Of
course, neither gibbons nor Homo floresiensis need to have much to do
with what actually happened. However, they exemplify the most important
evolutionary features that are completely missing in Africa.
It's truly pathetic how the "out-of-Africa" house of cards was built.
At
first, in the 1970s, it was understandable that the Leakey family and
others let themselves be impressed by fossils coming up to the surface
due to a constantly cracking East Africa. However, precisely therefore a
true scientist would have understood to be extra cautious, not the
least because of the lack of ape fossils.
And 1984 the Jinniushan fossil was found in northern China and with a flat mongoloid face 280,000 BP.
But
for Westerners feeling pity for Africans (and to rise themselves above
"the evil Westerners") it all became too emotional for scientific logic.
So
despite lacking genetic and fossil evidence, as well as being a
continent directly connected to Eurasia, makes the out-of-Africa
absolutely hilarious.
Just think about it: Except for the fact
that a continent like Africa was completely impossible for Homo
evolution, it also had the world's largest landbridge - yet bipedal
species one after the other had extreme difficulties coming
"out-of-Africa"!
Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis were found in each end of a continuous bio-band between Sahul and Sundaland.
Do
note that Peter Klevius' human evolution theory doesn't necessary imply
any direct connection beteween Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis,
but rather that they hint at exactly that "missing link" development
that is missing in Africa.
According to Peter Klevius' theory,
Homo erectus (and Neanderthals) belonged to a separate lineage than
Homo sapiens. Homo erectus evolved from a lineage that came out of Homo
floresiensis/Homo luzonensis like - but with different skull forms etc. -
djungle dwellers who during lower sealevels evolved a more
sophisticated bipedalism on more open areas which are now covered by
sea.
As Peter Klevius has argued all the time since 2012, what
first hindered hybridization between Homo sapiens, Denisovans and
Neanderthals, was solved less than 100,000 bp when a new variant stepped
out from the SE Asian archipelago and entered mainland Asia with a gene
profile that mage this possible - compare the Denisovan mtDNA
connection found on Iberian fossils.
Also consider the fact that we don't know whether Homo erectus actually was what we used to call Homo erectus.
Homo
floresiensis has teeth and skull features closer to Homo sapiens, and
unlike LUCY with a similar brain size it could handle fire, hunt etc.
Finally, consider the eager falsification of primate classification for the sole purpose of fitting the out-of-Africa mythology.
Read more below.
Peter Klevius annoying habit of repeating Peter Klevius, and his self
citations, isn't a neural defect but has to be evaluated against the
very thick wall* between him and Harvard, Stanford etc., which makes his
existence almost invisible. Not to mention the enormous moat*
concisting of "spiritualists", creationalists, religionists, alienists,
conspirationalists etc.
*
'Wall' and 'moat' come from old Swedish words still in use today, i.e.
'vall' and 'mot'. Don't trust fake etymology - trust Peter Klevius who
would be extremely embarrassed if he were proven wrong.
'The basis of existence is motion/change, and causality constitutes a
complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution may be seen as the
consequence of causality's variables in time where complexity in
existing structures are regenerated. This stands in opposition to
thermodynamics which theoretically leads to maximal entropy (i.e.
equilibrium) where time/change ultimately would end. Someone might then
say that the products of evolution are just temporary components in
causality's road towards uniformity.'
(Klevius 1992:23). An example of evolution and devolution is a star cycle ending in a super nova - incl. everything in it.
A lump in a nebula is the "island" on which a star is born.
1. Peter Klevius concept 'existence-centrism' (1992) is the only way to
understand and handle the traps for logic that language creates.
Existence-centrism is the immutable truth that we can't sidestep. All
your (or humankind's) collected experience at every single moment limits
what you can say. And as a consequence, metaphysical statements are
either impossible or just "meta-metaphysical".
2. The formation of structure not only rests on previous structure but is the very evidence for it.
The evolution of life may be described as based on strong fluctuations (isolation) and weak fluctuations (hybridization).
Speciation needs isolation. After migration hybridization
as well as existing phenotypes.
