When people try to spout that we are all the same, out of Africa crap I simply ask them, with as strait of a face as I can “well, what happened? Why did we evolve so far from our chimp ancestors and they did not?”

Usually shuts them up, if it doesn’t all you have to do is point at one to see a real life comparison.

This is the logical result of the Out Of Africa theory. If you are an atheist then you must accept this. You must accept the jewish version of existence and evolution.

The breath of life (creativity, intelligence) was breathed into the White Race. This is why we are the only Race to reach out to the stars, to touch the face of the creator (or creators, if you prefer). Our evolution is to become as one with God (or Gods).

we all descended from some fish who crawled out of the sea. Let`s accept all sea animals as equals too.

Another good tack when dealing with equality worshippers who think they understand evolution.

You can go much farther if you want. All life on earth is carbon-based. So... A flea or a tick is equal to a man...

right?

We have common ancestry with fungus! Right?

So... a mentally healthy individual should allow mold to grow all around him. Right?

People who want to kill mold and bacteria are obviously prejudiced. They are hateful bigots.

This is the logical result of the Out Of Africa theory. If you are an atheist then you must accept this. You must accept the jewish version of existence and evolution.

I don't see that requirement in my athiest handbook.

Africa is a continent. The humans that populate it today are in no way indicative of what walked out of there and into Europe a million years ago.

FACT.

That is a fact. When I went to college in the '70s, I learned that negros didn't originate in Africa. The natives of that continent were the !Kung bushmen, who were not negros, but what they called "pre-racial" (from before the three currently dominant races [caucasoids, mongoloids, negroids]. The !Kung, while much mixed today, supposedly had a dark gold colored skin, not a brown/black one. They can tell the range from their rock drawings, which streatched from South Africa through the northern Sahara. The negros moved in and forced the !Kung into the wastelands.

Look at an ethno-map. Nogs in Australia, New Guinea, then nothing until southern India, then nothing until Africa. The Asiastics pushed them out of southwest Asia (Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia) and the Semites/Persians out of the Middle East. The negros were stopped in the jungles of central Africa, until they got knowledge of metal weapons from Egypt, when they finally routed the !Kung from southern Africa. They probably also got the concept of agriculture from Egypt, too. When Whites arrived at South Africa, it wasn't settled by negros because negro crops were not yet adapted to the cooler climate of that region.

While humans originated in Africa, the three main races probably originated in Asia.

The Warlord

WTF is a "!Kung"? lol is that like king kung? Oh wait i remember seeing movie as a kid called "the gods must be crazy" and the niggers would make popping noises with their tongues. The english subtitles showed those noises as exclamation points. Is that the ! in !Kung?

[color="Red"]Read some more bullshit that spews out of the butt-mouth jew.

---------------------------------------------------

Billions of people, one common ancestor
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published July 2, 2006

Whoever it was probably lived a few thousand years ago, somewhere in East Asia - Taiwan, Malaysia and Siberia all are likely locations. He - or she - did nothing more remarkable than be born, live, have children and die.

Yet this was the ancestor of every person now living on Earth - the last person in history whose family tree branches out to touch all 6.5-billion people on the planet today.

That means everybody on Earth descends from somebody who was around as recently as the reign of Tutankhamen, maybe even during the Golden Age of ancient Greece. There's even a chance that our last shared ancestor lived at the time of Christ.

"It's a mathematical certainty that that person existed," said Steve Olson, whose book Mapping Human History traces the history of the species since its origins in Africa more than 100,000 years ago.

Few people realize just how intricately the web is that connects them not just to people living on the planet today, but to everyone who ever lived.

With the help of a statistician, a computer scientist and a supercomputer, Olson has calculated that you would have to go back in time only 2,000 to 5,000 years to find somebody who could count every person alive today as a descendant.

Furthermore, Olson and his colleagues have found that if you go back 5,000 to 7,000 years, everybody living today has exactly the same set of ancestors.

[color="Red"]That means all of us have ancestors of every color and creed. Every Palestinian suicide bomber has Jews in his past. And every Ku Klux Klan member's family has African roots.

It's simple math. Every person has two parents, four grandparents and eight great-grandparents. Keep doubling back through the generations - 16, 32, 64, 128 - and within a few hundred years you have thousands of ancestors.

