a better environment for some ancient Europeans to thrive in, but the relationship between distinct or separate species meeting up, could have meant early forms of interbreeding between these distinct human beings.

Lighter skinned Europeans, could if these newly identified ancient humans had met, have created a sub-species, who ultimately would have become darker skinned as they met those well away from the Ice covered European mainland and North America.

''Modern Europeans'' are known to have traded tools and natural goods as far back as the first century BC, in as disparate regions as the Mediterranean and beyond. If those not so ancient people were trading and communicating peacefully and were civilised and adventurous enough to accomplish this, then it is not beyond belief that if those ancient folk, who could produce flint and stone tools, could find new environments in warmer climates, where food was more plentiful.

Eventually, many of these ancient humans would have undoubtedly ventured into territories stretching as far away as Asia, the Americas, and potentially controversially, Africa.

This theory of reversal, does not mean that some type of human being was not already there.

Alas, we have then to consider certain, and to some, unpalatable options. One such option, is that when and if, early Europeans ventured this far, they would have at some point, possibly interbred.

Another option, is that the Europeans who were adventurous enough to do this, could have wiped out those already there. ''Wiped out'', does not necessarily mean through wars and conflict, but in long term genetic weakening of the inhabitants through out breeding, or interbreeding.

As discussed in earlier  chapters, Africans, in medieval times, have found themselves in the unenviable situation of being thought of as ''inferior'', even by their own neighbours as with the Pygmies. If we consider the even more brutal ancient times, where ''survival of the fittest'' was literal, then sub-Saharan African tribes and communities would not have stood much of a chance.

Just as Britons moved to what is now Wales, as the Romans eventually invaded after decades of trading with them, it is possible that Africans were forced to maintain their existence in smaller and smaller regions. Being in these regions, where dense forests and everything associated with this environment, they would have taken on the characteristics of that region, especially if in close contact with the supposed closest relative of human beings.

In the medieval period, Arabs even used the term Bilad As Sudan, which literally translates as "land of the blacks". Surely if there was no recognisable difference with other human populations, not only in looks, but life styles and mental ability, then the term would not have been used. The Out of Africa idea, is looking more and more unlikely to be correct. As man's closest relative is from the exact geographical region from whence we all supposedly came, it offers up questions of whether mans closest relative, actually gave birth to the genetic formation known as Homo Erectus, or whether man was birthed in differing locations, as in line with the most popular and accepted theory that, ALL life arose from the sea.

As the sea was the most significant form for life on earth, it has to be acknlowledged that this is probably correct. Taking this as certain, it then raises obvious questions: ''As life rose out of the seas, would this phenomenon have occurred all over the planet, at slightly different times?  And, would it have meant that each wave of new land creatures, took a different physical character to suit each region?''.

Without spending the required amount of time needed to analyse this particular theory, we cannot evaluate all the evidence related to this. Thus, starting at Homo Erectus or similar life forms, is sensible.

Taking the ''life from the sea'' literally, we then understand the multi-life form post-formation era.

Once water was available, sun light would have created enough variation to make the planet thrive, and bustle with Multi-organic forms of life. Once the animals were established, many of them now extinct, the amount of time required for them to take on forms not recognisable if viewed millions of years later, would be very vast indeed.

Thus, once a life form resembling humans, either modern or pre-Homo Erectus was able to procreate, thrive and survive it's new climate and region, it would have not necessarily have had the impetus to lose it all, and adventure outwards.

With hardly any evidence left to view the past inhabitants in regions that have seen many ice ages, volcanic eruptions, environmental changes through natural climate change etc etc, it is not surprising that the hotter countries, or countries that have not endured much inclement weather, has thrown up more early skeletal remains, and other animal or ancient plant types.

This could mean that if such an opportunity was found eventually, the map of human existence could be re-drawn. What would then arise, is the idea that life forms similar to those in Africa, but adapted to conditions in Europe, or the land mass that would have been in place then, would have all the various genetic developments to necessitate compatibility for life there.

If we look at life only coming out of Africa in human form, then everything that has been recognised as ''proof'' of human existence elsewhere, would simply have to be written out of history and ignored.

This can never happen though, as a 1.2 million year old human jawbone from Southern Spain, was unearthed in 2008, and the evidence of the 700,000 year old tools are now far too public for any regress to take place. Professor Chris Stringer, of the ''Department of Paleontology'' within the Natural History Museum, London, said of ancient Britain: "It was significantly warmer, so people could move north without adaptation''.

This tells perfectly, with one exception, the story in a nutshell. The exception is of course that, as Britain and Northern Europe were warmer than of now, it makes just as much sense to imagine the people there could have moved south.

Also, the story of ever older, and more established family units and communities already here in Europe and Britain, means that a journey north, could have been taken from any direction in Europe vaguely from southern, south eastern, or south western regions.

That being the case, the people in wider Europe, would not have ''adapted'', as professor Stringer stated, to look like we do currently, because we in fact, are and were the same genetic tribe and family units.

Looking back at what has been said here by this Author, and by other more experienced and accredited academics, the whole process of human development must be approached collectively, and intelligently. The one thing no one wants, is to use race, intelligence, and obvious political agendas to try to push for a particular idea as the only one.

An earlier chapter saw a black ''expert'' and proponent of the ''Out of Africa'' theory, use abusive and racist terms to hammer home his own version.

If he was right, and Africans posses a wider and stronger genetic make-up, then generally speaking, it is these people who should have green eyes, blue eyes, brown eyes, and all the attributes of the ''weaker'' and less genetically stronger European peoples.

Also, this diversity should have happened throughout history, and we would still see the variation in eye colour. As we have seen previously, it is only by interbreeding that this occurs, such as in the Berber tribe.

Time is both the enemy, and friend of every theory. In the guise of the enemy, time gives us little of this precious human invention, with which to offer the next generation a steady supply of constant information.

As a friend, it offers us glimpses of itself in all it's former glory. Time can be evaluated once it has happened, and by what is happening. Sadly though, time can not be evaluated in a future sense.

As we progress, others will see us as we see our ancestors. In a millennium, or ten millenniums, our descendants will hopefully have the technology to robustly and honestly see our ancient past as it really was and is, and employ a non-politicised approach to accompany this future technology.

Until then, we have to utilise limited technology, the ''experts'', and more importantly, our own common sense and ability, to see past the many fads, and political agendas that have cloaked these attributes.

This author, and presumably many others, firmly believes that so far we have only scratched the surface, and that we will one day see our ancient European ancestors just as though we were looking into a mirror. .

Related Reading

Race as a Biological Concept
March of the Titans - A History of the White Race - Chapter 1
DNA proves race differences
It’s elementary, my dear Watson…
James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences
In Defense of The Splendour of Truth
Fury At DNA Pioneer's Theory: Africans Are Less Intelligent Than Westerners
The biological basis of race

From the Independent (UK)

A skull that rewrites the history of man