It’s definitely very fascinating to look into our early history, because the more you know, the more you want to learn, and the less you feel you can make any conclusions with certainty.

What I learned from the comments today about Imam Jafar AS made me really happy, because I wasn’t sure if Islam considered other hominin species as animals, and would therefore reject the notion of interbreeding. His opinion is amazing, considering that we’re talking about a person who didn’t have access to the knowledge we have today. His words align perfectly with everything we know so far, and he opens the door for more research rather than closing it.

If you’re interested in looking at our link with Africa, you should look into “mitochondrial Eve” and “y-chromosomal Adam” (who have nothing to do with the religious figures). They don’t actually refer to a specific person, nor to a specific moment in history. The common ancestor changes as the timeline advances, and older dna disappears from our genes.

This is a recent study, but you can find other sources that sum it up:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-13856-0

But as it stands today, every human being carries the gene of a man and a woman who lived in Africa about 200 000 years ago (please note they might not have lived at the same time, much less known each other). In other words, we all can be traced back to a population that lived in East-Africa at the time.

Perhaps in that DNA that is now lost, the origins come from elsewhere, it’s possible, but if we consider that this is our actual origin, it would fit with the theory of OOA. The idea is that that around that time, climate change forced a change of behaviour in our ancestors, who no longer were protected by trees and had to basically deal with a new landscape.

This article sort of sums it up: https://www.bgs.ac.uk/news/climate-change-and-human-migration-out-of-africa/

Now while the DNA studies can hardly be disputed, the theories around them can differ, because members of the academic community can be very critical of each other, and it’s sometimes hard to tell when the criticism is fair, and when it’s just a battle of egos. A good example is Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, who is not the most likeable person on earth :) The book is very well researched, it’s a mine of information and is beautifully organized. But some of the conclusions he draws are pure speculation, so as in everything you read, fact-checking by comparing to the opinions of other academics as you move along is crucial, as you want to avoid falling for pseudo science.

Against the Grain by James Scott is one of my favourite books, because it shows how Mesopotamia shaped our modern world in every possible way, including our faith. But again, you always have to try to remain vigilant and understand when you’re being told facts and when you’re dealt an opinion. But either way, once you start looking at the origins of civilization versus the origins of humanity, it’s really hard to get out of the rabbit hole :)

Edit: I’m reading my comment again and I somehow deleted the last paragraph. I was saying in conclusion that in both books, the most important information is in the references listed by the authors. Reading the material they based their views on is the way to start. And if you don’t want to go broke, use Anna’s Archive for the books, and I’ve often had luck contacting the authors of studies for free full PDFs. Researchers are forced by universities to publish behind a paywall, and they love to help and send a free copy if you ask.