It's nothing more than exponential growth combined with the facts of life. By the 15th century you've got 1-million ancestors. By the 13th you've got 1-billion. Sometime around the 9th century - just 40 generations ago - the number tops 1-trillion.

But how could anybody - much less everybody - alive today have had 1-trillion ancestors living during the 9th century?

The answer is, they didn't. Imagine there was a man living 1,200 years ago whose daughter was your mother's 36th great-grandmother, and whose son was your father's 36th great-grandfather. That would put him on two branches on your family tree.

Most of the people who lived 1,200 years ago appear not twice, but thousands of times on our family trees, because there were only 200-million people on Earth back then.

But many of the people who were alive in the year 800 never had children. Meanwhile, more prolific members of society would show up many more than 5,000 times on a lot of people's trees.

Keep going back in time, and there are fewer and fewer people available to put on more and more branches of the 6.5-billion family trees of people living today. It is mathematically inevitable that at some point, there will be a person who appears at least once on everybody's tree.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/07/02/Worldandnation/Billions_of_people__o.shtml

The guy that wrote that article is a jew. There were other articles in the paper supporting the main article. This is what the jew wants, a global mono-race. We're seeing the "scientific" foundations for this myth being laid down now.

Here's another one of his articles. He had another one about his jewish ancestors in the SF Chron today but it apparently is not online. Kikes are prolifc writers if nothing else.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/07/01/national/a093625D73.DTL&hw=MATT+CRENSON&sn=001&sc=1000

I believe that is based on the discovery of one of the oldest mummies know to humanty. And this is kinda lame because we all know that some oldest continents are submerged now.

This theory above is crap. The humanity exists much longer than we think and people know about their own history much less than about evolution of the dinosaurs. The human remains are more fragile than the dino's bones, not to mention many cataclysms. The evolution of the races is also a mystery. The climat? if so why the aborigines of Australia differ from the negroes?
And I wonder whose grandpa is that?

I came across these photos while doing research on the connections between pyramids throughout the world:

WTF is a "!Kung"? lol is that like king kung? Oh wait i remember seeing movie as a kid called "the gods must be crazy" and the niggers would make popping noises with their tongues. The english subtitles showed those noises as exclamation points. Is that the ! in !Kung?

Yep, those were !Kung; their language has the clicking sounds and is one of the oldest known languages. A few texts I've read stated that they werent' negros. While I'm sure you don't want them living next door, I was just trying to show that negros may not be native to Africa.

The Warlord

Really it's just too far back. we don't know who started where. Much of the "origins" are up in the air lately.

Whites clearly were in north america before any other people. Kennewick Man, Wizard's Beach Man, Spirit Cave Man, Penon Woman. There is a gap of a couple thousand years between the age of the newest aryan skulls and the oldest mongoloid skulls. The Whites got murdered off and/or mixed into the waves of mongoloid invaders.

Whites were in south asia thousands of years ago too. See the "tocharians" and "tarim basin" mummies.

It's pretty clear that whites were their gods. Ancient chink art has generals and demons with giant beards, often red or blond. Blue eyes too but modern scholars insist that all these colors are representative of abstractions and emotions.

I agree with them, but I believe that there were actual light eyes and hair too. I think they are frightened of the ancient physical reality.

Here's an interpretation of this same article by some folks on Gunbroker's forum. The christians believe that people having a "common ancestor" within the last 6000 years proves their bible. Even if there was such a common ancestor, it is not a single ancestor. However, the statistics were based on human populations existing for at least 20,000 years.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=205826

Most of you will remember a year or two ago, scientist determined that all humans came from two common ancestors (a male and a female). They did this through genetics and it is considered scientific fact now.

Well here's another blow to the evolution theory:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13621729/

God will continue to make foolish, the ways of the wise.

Change the assumptions and you change the conclusion. This is only statistics after all.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/QizilDonors.jpg/772px-QizilDonors.jpg

Ancient white nobles of NW china

Billions of people, one common ancestor
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published July 2, 2006

Whoever it was probably lived a few thousand years ago , somewhere in East Asia - Taiwan, Malaysia and Siberia all are likely locations. He - or she - did nothing more remarkable than be born, live, have children and die.