Different types of life depend on different types of isolation and fluctuation.
Early hominines (before more advanced use of tools) were not specialized
to really anything except bi-pedalism, but could do a little and eat a
little of almost everything. This made them moving around in a way that
excludes isolation other than on islands.
And SE Asia is the perfect cradle which has had a longterm and varied
hiatory of island/mainland fluctuations incl. between islands.
The
Border cave skull fragments from Sout Africa allegedly 74,000 bp are
"reconstructed" beyond what anyone outside the reconstructors could
possibly evaluate. Chris Stringer: 'Although it appears of modern
aspect, its large size and frontal and upper facial shape discriminate
it from recent populations, and the possibly associated humerus and ulna
display a few archaic traits. '
Afropologist John Hawks and creationist
Paul Giem: We completely accept the argument that Homo floresiensis is
just a pathological modern human called "Hobbit".
However, according to Peter Klevius, Homo floresiensis represents
(together with its relatives in the SE Asian archipelago) the true
"missing link" between apes and the human lineage. It's got everything
to satisfy such criterion incl. what was missing in Africa - a perfect
volatile tropical environment with temporary landbridges between islands
and mainland. Homo floresiensis behind the Wallace line, may not have
been involved in later stages of human evolution but clearly shows the
model that formed the basis for the variety that spred to
Eurasian/African mainland (see Peter Klevius evolution flow chart
below). More primitive forms must have evolved from an extinct SE Asian
ape. And every new species that hit the mainland eventually reached
Africa where they often were beyond hybridization with newer forms,
which fact explains the overlapping variety we see in African fossils.
Also do notice how easily fossils are found in the Rift Valley while
almost nothing has been found in an enourmous gegraphical region between
East Asia and Africa despite the fact that e.g. Homo erectus traces in
China are older than in Africa. And even a child understands that it was
easier to go from north of the Wallace line to Africa than in the
opposite direction ending up south of the Wallace line. This also
explains why all the oldest African fossils are East of the Nile and in
the NE part of Africa - where it, btw, also was easiest to find them. In
summary, all internal evolutionary hominid and hominine traffic in
Africa was initiated from Asia with some addition from Europe (e.g.
Sahelanthropus which came down the then existing river delta from
Mediterranean to Chad).
Peter Klevius serious questions to you "out of Africa" believer! Ask yourself:
How come that the oldest primates came from outside Africa; that the
oldest great ape divergence happened outside Africa; that the oldest
bi-pedals are from outside Africa; that the only australopithecines
with a Homo skull lived as far from Africa you can get; that the oldest
truly modern looking skull is from eastern China; that the oldest
Africans are mongoloid; that the latest genetic mix that shaped the
modern human happened in Siberia and is traced to SE Asia; that the
earliest sophisticated art is found from Iberia to Sulawesi - but not
in Africa; that the oldest round skulled Homo sapiens in sub-Saharan
Africa are much younger than similar skulls in Eurasia; that we lack
ancient enough DNA from Africa, etc. etc.? Peter Klevius theory answers
all these questions - and more.
Why
not a word about "pathology" about "Lucy" when Homo floresiensis can't
even be mentioned without it and even Wikipedia has a long list of
"possible pathologies" about LB1 - a list that is mainly absent in all
other important fossils from the "human lineage".
Upper
left the location of Lucy remains. Left middle a reconstruction of
Australopithecus afarensis. Bottom left Homo floresiensis and Homo
sapiens sapiens. Although Lucy was collected over a vast area and over
several years from top layer grovel, soil etc., LB1 was a homogen
individual including a whole skull. Curiously, Homo floresiensis was
called "a hobbit" allegedly due to its small stature, although Lucy was
exactly the same size. However, Peter Klevius thinks the psychedelic
"Lucy" name is quite appropriate when considering the unsubstantiated
hysteria that has surrounded the the very "type specimen" in the
creation of the "out of Africa" fairy tale. The
image is taken from a creationist video:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=floresiensis+paul+giem&t=newext&atb=v1-1&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7lKeOvncfrc
John
Hawks wrote the text (inserted in the image by Peter Klevius) based on
Teuku Jacob's mythology paper that he wrote after having stolen removed and heavily altered the remains.
