Does everyone agree that we evolved from Africa?

I mean unique in the context of not interbreeding with other primates. In the natural world, species only breed with their own kind or likeness. The only interbreeding among the species is the man-made situation with dogs.
I am referring to the idea that humans came from apes or some other primate which doesn't make sense to me...

You are appallingly ignorant. Dogs are a single species. No narrative of the descent of man describes the genus homo interbreeding with other species. Where have you learned such tripe? WWW.Holyollersareus.com?

That's not really true, that only members of the same species can interbreed or produce fertile offspring. Occasionally mules, (offspring of a donkey and a horse), are fertile. Coyotes and Grey wolves are different species, but in the Northeast US almost all "wolves" in the wild are fertile hybrids of wolves and coyotes. The old schoolbook definition of species was creatures that can produce fertile offspring together, but that is no longer true.

There is no reason to think that some of our ancestor species didn't mate with other primates. We know for a fact now that Homo Sapiens mated with Neanderthals when H. Sapiens left Africa and so non-Africans all have some Neanderthal heritage in them. How do we know that our direct ancestor, (these days considered to Homo Heidelbergensis), didn't mate with Erectus or some other pre-Sapien Homo? We don't.

Yes you are correct according to the National Geographic website which has articles on humans having Neanderthal DNA from interbreeding. They also said that humans and Neanderthals descended from Homo Heidelbergensis making us close cousins, interesting.
I also looked at the wikipedia article on interbreeding in the natural world, which has given me another perspective on this topic.
It seems a bit odd in some ways, but I suppose in the distant past it was considered a bit odd when an African and a European paired up...

this thread needs a musical interlude, or two

We are all Martians don't ya know ?...

Have you read Dr. Roberts Book? Some of the illustration are fantastic and the Dr. is my go to gal for anything evolutionary. It's great and somewhat rare these days in evolution how she never mentions how great she is-and that she is right and everyone else is wrong! I hate books like that and if you want self worship evolution is the place to find it.
The DNA stuff is great however I just don't understand it enough to make it a primary source. It is a very cool video however some politically correct turd will say 'it racism'

About the DNA some of the conclusions I will never accept. For instance the theory the far easterners somehow made it to the sub arctic zone where is today Alaska. DNA evidence says that the individuals interbred with the aborigines-which today we call Eskimos. From this breeding came the basis for all the great Native American Indian tribes in America and beyond.
Horse hockey!
I have studied all my life the ancient Indians that lived in the large area of land my family owns. The Kaskinampo were a fascinating tribe --large men sexual morphing women and no one really knows just far back they lived here. They were strong hunters, farmers, all different kinds of tradesmen, were experts in all types of tanning and were so very successful as a group. They worshiped a sun God but their main occupation was finding more horrible ways to kill each other and any other Cherokee tribe that happen to go by. The Mayans might have more bloodthirsty but not by very much.
Now, native Alaskans are short and bulky in structure with none ever getting to the height of 4 or 5 feet in stature. These mystery far easterners were even shorter! Now how can that account for Native American's who were all well over 6 feet-almost all of Kaskinampo men were.
However the DNA is 'absolute"
This is where it ends for me with DNA evidence.

Ever notice how a washed up singer or an old actor who can't even get the role of 'Dad' in the dogfood commercial suddenly claim that they are 1/16 Cherokee thinking that might get them out of the outhouse. If they only knew about the pastimes of many Cherokee tribes and their murderous ways with each other they might change their minds. Ditto the
Mayans.

Where to start? Height is an adaptation. If a group of short people came over the Bering Bridge 20,000 years ago, they would be exposed to a new environment where height might well be selected for. So the taller people are more successful and therefore procreate more. Every generation or so is a slight amount taller, and over the course of several hundred generations the people are quite a bit taller.

As for the Native Americans, yes they could be cruel too. But they didn't deserve systematic destruction in just a few generations.

My take on DNA is of course colored by my theism so DNA patterns turning up anywhere could be by virtue of 'software reuse'. Don't want to get into the ID thing so I'll get to the point.

Pure evolutionists try to have DNA both ways, stable for eons and yet instantly malleable when change is needed. I wouldn't stake anything on body height changing or staying the same though. Cockroaches haven't changed a bit in over 300 million years. But One of the most amazing things about dogs is how easily characteristics are selected to suit any want or need in a relative eye blink of time. You can hardly recognize some breeds as belonging to the same specie. Kind of makes me think they were designed to be man's best friend in any environment. Oopps, there I go again...

.The First Native Americans came to this country in 60,000 BC! So in that small window they evolved what took early man millions of years to accomplish.It took more than 4 million years for early man to get his knuckles off the ground. Tugenensis the oldest human on two legs was a knuckle walker-it took 3.1 million years to Afarensis. Who we know was totally bipedal I don't know why in the hell wiki whatever say the that the link to the Indians was from Siberia -no one has ever said that. Height could never evolved in that microsecond of evolutionary time.

I agree totally what we did to them totally out of hate. The young United States kidnapped children of the upper New England tribes infected them with smallpox then sent back to the tribe to kill thousands in a slow painful excruciating death. The suffering was deliberate as then Commander Custer said they still didn't suffer enough.
Try to find one word of that on google.

Ah hahahahahahahahahaha . . .

If they came here, they weren't born here, so they weren't native Americans, Einstein.