Yet this was the ancestor of every person now living on Earth - the last person in history whose family tree branches out to touch all 6.5-billion people on the planet today.

That means everybody on Earth descends from somebody who was around as recently as the reign of Tutankhamen, maybe even during the Golden Age of ancient Greece. There's even a chance that our last shared ancestor lived at the time of Christ

.

This is a lie. Modern man (homo sapien sapiens) evolved about 200,000 years ago in Southern Russia (the Caucuses Mountains) and he was VERY much like modern Aryans, including almost certainly White skin. From there modern man spread about 40,000 years ago to Europe and NE Asia, becoming us and mongoloids. Homo erectus, almost certainly black, was the pre-modern predecessor of homo sapiens and was very inferior in nearly every way. You can find his closest relatives in Sub-Saharan Africa and in the Australian aborigines. Homo erectus evolved, I'm not sure, maybe 200,000 years or more prior to homo sapien sapiens. Modern man did interbreed with homo erectus in Africa and SE Asia, improving homo erectus somewhat -- and giving us the nigger and the aborigine. I don't claim to be an expert in this field, but either the jew is outright lying or he is completely ignorant of the field of anthropology. So the premise for his ENTIRE article is false, making his entire article invalid and idiotic.

Ronald A. Fonda, used to have an excellent website on this subject, but it has disappeared. Perhaps it was jew-snuffed: http://www.rafonda.com

Ronald A. Fonda, used to have an excellent website on this subject, but it has disappeared. Perhaps it was jew-snuffed: http://www.rafonda.com

----------------------

Here's one of the articles from his now defunct website:

----------------------

African Eve, Eurasian Adam
The Age and Origin of the Human Species

Ronald A. Fonda

The speciation event that produced Homo sapiens sapiens could not have occurred contemporaneously in more than a very few individuals. It follows that those few s. sapiens would have possessed a very restricted sample of the progenitor species' genetic diversity. However, the diversity observed in current populations implies that there were never less than several thousand breeding pairs in the human ancestry (Harpending et al., 1998). Accordingly, the founding s. sapiens and their descendants must have interbred with the progenitor species (and perhaps other pre-human populations) in order to preserve the diversity which exists today. While some changes in the genome must have occurred after the speciation event, the "lifetimes" of the genetic elements considered (in the works cited here) are far longer than new estimates of s. sapiens' age (Mountain et al., 1994). As a consequence, most of the current diversity must be the result of interbreeding with pre-human populations.

On this view we would expect to see the most hybridized elements of the modern indigenes in those areas where pre-human population density was highest, such as Africa and S. E. Asia. Also, we would expect those populations to have the greatest diversity today, because they would preserve more of the pre-human genome, which would have had much more genetic variety than was represented in the tiny, original population of s. sapiens.

In fact, we do find that Africans and some S. E. Asian populations have not only more diversity (Jorde et al., 1997), but central Africans have ancestral genetic elements as well (Tishkoff et al., 1996). It is also clear that the population which gave rise to s. sapiens had been separated from the sub-Saharan Africans' ancestors for longer than our species' lifetime.1 This requires the proponents of "African Eve" to posit a segregation of central Africans from the proto-modern population in which speciation occurred. Since they also claim that modern humans originated in, and radiated from, Africa, Tishkoff (for instance) is driven to suggest that this hundreds of thousand year sequestration was somewhere in N. E. Africa.2 This is an implausible, ad hoc suggestion. By contrast, it is natural to suppose that separation implies the population ancestral to humans was a part of the radiation out of Africa into Eurasia, before the speciation event occurred.

If the speciation event took place in Eurasia, we would expect that the descendant population would show a "bottleneck" effect, and that those populations would possess low genetic diversity today, relative to central Africans, which is what we find.3 By contrast, central Africans have always had a large effective population size (Tishkoff et al., 1996), and are characterized by extraordinary diversity (Kidd et al., 1998). Also we would expect that Asians and Europeans would be more closely related to each other than either are to Africans, as is revealed in the discussion of cladistics below. This view also accounts for the existence of the Eurasian types. Yet more impressive evidence for Eurasian origins is the existence of a 200,000 year-old betaglobin linkage common in Asia and rare in Africa (Harding et al., 1997).