In
the same video a woman asks if there is a better name for bad science
and that she couldn't really trust anyone. Peter Klevius comfort to her:
Start reading Peter Klevius - as rock solid as a human can possibly be.
Teuku
Jacob came to international prominence when he expressed his
islamist/creationist disagreement with scientists who claimed that
remains found on the island of Flores constituted a new human species,
labeled Homo floresiensis. Jacob insisted that the remains were those of
microcephalic modern humans. In early December 2004, Jacob stole
removed most of the remains from Soejono's institution, Jakarta's
National Research Centre of Archaeology, for his own "research" - and of
course without the stated permission of the Centre's directors who
didn't want to be involved but who most likely supported Jacob in his
sinister deed.
Jacob eventually returned the remains with
portions severely damaged[6] and missing two leg bones on February 23,
2005. Reports noted the terrible condition of the returned remains
included "long, deep cuts marking the lower edge of the Hobbit's jaw on
both sides, said to be caused by a knife used to cut away the rubber
mould"; "the chin of a second Homo floresiensis snapped off and glued
back in whatever shape. The pieces were misaligned and put at an
incorrect angle"; and, "The pelvis was smashed, destroying details that
reveal body shape, gait and evolutionary history". This prompted the
discovery team leader Morwood to remark "It's sickening, Jacob was
greedy and acted totally irresponsibly".
In 2005 muslim
Indonesia's officials forbade access to the cave and thus no other
excavations in the place were possible. The opinion that the reason for
the restriction was to protect Jacob from being proven wrong.
Muslims
believe that Adam and Eve were supernaturally created through a miracle
by Allah. The Quran states that humans were created from clay and were
brought to life by the blowing of soul into their bodies, but that "we
made out of water every (soulless) living thing". The Earth was already
inhabited by intelligent but evil species (the Jinn or "infidels")
before humankind (i.e. muslims).
Peter Klevius wrote:
Big Afropological words from a big (on the web) "Piltdown man" - with a PC dwarfed brain?
Afropologist John Hawks: "Humans and fossil hominins, we know today, are
closer to chimpanzees and gorillas than any of them are to orangutans."
Anthropologist Peter Klevius: ?!
To spread unfounded guesswork outside
ones "expertice" is usually called charlatanism. John Hawks lacks
expertice on most of his fanciful conclusions. And it seems that he
lacks brain power enough for a multidisciplinary connecting of
evolutionary dots. Btw, do realize that Homo floresiensis LB1 on the pic
is an adult female.
Anthropologist Peter Klevius: Why orangutans?! Is it because he sees
orangutans as a problem in the great ape family? It would have been so
much easier if orangutans didn't exist in SE Asia. However, John Hawks
is much more related to Homo floresiensis than to chimps. But his
"explanation" to how Homo floresiensis "travelled from Africa to Flores"
wouldn't impress a 3-year old. Moreover, John Hawks "explanation" in
fact completely counteracts his own out-of-Africa sermon.
Afropologist John Hawks: "
Is it hard to imagine that a medium-sized
mammal species, which relies on foraging across 100 square kilometers or
more for high-energy foods, would be aware of islands that are in
sight? When you look at these places in island Southeast Asia with early
hominin activity, ancient sea levels were much lower and all these
islands are one or two small hops across narrow straits. Palawan is an
island between Borneo and the Philippines, and today these water
crossings are hundreds of kilometers, but in the past they may have been
as narrow as ten kilometers. That’s not very far to imagine hominin
individuals making crossings, if they were already playing with very
basic ways of crossing rivers and using near-beach water resources. When
it comes to colonizing a new island, it is the exceptional that
matters. In fact, if crossings were regular, island populations could
never evolve to be very different from nearby mainland populations. It
is the very fact that crossing is rare that allows island adaptations to
emerge after the population is established."
