Where did modern Humans originate?

In early April 2019 I posted reference to an article in National Geographic on Facebook about stone tools found in the Philippines that pre-date the arrival of modern humans to the islands by roughly 600,000 years - but researchers aren't sure who made them so we must ask again:

Do you think we all came out of Africa?

There are other theories, so we should be circumspect in what we believe and note the findings in Forbidden Archaeology along with ideas of independent origination of modern humans that emerged a few hundred years ago.

Most fossil hominins older than 1.8 million years (the age of early Homo fossils from Georgia) came from Africa, leading most researchers to conclude that this was where we initially evolved however a 7.2 million year old primate Graecopithecus from Greece and Bulgaria was identified as a hominin then in 2019, 5.7 million year old human-like footprints were discovered on Crete Read more...

From the 600k period:
Homo Erectus is discovered at Lantian, China.
Homo Erectus is discovered at Tighhenif, Algeria.
Anglia man is located in East Anglia, Britain.
Paleolithic sites are found in China as early as this date. Zhoukoudian, about 50 kilometers (31 miles) southwest of Beijing, China was a natural habitat of human ancestors.

Greece: The 'Petralona man', or Archanthropus of Petralona, as it has since been called, was found to be 700,000 years old, making it the oldest human europeoid (presenting European traits) of that age ever discovered in Europe. Dr Poulianos' research showed that the Petralona man evolved separately in Europe and was not an ancestor of a species that came out of Africa. - See more at: human-skull-challenges-out-africa-theory

India: Narmada Nensis dating to the late Middle Pleistocene of 300,000 to 150,000 years ago, a fossil skull found in Madyar Paradesh in 1982 is said to prove that modern man first walked in India.

To Kiron Anand who challenged the information and is of the opinion that DNA proves all (Science mag & Guardian) :

Tracing ancestry over the past 10, 30 or 100,000 years yields a smorgasbord of results with the favourite being the out of Africa yet it cannot be conclusively proven. Adherents to the out of Africa theory go so far as to claim a universal one world language assuming that all the Africans only had one language which then diverged as people split off in different directions.

I have no doubt there was an exodus from Africa and most likely waves of people at different times. From all the evidence it seems that dark coloured skin was almost universal. One theory proposes a spontaneous evolution of fair skin somewhere over the Middle East - North India around 10,000 BC and that these are the people who migrated into Europe.

Genome sequences are known for two archaic hominins - Neanderthals and Denisovans - which interbred with anatomically modern humans as they dispersed out of Africa. We identified high-confidence archaic haplotypes in 161 new genomes spanning 14 island groups in Island Southeast Asia and New Guinea and found large stretches of DNA that are inconsistent with a single introgressing Denisovan origin. Instead, modern Papuans carry hundreds of gene variants from two deeply divergent Denisovan lineages that separated over 350 thousand years ago. Spatial and temporal structure among these lineages suggest that introgression from one of these Denisovan groups predominantly took place east of the Wallace line and continued until near the end of the Pleistocene. A third Denisovan lineage occurs in modern East Asians. This regional mosaic suggests considerable complexity in archaic contact, with modern humans interbreeding with multiple Denisovan groups that were geographically isolated from each other over deep evolutionary time." Cell.com

While I find this avenue of research interesting, it is all conjectural with an absolute truth almost impossible. So it's a matter of considering the probable and the probable that I lean towards is that the peoples moving out of Africa mixed with other humans or human species in Europe, India, Central and East Asia with the resultant mixing giving rise to variations in skin colour. Conversely those remaining in Africa would also have been affected by travellers and traders going back and forth.

The search for our ultimate ancestry due to the influence of patriarchal and capitalist forces that remain incensed that India, the last bastion of matriarchy will not be destroyed deliberately ommit references to India and its indigenous race.

What is more important in this entire story aside from the established fact that modern humans evolved on the African continent is that what we term civilisation developed in India and spread across the world. I don't think that could have happened had there not been an indigenous race. Archaeologists recently claimed to have uncovered agricultural tools in India according to a Facebook post posted a few weeks back though I have not looked into that;  (the discovery of Acheulian tools at Attirampakkam that are more than a million years old).

I would suggest to people that unless irrefutable proof emerges as to where the first fish learned to breathe and the evolutionary process clearly traceable to the present day, I would be disinclined to believe anything about physical evolution and leave everything within an interesting field of probabilities. What would be a more interesting field of study is the evolution of the human soul that garners almost no debate?

Tracing our recent history:

Chaman Lal tells us that there were westward migrations from India and that people of Indian stock became rulers of the Greeks, the Romans, the Hittites, the Egyptians and others at different points in time over the past 10 or 12,000 years. The question that immediately comes to mind is why those migrants forgot their ancestral history and returned to attack India as Alexander did?

This was a time long before writing evolved therefore it is probable that the memory of ancestry was lost in the face of the necessities for survival of the period. Chaman Lal who spent considerable time with the Roma, the so-called Gypsies who wander Europe who after 1000 years had forgotten their ancestry as they too originated from India.

Information published in the journal 'Nature Ecology & Evolution' say that this facial reconstruction of the pictured 5,600-year-old Neolithic woman from Sussex on show at the Royal Pavilion & Museum in Brighton attests to the fact that many of the early Britons were migrants from the Mediterranean and further east who bought with them ideas of civilisation and the technology to build Stonehenge on the Salisbury plain. Modern scientists and researchers are still somewhat sceptical about the emergence of civilisation out of India but they are getting much closer.