you wrote:
Yet, everyone viewing that program saw it with his or her own particular bias. This is evident when you read the questions posed to Dr Oppenheimer on the discovery website. Someone questioned whether Africans should be considered Homo sapiens since the common gene is extant outside Africa.
While some posters on this forum question the African-ness of Aborigines of Australia and Negritos of South Asia, when the program clearly links them to the first migration out of Africa between eighty to seventy-five thousand years ago. I had my own problems with the program but I will get to that later. >

This statement deserves attention here:
There is no question that Australoids migrated out of Africa, nor that they were one of the first if not THE first wave fo humans to migrate out of Africa. I have myself stated that Australids began their occupation of Asia 70,000 years ago, to reach the Australian continent by 40,000.

This would then mean that because they ressemble Africans in so many ways, they must have been among the first people to branch off from the parental group.
Mediterranean people, followed by White and Oriental people followed several thousands of years later. These people did not migrate out of Africa but rather evolved away from those original Australoid migrants from Africa. White people cannot be detected prior to 40,000 years ago so this would mean the following:
1) Australoid people were the first to branch off from the original Black Humans between 100-70 000 years ago. Because of isolation and mutation, they evoloved several traits that set them apart frmo the "trunk" or the ancestral Africans.
2) Further isolation and mutation, along with new weather conditions (cold, snow, low incidence of ultra-violet) resulted in the creation, from these original "out of Africa" stocks, of the White and Oriental races.

Some of the oldest modern human fossils in southern Europe are described as "Ethiopian-like" and even "Australoid-like" by various European anthropologists and paleontogists. This would mean that Caucasoid (and eventually Mongoloid) people evolved from Australoid and Negroid types as a result of new conditions that brought about mutations and evolutionary conditions that modled these migrants into "new races". Same can be said of American Indians who have evolved while retaining some of the parental genes, from the original Mongoloid ancestors.

What I have been saying all along, is not that I deny that Australoid people, and in fact ALL people come from Africa because saying so would contradict all evidence brought forth by science thus far.
What I am saying however is that after thousands of years of mutation, isolation and evolution away from ancestral types, you can not say that Australoid people are "the same as Black Africans". They are bound by common origins which brought them together until fairly recently in Human history but they are no longer one and the same people.

Negritos and Papuans were for a long time classified as "Pacific Negroes" until more recent studies has associated them more closely with Australoid people including the Dravidians and Veddas. Their clear ressemblance to Africans however (which anyone can observe) shows that the branching off of the Australoids from the Negroid and Capoid stocks took place first and that because of this, Australoids and Africans (including Negroind and Capoid races) still share similar traits (whinc in addition are partly thanks to similar weather and environmental conditions).