It is now scientifically irrefutable fact that the "human species" has been found to contain a substantial quantity of DNA (at least 20%) from other hominid populations not classified as Homo sapien; such as Neanderthal, Denisovan, African archaic, Homo erectus, and now possibly even "Hobbit" (Homo floresiensis).
If not given drugs to prevent infant death, the pregnant body of a rhesus negative mother will attack, try to reject, and even kill her own offspring if it is by a rhesus positive man.
The Domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a sub-species of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), and they produce hybrids.
There are numerous other examples of where two separate species (for example with different numbers of chromosomes) can also produce viable offspring, yet are considered separate species. That said, humanity has been shown to be, genetically speaking, a hybrid species that did not all share the same hunter-gatherer ancestry in Africa.
Recent sequencing of ancient genomes suggests that interbreeding went on between the members of several ancient human-like groups more than 30,000 years ago, including an as-yet unknown human ancestor. "there were many hominid populations,” says Mark Thomas, evolutionary geneticist at University College London.
Recent genetic studies are touting shocking headlines about how ancient humans 'rampantly interbred' and indulged in inter-species interracial sex with multiple mystery sub-races in a "Lord Of The Rings"-style world of different creatures, including mystery DNA - neither human nor Neanderthal, not yet identified.
Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.
Australian historian Greg Jefferys explains that, "The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still hold on to it."
It did begin the early 90’s. And the academics most responsible for cementing both the Out-of Africa theory and the complementary common ancestral African mother – given the name of “Eve” – in the public arena and nearly every curriculum, were Professors Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann.
In their defense, the authors of this paper were fully aware that genealogy is not in any way linked to geography, and that their placement of Eve in Africa was an assumption, never an assertion.
A very recent paper on Y-chromosomes published in 2012, (Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) only confirms the denial of any African ancestry in non-Africans, and strongly supports the existence of a “common ancestor” who “would not necessarily be in Africa. In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa.”
Central to results of this extensive examination of haplogroups (7,556) was the absence of any African genes. So lacking was the sampling of African genetic involvement, the researchers stated in their introduction that, “the finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid, as well as all non-African groups do not carry either SNI’s M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262”.
With the haplogroups not present in any African genes and an absence of dozens of African genetic markers, it is very difficult nigh on impossible to sustain any link to Africa. The researchers are adamant that their extensive study “offers evidence to re-examine the validity of the Out-of-Africa concept”.
They see no genetic proof substantiating an African precedence in the Homo sapien tree, and maintain that “a more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork”.
We regard the claim of “a more plausible explanation” as a gross understatement, since there is absolutely nothing plausibly African turning up in any test tubes. In fact, the researchers made note of their repeated absence stating “not one non-African participant out of more than 400 individuals in the Project tested positive to any of thirteen ‘African’ sub-clades of haplogroup A”. The only remaining uncertainty relates to the identity of this “more ancient common ancestor”. All that can be stated with confidence is that humanity’s ancestor did not reside in Africa.
Unfounded accusations of racism have become common as the prevailing Afrocentric hypothesis is constantly being challenged by the growing mountain of conflicting scientific evidence, especially in the evolving field of genetics.