Where can i get some of what you smoking?

Sixty thousand years ago . . . ah-hahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

The horse is also interesting in that respect. The Permian-Triassic global extinction which was the result of rapid global warming is ever so misunderstood. Mainly, because various eggheads-each-who are always right-can't seem to agree as to the number, percentage wise, as to the catastrophe in terms of extinction.
Turtles, Terrapins and Tortoises seem to survive along with some reptiles, amphibians and mollusk. Sharks, the oldest of all predators, seemed to do just fine. They have not changed one bit in all those eons-like your cockroaches. With 80%-depending on which mad scientists who you agree with-populating the oceans then why didn't sharks evolve differently-since their habit has been distorted to the extreme. Dr. Roberts explained that 95% of all life in the seas was due to rapid oxygenation. Sharks, warm blooded, were able to evolve. So, warm blooded fish, survived the catastrophic volcanic climate effect. Or so the theory goes.
About evolution as a constant stream flowing for ever everlastingly-did I miss the quote-here is a good example.
If you go to the Museum of Natural History in Philadelphia, right after you pass the little anti-room for better of an explanation, where you can watch videos and such, you walk around the left corner and wow! stands a huge creature from Carnosauria, Giganotosaurus. Talk about heart thump. Words can't describe that monster until you see it from 20ft away.
For more than a century Tyrannosauroidea held the record for being the biggest and baddest on the planet. Now we know that Tyrannosaurus rex was a scavenger and Giganotosaurus was twice as big-next to the exhibit is a skull from Giganotosaurus that is even bigger that that unholy thing. Culture shock. The point is that in 1996 everything we thought we knew-we were 110% wrong. According to Dr. Roberts' expert the much hyped Spinosaurus maroccanus, a sea scavenger, the fossil record is simply to sparse. Internet hype at it's slimiest.
There is nothing 'sparse' about that skeleton.

Look I am quoting from some the best, most respected authors, on the subject. Everything I put down here can be sourced to the best experts in the world.
Trying to dispute everything with garbage you dig up on google.
Read some books for Christ sake. 18 new peer reviewed books on evolution were released in 2015-would you like a list.

Spooky 24:

What you are posting is absurd. Even taking that 60,000 years ago number-some believe the Luzia remains in South America are 50,000 years old, others disagree-the original settlers of the New World, whenever they came, arrived here as fully formed modern human beings, Homo Sapiens. The ancestors of the Native Americans had the same African ancestors as everyone else whose ancestors left Africa as fully formed modern humans in two large waves 65,000 ya and 45,000 ya. The scenario you are painting is that lower forms of Australopithecus or perhaps Homo Habilis arrived here 60,000 years ago and evolved very quickly, which is nonsense. By the way, Australopithecenes and Homo Habilis were long gone by 60,000 years ago.

I think "Lucy" the grandma would disagree ! She prolly called it "Fruit Loops" land !

I agree completely. The challenge was that a combination of DNA from stocks of smaller, more robust, individuals evolved in that small time frame to conform with the known physical attributes of the Kaskinampo today-what few are left. When White men first came to the Americas it was estimated that perhaps one million(what much later would be called Indians) were dispersed up and down the land chain. Although these were divided into thousands of lose associations they were physically similar. Groups in what is now Florida were albino yet the DNA evidence is foolproof(so they say) that all of these individuals came from lower coast of the area of China and Russia across a land bridge into Alaska and breed with stock from what is now known as Eskimos.
The DNA is irrefutable-in the way we understand it-so now science is left with having a forlorn conclusion and then trying to fit pieces together to fit the conclusion that we already have.
"One must alter conclusions to fit facts-not alter facts to fit conclusions" You can't have DNA evidence both ways-use it when you need it-forget it when you don't. It does not matter what garbage you dig up on google-it is what it is.

I'm not following anything you are saying, or why you think you just disproved evolution. I'm unaware of a group of albinos down in Florida-who were they? And albinoism can occur at any time in any population group-there are albino Africans, Asians and Europeans, so there is no reason to think anything earth-shattering has occurred if you find albino Native Americans. They simply could have descended from those who crossed the Bering Land Bridge.

Incidentally, it is not completely agreed on that ALL Native Americans are descended from those who crossed the Bering Land Bridge. In addition to the Solutreans that some feel came from Europe and settled in the North Central States and adjoining areas of Canada, there is the fact that some remains have been found which are close to Polynesians. Some have theorized that they are descended from an Asian group who had some people colonize Polynesia AND also had some go North and cross the Bering Land Bridge. The other possibility is that the Polynesians themselves made it to South America on rafts. The Kon Tiki expedition showed it could be done. We don't know.

the "haplogroup" from which the Ojibwa outliers exist may be nothing more than Mideaval exploreres who managed to sail across the pond. The STR markers of the "Solutreans" appear to evidence very few, but later mutations that help us use DNA STR's (because of their stability and lower mutation rates) and SNP's(single nucleotide polymorphs) as paleoanthropologic "clocks"

I dont know but wvery later article I see seems to doubt the Solutrean connection (even though the cactus hill paleo sites and the meadowcroft cave are clearly "pre Folsom" paleo points that seem to emulate Solutrean projectiles).

Who knows. I can wait till some scholarly work attempts to clear it all up

heres a later bit on Forensic use of STR's
http://www.forensicdnacenter.com/dna-str.html