Probably going to make this into an etching or something... #motherhorseeyes

______________________

BEHANCE

An interview I had a while back in May 2013 (when I finished up my printmaking senior thesis) conducted by the Arts and Humanities Center (which provided funding for my thesis project).

Firstly, just wanted to say I really love this blog. So I have a question that was brought about by an article I saw someone post on fb (though I know your blog has as its focus a different time period).

I am familiar with the basic definition of the out of Africa theory but I’ve never studied it in depth and there seems to be a lot of effort put into debunking it. I was just wondering what knowledge you may have about this theory or other theories about the origin of human beings. (sorry about the extremely broad question)

— vaneillustration

Um, well, here's the thing. I probably have access to the same amount of knowledge you probably have access to on this topic, and without the article in question, I don't have a clue what might be IN that article. BUT.

Because you used the word "debunking", which is used commonly to apply to this topic almost always in a very specific way....I'm going to speculate on why and what kind of "effort" is involved in the idea of "debunking" scientific theories in the United States (which is a sociopolitical problem we have) and what we think this has to do with race.

I know, I know. But the way ideas about "Science" function in society-that's definitely my wheelhouse.

I think part of the problem here is people's massively common misunderstanding of the word "theory" as used to apply to the sciences.

Theory vs. hypothesis A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth.

Reading this quick list of appropriate terminology might help you...and probably a lot of other people, too (especially people who are fond of using the word "proof").

If something is a scientific theory, it means that the explanation has been tested and tested and RE-tested and analyzed and then replicated, and then basically a group of people make a statement like: "To the best of our knowledge (which is quite possibly our life's work), this is definitely why and how this happened."

You see? It's not about whether or not it did but an explanation of something that happened.

The way this operates socially is pretty much:

Response to one of the questions, "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," may reflect religious beliefs rather than actual knowledge about science. In the United States, 53 percent of respondents answered "true" to that statement in 2001, the highest level ever recorded by the NSF survey. (Before 2001, no more than 45 percent of respondents answered "true.") The 2001 result represented a major change from past surveys and brought the United States more in line with other industrialized countries about the question of evolution.

In the U.S., human evolution is framed something you either "believe in" or don't "believe in". The most basic premise that humans evolved goes over like a lead balloon in a lot of circles:

On top of this mess, there's also the fact that the ideas people in the US have about human evolution are also racialized. Science and racism aren't opposites, or mutually exclusive in the metaphorical Venn diagram.

Here's an article from Science Daily in '07 that basically shored up some the possible quibbles on this theory with some kind of mitochondrial DNA testing involving Australian people (which is weird and whole article is kinda xenophobic, creepy, and like..."brow ridges"??? The sciences AND the humanities have a long and storied history and PRESENT of documented racism.). Also, the "quibbles" weren't about where modern humans originally came from, but when they did so.

Another analysis put out in 2013 is even more indecipherable to me, and says something about some kind of genetic markers that support the theory.

It looks like  the more they test it, the more it is supported.

Here's another link that's a bit more education-style and has some more links for exploration.

This is basically...as far as I can tell...about when 'humans' all became the same species. "Out of Africa" theory is pretty much saying, all humans migrated out of Africa at the same time and sort of went everywhere and replaced other hominids. The "Multiregional" thing seems to be saying, humans came out of Africa at different times and went to different areas, and then all sort of became the same species somehow independently, which seems unlikely.

As for some of what I saw from a cursory glance at claims of having "Debunked" the "Out of Africa" theory (that specific language).... uhhhhh. I am pretty sure that 1. it doesn't mean AT ALL what they think it means and 2. these are like, literally neo-nazi websites trying to claim that "races" are "species". :|

So, here's the thing.

Anyone who posts an online article that claims to have "debunked" a scientific THEORY is likely to be the wrongest wrong that ever wronged, and more likely to do with religious beliefs or cultural problems than the scientific theory in question.

 "Science" as it functions in society, especially on an interpersonal level, is really just a tool like any other.  I know a lot of people read this and are like, "Are you trying to say science isn't objective?!?!?!?" But the real issue here is that what we call "Science" is a concept created by people, and people are NOT objective. All of these ideas and activities serve some kind of purpose for human beings, otherwise, they wouldn't exist.