If humanity originated in Europe, does that men we're all European, including Asians? Wowee, glad to be part of the human family. Now, what does that (or would that) mean? That's the problem with the entire discussion, and the origin of the desire to be credited with being the first human beings. The people who first studied this all considered their nations and race to be the first, for natural if not obvious reasons. Then came discoveries in Africa that showed that the remains of every single hominid (which is not the same as a hominin) could be found there, and no where else.
The response was the "out of Africa" thesis, which was later supported through dna testing. But, I'll get back to that. The response of many people of African (specifically what in America we call Black) descent was an "Aha. Look at this example from Asia, Europe, even Mexico that has Sub Saharan African features. Black people were really the first people. Now, the immediate counter-response was to try to prove or disprove the out of Africa thesis. There were plenty of chances that paleo-anthropological evidence might be found to show, for ex., that Europeans were descended more from Neanderthals than Cro-Magnons. This happened in Asia too. Their scientists wanted to prove that Asians, specifically the Chinese, were a distinct sub species that originated in Asia from hominids like Homo erectus.
All of these arguments are based on racial theories cast or hidden as national ones. And, the fundamental stupid assumption is that 1) African means Black or appearing like the descriptions and caricatures created by others. So, African origins mean ... the first people were Black (WRONG). And, contrarily, if the first humans originated in Europe, the first people were White. Right. WRONG. Likewise for Asians.
Anyway, how does one check for the common origins of all living humans? Nowadays, through dna. It's pretty simple, genes are pass from parents to their children. And, it's been done. Here's a video that was on YouTube that tells the story of one Chinese scientist's research on Asian origins. I don't agree with the point of the section after his part finishes. It repeats much of what has already been written in this thread.
https://www.facebook.com/truthandedutai ... 493824474/Afa the sciencedaily article, a couple of things should be noted. 7.5 million years ago was the Miocene Age. I'll cite a bit about it from the Wiki, but you can choose your source on it.
The apes arose and diversified during the Miocene, becoming widespread in the Old World. By the end of this epoch, the ancestors of humans had split away from the ancestors of the chimpanzees to follow their own evolutionary path. As in the Oligocene before it, grasslands continued to expand and forests to dwindle in extent. In the Miocene seas, kelp forests made their first appearance and soon became one of Earth's most productive ecosystems.[4] The plants and animals of the Miocene were fairly modern. Mammals and birds were well-established. Whales, seals, and kelp spread.
There were lots of hominins around in Europe at the time. In fact, it's universally accepted that there were many types of hominins in many parts of the world. On that point, the article doesn't say anything new. What's interesting is the way the conclusion is presented. For ex., back to the distinction between hominin and hominid:
Hominid – the group consisting of all modern and extinct Great Apes (that is, modern humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans plus all their immediate ancestors).
Hominin – the group consisting of modern humans, extinct human species and all our immediate ancestors (including members of the genera Homo, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Ardipithecus).
Note again the title of the article: "7.2-million-year-old pre-human remains found in the Balkans"
What is a "pre-human" one might ask? Well, that's a hominin. The origins of "humankind" can be connected to pre-humans, but we're talking evolution here. Humankind can be connected or considered descended from the first mammals too.
If the question is where "modern humans" originated is posed; i.e., where the first hominids originated, the answer is quite different --because of genetic testing. It has also to be considered that at some point long after the first hominids emerged, there was a die off of most of those species. The argument is the last remaining group of these hominids that were Cro Magnon modern humans with technology and language skills crossed from the African continent into the Middle East --where there were other hominids, but not homo sapiens sapiens. The homo sapiens eventually, through interbred with or out competed the other hominid species and became dominant.
Again, the way to test is simply to look at genes. All modern humans have some genes that can be traced to African origins. The process does not work in reverse. But, it doesn't prove a thing about Black, White, Red, Brown or Yellow people or their descendants except that they are related. The first homo sapiens carried all the genetic variety necessary to result in all the different variations.
So, people can go on about how the races are different, but it has nothing to do with the origin of humans. Moreover, if an older jaw bone is found that is older that 7.5 million years in Puerto Rico, would that mean that humankind originated there? I'm sure if it were found in Iraq, there'd be those who'd agree; but question whether some scavenger or other circumstance transported the skull from what would become Israel. That would explain a lot to some people. Imo, it's silly to beat one's chest or be happy one way or the other, which is not to say that much of the cultural assertions are correct. It shouldn't burst anyone's bubble.