Western scholars say that human beings originated in Africa, is it a manifestation of cultural infer

It's just a statement, and it doesn't represent what it looks like.

It may feel like an exploratory attitude, with no inferiority or self-confidence.

In fact, according to anthropological theory, the farther away from the original origin of human beings, the simpler and better the human race will be. Because from the original place of origin, there are fewer branches that can migrate to the farther away areas, which determines that the genetic composition of the people in the farther areas will be relatively homogeneous. In the process of opening up new living space, it is necessary to have individuals who can adapt to the shape of the harsh environment in order to survive or leave more offspring.

I think that if the theory that human beings originated in the Great Rift Valley is true, it just shows that the Chinese are relatively pure and excellent.

It's just to suppress the 5,000-year-old culture of China.

I think it should be a reflection of self-confidence, after all, both we Easterners and Westerners are more advanced than Africans.

I think it's a sign of self-confidence, not cultural inferiority, because we've always been better than Africa.

I think it's a sign of self-confidence, because Africa is far away from us, and we can still migrate to China, which shows that the genes are very strong.

It is a sign of self-confidence that our development will always be stronger than that of Africa.

This should be just speculation, and there is no direct evidence to prove it.

It should be a comparison of DNA, through some scientific and technological means, the earliest DNA was tested to appear on the African continent, which is a more scientific basis.

My view is that great apes did originate in Africa, but Homo sapiens did not originate in Africa, but evolved from a certain species of ape scattered around the world.

The first is the Eve theory, followed by biological science and technology. More reliable genetic markers on mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA to prove that humans originated in Africa.

The evidence mainly includes archaeological evidence and genetic evidence. For example, the closest living animal to the genus Homo is the chimpanzee, which is also an animal that lives in Africa, such as Australopithecus, so "human" in this sense is most likely to have originated in Africa.

The state of modern genetic engineering has allowed us to exploit more reliable genetic markers on mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA, and modern molecular biology has shown that all modern humans on Earth originated in Africa.

Laboratory of Human Population Genetics, Institute of Genetics, Fudan University.

Researchers have detected the Y chromosomes of nearly 10,000 males covering all provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions in China, and found that the mutation site M168G was born in Africa no earlier than 790,000 years ago and is a unique genetic marker for some Africans.

Chinese scientists have cooperated with many scientists from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and other countries to prove that human beings originated in Africa through comparative analysis of the Y chromosomes of 88 population samples throughout East Asia, Southeast Asia, Oceania and other places.

The term "human" here can refer to two concepts: the generalized human genus or the modern human being. Either way, the evidence now points to African origin, and the evidence mainly includes archaeological evidence and genetic evidence.

The main reason for this is that some specific chromosomes and genetic material can be genetically traced back to a specific period of human beings in Africa, a female 150,000 years ago and a male 60,000 years ago.

Chinese cannot have originated in Africa, and Western scholars must pay attention to real evidence when making judgments. Today's African race, except for the white people left behind by immigrants, the rest are black, and China is a multi-ethnic country dominated by yellow races, so it is impossible for Chinese to originate in Africa.

It is impossible to have originated in Africa, and Chinese culture appeared much before Africa, so scholars say.

No, Africa is far away from the Asian continent, and Western scholars believe that it is impossible to cross such a long distance, and Asians have a large difference in physique and appearance from Africans, so it is impossible to originate in Africa.

1.The animals and plants that can be domesticated on each continent are different, and there are more animals and plants in Eurasia that can be used by humans, while the large animals in the Australian continent and the American continent are more difficult to domesticate and cannot be used as domestic animals to feed many people.

2.The rate at which technology and flora and fauna spread varies within different continents. Eurasia is east-west, and plants and animals are more likely to spread at the same latitude (this is easy to understand, after all, bringing penguins to the tropics can heat them to death).

Eurasia is not only the main axis of east-west, but there are no tall and long mountain ranges blocking east-west transmission (due to the presence of the Himalayas, where India and several surrounding countries are located, we often refer to it as the Indian subcontinent). The African continent has a north-south axis, and because of the different climates at different latitudes, there are some obstacles to the spread of plants and animals. The American continent is not only the main axis of the north-south direction, but also has many tall mountains that block the spread of flora and fauna (Andes), and the northern and southern American continents are connected by Panama alone, and the two continents are almost completely disconnected.

3.Technology and flora and fauna spread at different rates between continents. The African continent and Eurasia are connected, so most of the livestock in sub-Saharan Africa comes from Eurasia.

Due to the distance of the Australian continent from other continents, large mammals other than kangaroos came very late.