The age of the human species has lately been estimated at between 150,000 and 250,000 years, based on studies of mitochondrial DNA. Those estimates were based on the assumption of clonal transmission of the mtDNA, and the cited studies invalidate that (Awadalla et al., 1999]The current Eurasian populations are lightly pigmented, and that is associated with high latitude species and populations in many other genera. It has often been suggested that the ancient ancestors of the Eurasian types were part of a population that had been resident at high latitudes long enough to manifest the derived characteristic of light pigmentation. On this view we would expect to find that light-skinned people would display low diversity and a distant relationship to central Africans, which is what we find. In fact the genetic difference between Africans and Europeans is so distinct that the proportion of European admixture in Afro-Americans can be determined with a margin of error of only 0.02 (Destro-Bisol et al., 1999).

Harpending states that the population ancestral to sapiens was "small during most of the Pleistocene" and that "the number of our ancestors just before the expansion ('origin') of modern humans was small, only several thousand breeding adults." We can compare this characterization of our ancestral population with the evidence that Africans have always had a large effective population size. It is this incongruity that forces Tischkoff to postulate that the pre-human population was both "isolated from the rest of the African continent" and "somewhere in N. E. Africa."6 Moreover, this would have been for a very long time. Perhaps in Lemuria or Atlantis?

The evidence indicates that humans came from a sparse population in Eurasia; that their diversity was further reduced by the speciation event; that they subsequently expanded in every habitable direction; and that they interbred with the populations they came in contact with, producing extant hybrid populations. Hence Mountain et al. (1994) reports that in the cladistic tree "the European branch is significantly short relative to all other branches," that "the neighbor-joining tree... places the European sample close to the center of the tree with an extremely short branch," and further that "Europeans and northeast Asians are closely related." The first two of these statements are inconsistent with origin and radiation out of Africa while the third does not lend it any support. Evidence for radiation into Africa was found by Hammer et al. (1998) and Tischkoff et al. (1998) noted such evidence, but the latter went on to suggest that no attention should be paid to it.7

The radiation of low-diversity s. sapiens from Eurasia is also the best explanation for the discoveries, dates, morphology and genetic data in S. E. Asia. There, s. sapiens and erectus lived in proximity for as long as 20,000 years (Swisher et al., 1996), evidently interbreeding to produce extant population types. Many students of fossil morphology have long contended that there is continuity between S. E. Asian Hominid fossils and extant indigenous peoples.8 Genetic data show these populations are distinct from northern Asian populations and of comparable diversity to Africans (Chang et al. 1996).9

The Ngandong specimens, in particular, have occasioned much debate on account of their mixture of sapiens and erectus traits and their affinities with extant Australian populations.10 We would expect that the skulls of such hybrids would show affinities to both species, and that is why these fossils are so hard to classify. Some authorities say they are clearly erectus, while others point to modern traits, and especially that very similar skulls (from overlapping dates) are found in Australia. Moreover, the traits in question occur in the modern population. This is not merely consistent with, but constitutes strong evidence for, the view that radiating, low-diversity s. sapiens interbred with relic erectus populations to the extent that they acquired near-African diversity. Primitive morphological traits are manifest in the Asian fossil record and in living people.

The hypothesis presented here uniquely explains one particular aspect of the Australian fossil record. The oldest fossils from Australia are the most modern in morphology. On this view, this is explained by the fact that the first humans that passed through S. E. Asia on their way to Australia were less hybridized with resident erectus populations because they spent less time living among them. Populations that settled Australia later (leaving the Kow Swamp-type skulls) had been living in S. E. Asia for as much as 20,000 years and were far more hybridized in consequence.

Wolpoff accepts that the Ngandong skulls are representative of the population which produced the Kow Swamp-type specimens, and left descendants in the modern population. But he explicitly rejects the view, as set forth here, that there was inter-species gene flow, and calls it "unacceptable." This, however, is a socio-political rather than a scientific statement. He does not contend that it is an unreasonable construction of the data, but rejects it on grounds of dogma, because of its implication that some modern populations express a more primitive genome. Wolpoff considers that the hypothesis of hybridization is "unacceptable" because it "raises the specter that some human populations can be interpreted to differ from others because they have more genes from an extinct, primitive human species." Thus, according to Wolpoff and other adherents of this doctrine, scientific truths which conflict with their politically-correct "just so" paradigm are outside the bounds of contemplation.