Anthropologist Peter Klevius question to Afropologist John Hawks: So how could humans ever have evolved in Africa?!
The hoax Piltdown man moved to Africa - while the real Flores lady is called "a Hobbit".
Peter Klevius thanks two ladies, Jinniushan (1992) and Floresiensis (2004), for leading him out of his out-of-Africa delusion.
The use of tools, fire etc. is of no importance for the overall
picture. It's the modern features of the skull and the ape like, yet
fully bipedal, postcranial features, found on an island on the wrong
side of the Wallace line that makes any evolutionary theory based on
out-of-Africa simply laughable. It took Piltdown man many decades to be
accepted as a hoax among "mainstream anthropologists". How long will it
take before "mainstream anthropologists" accept that the out-of-Africa
castle is buit on sand?
Homo floresiensis fits perfectly as an
outlier in Peter Klevius SE Asian volatile island/mainland scheme where
primates evolved over monkeys to apes and homos. SE Asia has produced a
variety of evolutionary forms of which most have spread over the
Afro-Eurasian continent, mixing/hybridizing with previous ones.
Islam is again hampering science - but when you prove it then you aren't considered believable (sic) anymore.
Peter Klevius wrote on Science Blogs 2005* and was immediately attacked by islam defenders:
*
Peter Klevius is really ashamed about him cowardly not immediately back
then fully dismissing any part of the of the OOA folly. However, after
the Denisova bracelet and DNA 2008-2012 he finally dared to say it
publicly. Why? Because he thought that there could have been something
he had missed - although there was really no reason whatsoever to think
so. Sorry about that. Originally he had thought that Homo evolution
happened between central Asia and Mideast when iceages "pumped" genes up
and down through the mountains to Siberia.
A stunning photo that really makes one think abt M130 and brain qualities (regardless of size)!
OK that put aside this is all about protecting Islam and yes, Teuku
Jacob is a crypto-creationist in line with the usual balancing between
fundamentalism and an Islam that pretends being modern (By the way,
Australia has already a law making it impossible to critisize Islam!).
Take a look at Out of Africa as Pygmies and back as global
"Mongoloids". Maybe the Hobbit represents the first OOA-delivey of a
more wrinkled brain that later replaced all the other?
"OK
that put aside this is all about protecting Islam and yes, Teuku Jacob
is a crypto-creationist in line with the usual balancing between
fundamentalism and an Islam that pretends being modern"
At least try to have an ounce of real evidence beyond someone's
ethnicity if you are going to make wild accusations like this. If he was
a Creationist he would've arranged for Duane Gish or William Dembski to
analyze the bones, not Alan Thorne and Maciej Henneberg*.
*
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/02/24/return_of_the_prodigal_…
By Jason Malloy (not verified) on 25 Jun 2005 #permalink
However, today the situation remains. DNA extraction from Homo
floresiensis is forbidden by Indonesia - and the only reason is the same
as with Teuku Jakob, i.e. that the very mix of ape and human like
fatures doesn't fit islam's crypto-creationism. Sad, isn't it?
The "out of Africa" hoax is worse than the Piltdown hoax - and much bigger and more worrisome.
Peter Klevius to Chinese people: I'm not a racist like many in the UK parliament - although I certainly look like one.
UK origin of Sinophobia: The 19th century Opium Wars were triggered by UK's
imposition of the opium trade upon China. Lord Palmerston regarded the
Chinese as uncivilized and suggested that the British must attack China
to show up their superiority as well as to demonstrate what a
"civilized" nation could do. The resulting concession of Hong Kong
compromised China's territorial sovereignty. There's also the background
to South China Sea. Behind the Huawei etc. Sinophobia: The Pact between the US freeloader and the Saudi Devil. UK
created a devil's kingdom in Arabia, and US made a devil's oil pact
with the Saudi custodians of islam - hence infecting the world with
petrodollar and anti-Human Rights sharia islam (Saudi based and steered
OIC).