Because if you don't adopt advantageous inventions, you are likely to be eliminated by competitors. The American continent was not as advanced in the development of early civilizations as Eurasia because it was not as competitive with each other as it was in Eurasia.

The above four arguments explain why human civilization originated in the Fertile Crescent (the basin of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in Western Asia, Iraq and its environs) and China. But it does not explain why the level of civilization in Europe later surpassed that of West Asia and China. One of the reasons for the gradual decline of the Fertile Crescent was the change in the local natural environment, and the land gradually became a desert, so the center of civilization gradually moved westward, all the way to present-day Europe.

Not only the Chinese advocate the "theory of evolution alone", or the "theory of multiple origins", there are many scientists in Europe today who support this judgment, believing that they are descendants of Neanderthals (not the common ancestor of mankind who came out of Africa 100,000 years ago, Cromanon), and that Neanderthals originally originated in Europe, or some scholars believe that Europeans are mixed descendants of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon who conquered Europe. Each point of view has a basis to be examined, the African origin theory of human beings is only judged from DNA, plus some reasoning, and DNA can mutate or mutate, coupled with tens of thousands of years of human continuous intermarriage, mixed blood, racial characteristics are quite complex, and other similar loopholes give the "multi-origin theory" an opportunity, so there is an academic debate.

The obstacles and disagreements encountered in the study of human origins are similar to those encountered in the study of human cloning, which are nothing more than religious beliefs, nationalism, ethics and other issues, and the research on the origins of human beings is mostly based on reasoning, with very little reliable evidence and more controversy. Scientists feel that they are awesome and want to reason different conclusions, and with the support of political parties and religious forces in different countries, disagreements become normal. The study of the origins of mankind is difficult, and it is possible to become as eternal a mystery as materialism and idealism, depending on which side you choose to believe, and for the time being, what you believe is right.

The Chinese literati have been dominating for too long.

That's what makes us where we are today.

History will eventually be in the past, and grasping the present world is the meaning of human life.

This is a complete absurdity, and it is completely deceptive.

Because humans originated in Africa, this is the result of painstaking research by scientists.

Because humans originated in Africa, this may well be true. Able to prove their scientific research value.

It should be these scholars who have discovered the news about the origin of mankind and are the reason for saying so.

It's not that they're trying to propagate, but there's solid evidence that they've migrated from Africa.

Maybe this is because they want to confuse the public, and there are some bad purposes.

Archaeological evidence proves that the peoples of Africa created and developed splendid ancient civilizations very early.

Because Western scholars want to prove their research, even though it is highly likely to be a false theory.

I don't think it's possible, because the human origin of our country is a little earlier.

Yes. In the early days of the Cenozoic, the world's continents were connected. There is a land bridge at the location of the Bering Strait in the middle of Asia and the Americas.

Australia and Southeast Asia are also separated by a shallow sea with dense islands and reefs. It is entirely possible that human ancestors migrated to the past. The common ancestor of humans is generally thought to be australopithecus in the East African savanna 3 million years ago, and about 2 million years ago, ancient humans began to disperse around the world.

At that time, people were not people in the modern anthropological sense, and they formed many species, among which the more famous ones are Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis), Homo erectus (Homo erectus), Homo soloensis (Homo soloensis) and so on. It wasn't until 200,000 years ago that Homo sapiens, or the human race, evolved.

As for the formation of language, it was only after Homo sapiens evolved to a certain stage. It was a long time after the advent of language that humans created writing. Only the clade of civilization can be judged from the linguistic point of view, and the clade of the species needs to be verified from the DNA.

The evolutionary history of a civilization is measured in 100 years or 1,000 years, and the evolutionary history of a species is measured in millions or tens of millions of years. The most important evidence of human origin in Africa is the discovery of Australopithecus fossils (lucy). Biologically validated that the earliest human genes appeared in Africa.

The so-called origin of human beings is just speculation, and you are talking about the origin of civilization, writing is a symbol of the progress of civilization, and human beings existed before there was no writing, so these are two concepts, just like the same Han nationality, the accents of each region are different, the north is now warped, and the southern accent is not cocked.

So far, the origin of the Chinese is still inconclusive. There is a theory of its own origin.

However, this has nothing to do with square characters, which are pictographs, which were used in ancient civilizations such as ancient Egypt, but later evolved into letters.

According to Western scientists, in the primitive period (about 1.7 million BC - the 21st century BC), when writing began to be produced, the world's races had already diverged (about 7,000 years ago), and the later development of writing was due to cultural differences, and had nothing to do with origin.