The people of the Andaman Islands have also been the subject of a study which has been reported as "supporting the 'out of Africa.'"11 The data, considered by itself, may not contradict it, but as part of the pattern already noted above, it actually supports the opposing hypothesis presented here. The Andaman Islands are yet another of the places where s. sapiens interbred with a relic erectus population, was hybridized, and existed in an isolated condition until the present. Not surprisingly, they show genetic affinities to central Africans, because (like them and the S. E. Asians) they preserve substantial portions of the pre-human genome. It is a nonsense to suggest that the first groups of humans "out of Africa" immediately migrated to the ends of the earth (Andamans, Australia, New Guinea etc.) or that the populations of all such remote places should possess such diversified and similar genomes by chance. The inferred pattern of hybridization is the more parsimonious hypothesis.

Yet another challenge exists to the claim that our species radiated out of Africa. There is a consensus among anthropologists that s. sapiens' cultural artifacts display a higher level of cognitive function than all previous species. The technical level and diversity of their tool industry alone would have set them apart. Add to that whole new categories of behavior: the creation of representative art, the domestication of the dog etc. Thence we would expect that the populations which were hybridized with predecessor species would be intellectually and cognitively disadvantaged in relation to low-diversity, Eurasian populations. In fact we do observe that Eurasians are cognitively advantaged in comparison to high-diversity populations (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994), which clearly reveals the direction of species radiation. Expressing this view however is likely to attract such vehement abuse that few dare speak it openly. Only those few whose livelihood is not subject to the fiats of "wimmin and minorities" can openly state the truth on this subject, and even then their views are ruthlessly censored.

Notes

1. Harpending, et al. (1998); see especially the conclusions.

2. & 3. Tishkoff, S. A., from a report in the Science Daily of 25 January 1999 of a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim on 22 January.

4. Eyre-Walker, 'Recent Finds in Paleoanthropology' in Athena Review vol. 2, no. 2 (10 March 2000).

5. See p. 1395 and p. 1399, and generally, to account for the observed diversity clines, which intuitively support radiation out of Eurasia by low-diversity s. sapiens, gaining diversity as they interbred with pre-human populations subsequent to their speciation.

6. Tishkoff, as quoted in Science Daily (above).

7. Tishkoff et al. (1998). On page 1399, she postulates a "dramatic" founder effect and genetic drift.

8. Wolpoff and Milford H. submitted a post entitled "No Homo erectus at Ngandong" to Human Origins News (http://www.proam.com/origins/news/article19.html) on 16 March 2000. He is perhaps the best known proponent of the view that there is continuity between the ancient and modern populations; saying, for instance, that the population represented by the Ngandong specimens is "incontrovertably" ancestral to some Australian fossils and living people.

9. Chang et al. 1996, p. 98 notes the way Melanesians are genetically differentiated from other Pacific islanders and Asians (citing Flint et al. (1993)). Their figures 3 & 5 are somewhat pertinent. Mountain, op. cit., p. 6516, notes clustering of pygmies and S. E. Asians. Figure 1 shows how representative global populations cluster: the pattern is consistent (in the author's interpretation) with Eurasian hybridization of a species whose genome subsumed the diversity of the current (also hybridized) Africans. Kidd, op. cit. p. 225, cites Harding (1997) concerning variation of betaglobin in S. E. Asians. Jorde, op. cit., Figure 2 shows S. E. Asians clustering with pygmies. Hagelberg (as cited in 11, below) finds affinities between pygmies and Andaman Islanders.

10. Wolpoff's post (8, above) seems to be in response to the statement of Philip Rightmire (cited as "an expert on the species") in the 15 December 1996 issue of Human Origins News that "They [Ngandong specimens] are unequivocally H. erectus."

11. Hagelberg, E. & Fox, C. L. in an unpublished study, quoted in Scientific American, 'Science and the Citizen', January 1999.

