If Youtube supports science*, it ought to stop giving free pass to anti-science afropologists who promote grave misinformation about human evolution.

* What's really the differance between (religious?) afropologists and religious creationists? Youtube seems to treat them similarly well.

Peter Klevius has for a decade* told the world that humans didn't originate in Africa - by using the very "evidence" afropologists claim to have.

* And as the world's first 1992 to combine "mongoloid" (cold adapted) Jinniushan with Khoisan. Genetic diversity, fossils (or rather the lack of transitional ones), and "Africa is a big continent" (smaller than Asia and with less variation in climate and ecology - and doesn't possess a tropical and volatile archipelage as the one in SE Asia)!

Genetic diversity of dogs and humans

 

 Cumulative genepool corresponds with cumulative fossilpool. And species diversity corresponds with immigration of new species over time.
 

When afropologists say there are more genetic diversity in Africa, they simply lump together all migrant DNA from the oldest (Khoisan) to the youngest (Bantu). It's like saying there are more genetic diversity among pet dogs - which we do know has nothing to do with evolutionary origin. Except, of course, as a model for how volatile islands created new species.

Genetic diversity is the total number of genetic characteristics in the genetic makeup of a species, it ranges widely from the number of species to differences within species and can be attributed to the span of survival for a species.

Genetic diversity serves as a way for populations to adapt to changing environments. Asian environment was much more varied than African. And the dog breeding environment was different from the wolves.

Dog breeding started some 40,000 bp, perhaps even earlier, i.e. close to when truly modern humans started conquering the world from Asia some 55-45,000 bp.

If all pet dogs were let loose, we would end up with the same situation as with humans - i.e. answering the stupid question: Why is there only one type of human species left?

The absolute impossibility of African "crdle of humankind".

Sustained reproductive isolation creating true species differences among intelligent, bipedal and omnivorous primates, can only be achieved on unstable islands - meaning they need both island isolation as well as mainland interaction from time to time.

An omnivorous, fast moving and clever bipedal wouldn't give species evolution a chance on a continent. What was needed was repeated island isolation. Just like our diversity of dogs was created on breeding "islands".

Africa's "genetic diversity" rests on migration, because the oldest DNA in now living Africans comes from "mongoloid" (cold adapted) Khoisan who must have come from the north. According to Peter Klevius (who is a real scientist - i.e. bias assassin) theory (first hinted at 1992 and finalized 2012) round-skulled Homo sapiens sapiens (HSS) got a better brain setup in the SE Asian archipelago due to jungle dwarfing where only better packed small brains could survive. During iceages (e.g. after the Toba catastrophe) the new brain setup entered mainland Asia and finally mixed with Jinniushan's relatives in the cold north - and became "mongoloid". This resulted in the clever HSS that the conquered the whole world. However, when Khoisan's ancestors passed the tropics they also mixed with the ancestors of what we used to call "Negritos", "Pygmies" etc.. This mix resulted in small statured people with either negroid or mongoloid features.

All modern humans, except for Australian aborigines - which has its own mixing history with Papua-New Guinea in the past - have identical globular skulls.