I'm more interested in how 'compelling' the evidence is, genetic and otherwise, that Africa is the only nascent place on the planet for hominids. We, even after rejecting mythical accounts of singular 'births' of our kind, seem to presume that our source is singular instead of possibly coincident in several parts of the planet, fairly close in terms of eras.

The chronological depth of a few hundred thousand years still might be shallow, especially in light of so many discoveries of former ancient human societies in places formerly thought uninhabited like Antarctica. The 'African source' might have been secondary, tertiary or even ?

I can't remember for sure but I think Harari put it about 240,000 years ago.

One thing is certain and that is that you will probably never find the first people to come out of Africa, for two reasons. First it is likely only a tiny sample of early people left surviving traces behind, only a tint sample of which will be found, and therefore the chances that one of those will include the first ever, who may have been few in number for a long time afterwards, is minute. And secondly because many of the early attempts probably failed, in the sense that sometimes the small communities died out after a few generations or were driven back, while some of the early visits were just perhaps just wandering expeditions, who just went back after perhaps only a few days or weeks because they wanted to.

While the Bible says life started in the Garden of Eden , supposedly , in northern Africa , archiologists , continue to find earlier and earlier evidences of human life in strange places . I think our concept of human history , hasn't settled , yet .

Part of our history