References

Awadalla P., Eyre-Walker A., Smith J. M. (1999) 'Linkage Disequilibrium and Recombination in Hominid Mitochondrial DNA', Science vol. 286, pp. 2524-2525 (24 December).
Chang F-M., Kidd J. R., Livak K. J., Pakstis A. J., Kidd K. K. (1996) 'The world-wide distribution of allele frequencies at the human dopamine D4 receptor locus', Human Genetics, 98: 91-101.
Destro-Bisol G., Maviglia R., Caglia A., Boschi I., Spedini G., Pascali V., Clark A., Tishkoff S. (1999) 'Estimating European admixture in African Americans by using microsatellites and a microsatellite haplotype (CD4/Alu)', Human Genetics 104: 149-157.
Eyre-Walker A., Smith N. H., Smith J. M. (1999) Proceedings of the Royal Society, London Series B. Biological Sciences 266, 477.
Hagelberg E. et al. (1999) Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, Series B. Biological Sciences 266, 485.
Hammer M. F., Karafet T., Rasanayagam A., Wood E. T., Altheide T. K., Jenkins T., Griffiths R. C., Templeton A. R., Zegura S. L. (1998) 'Out of Africa and Back Again: Nested cladistic analysis of human Y chromosome variation', Molecular Biological Evolution, April 15 (4): 427-41.
Harding R. M., Fullerton S. M., Griffiths R. C., Bond J., Cox M. J., Schneider J. A., Moulin D. S., Clegg J. B. (1997) 'Archaic African and Asian lineages in the genetic ancestry of modern humans', American Journal of Human Genetics, April 60(4): 772-89.
Harpending H. C., Batzer M. A., Gurven M., Jorde L.B., Rogers A. R., and Sherry S. T. (1998) 'Genetic traces of ancient demography', Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, vol. 95, pp. 1961-1967.
Herrnstein, R. J. and Murray, C. The Bell Curve, (1994) Simon and Schuster (The Free Press) Also: Lynn (1991), Zindi (1994), Lynn (1994), Snyderman & Rothman (1987), Jensen (1993), Jensen & Whang (1993).
Jorde L. B., Rogers A. R., Bamshad M., Watkins W. S., Krakowiak P., Sung S., Kere, J. and Harpending H. C. (1997) 'Microsatellite diversity and the demographic history of modern humans', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, vol. 94, pp. 3100-3103.
Kidd K. K., Bharti M., Castiglione C. M., Zhao H., Pakstis A. J., Speed W. C., Bonne-Tamir B., Lu R-B., Goldman D., Lee C., Nam Y.S., Grandy D. K., Jenkins T., Kidd J. R. (1998) 'A global survey of haplotype frequencies and linkage disequilibrium at the DRD2 locus', Human Genetics 103: 211-227.
Mountain J. L. and Cavalli-Sforza L. L. (1994) 'Inference of human evolution through cladistic analysis of nuclear DNA restriction polymorphisms', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, vol. 91, pp. 6515-6519.
Swisher III C. C., Rink W. J., Anton S. C., Schwarcz H. P., Curtis G. H., Suprijo A., & Widiasmoro (1996) Science, 274 (5294), 1870-1874.
Tishkoff S. A., Dietzsch E., Speed W., Pakstis A. J. et al. (1996) 'Global patterns of linkage disequilibrium at the CD4 locus and modern human origins', Science, Washington, March 8.
Tishkoff S. A., Goldman A., Calafell F., Speed W. C., Deinard A. S., Bonne-Tamir B., Kidd J. R., Pakstis A. J., Jenkins T., and Kidd K. K. (1998) 'A Global Haplotype Analysis of the Myotonic Dystrophy Locus; Implications for the Evolution of Modern Humans and for the Origin of Myotonic Dystrophy Mutations', American Journal of Human Genetics, 62: 1389-1402.
Wolpoff, Milford H. A post entitled: "No Homo erectus at Ngandong" to Human Origins News (http://www.pro-am.com/origins/news/article19.html) on 16 March 2000.

Main Directory

–– The Heretical Press ––

It's simple math. Every person has two parents, four grandparents and eight great-grandparents. Keep doubling back through the generations - 16, 32, 64, 128 - and within a few hundred years you have thousands of ancestors.

Math and genetics aren't the same thing. The whole (what's it now 7 billion?) population of the world was smaller a few thousand years ago, but it was already very separated. No possible common ancestor 2-5000 years ago if we know humans had communities antipodal to each other ten times further back.

Abuse of math! Back to the showers, ZOG.