Update 2021:
The
Border cave skull fragments from Sout Africa allegedly 74,000 bp are
"reconstructed" beyond what anyone outside the reconstructors could
possibly evaluate. Chris Stringer: 'Although it appears of modern
aspect, its large size and frontal and upper facial shape discriminate
it from recent populations, and the possibly associated humerus and ulna
display a few archaic traits. '
The
Liujiang skull from SE China is complete and very modern except for a
slight occipital "bun". It's also much bigger than modern average. It's
some double the age of the African Border cave fragments.
*
Peter
Klevius asks whether there has ever been a more laughable "theory" than
the silly "out of Africa" one? Flat Earth (supported by the Vatican)
and NASA hiding our second Sun, come close though. And if any African
takes offence for this Western pseudoscience, then it just proves that
no one is safe against fake science. When does Klevius get accused of
"out of Africa-phobia"?
Homo naledi was thought to have had
shut up for some millions of years but sadly turned out to be a very
recent fellow. The fact is that Africa (like Europe) lies in the wrong
end of the Afro-Euroasiatic continent, and African "diversity" is
similar to what you expect to find in a dump - not in a factory.
Why is our real* ancestor "mother" from SE Asia called a sick hobbit
while an African ape fossil was named Lucy (actually a quite appropriate
name for this LSD fog) and the "mother" of humankind?
* As Klevius has always argued since
he knew about it (2004), Homo floresiensis on Flores was stuck behind
the Wallace line and therefore not directly connected as such. However,
Klevius point is that she represents an evolutionary stage that was
widespread on both sides of the Wallace line but where those to the
north developed further thanks to repeated contact and hybridization
with mainland Asia. A scenario where Lucy swims to Flores over the
Wallace line and there develops to a fire using, tool making skilled
hunter with a globular brain and modern teeth is completely out of
question for any sensible mind - except apparently for "out of Africa"
sectarians. But for Homo floresiensis-like creatures to the north of the
Wallace line there has been many possibilities to reach Africa without
crossing water. The whole of primate evolution is centered in SE Asia
from the very scratch. And as the volatile SE Asian archipelago seems to
have been the perfect evolutionary laboratory for primates - you don't
really need Klevius intelligence to connect the most obvious dots, do
you. Try to imagine an evolutionary volatile island world, repeatedly
connected and disconnected with each other and with the mainland. Spice
it with climate changes that keep it tropical but also offers a range of
different elevations due to existing mountain slopes etc. Then add
repeated island dwarfing, extended bipedalism and hybridization. And if
you still didn't get the picture, at least you may realize the
complexities and evolutionary niches and opportunities it offers - quite
the opposite to the African (or other) continent. Whereas true
evolution needs protected niches, hybridization dilutes through gene
flow. So Homo floresiensis got a better organized brain due to island
evolution - but needed to come out from it so to be able to spread the
brain gene(s) to its previous kins who had already become better
bipedals precisely because of previous land connections. In fact,
Klevius thinks this evolutionary pattern has been going on throughout
most (maybe all) primate evolution to monkeys/apes/hominines. The
pattern in Africa fits perfectly in Klevius out of Eurasia theory.
Klevius admits being embarrassingly stupid because of how long he tried
to cling to the African savannah and bipedal apes scenario. He should
have skipped it already 2004 when he first heard about Homo
floresiensis. There you see how even intelligent and free scientists can
be trapped in an overwhelming bias fog - only excuse being Klevius
scientific method of bias hunting sometimes causes severe allergic
reactions. So in summary, whereas the oldest (and "puzzling") out of
"Africa "evidence" is based on fossils on the corner closest to Asia and
DNA from now living mongoloid African natives, SE Asia offers a
non-puzzling relief.
A multi-regional Wallacea-Sundaland may explain a lot.
The Orangutan is earlier on the ape tree than any African ape, and
possesses many dental etc. traits pointing towards more flexible
relatives when it comes to environment.
The Makassar Straits opened sometimes
during mid Eocene. Phylogenetic analysis suggests that Afrasia and
Afrotarsius are sister taxa within a basal anthropoid clade designated
as the infraorder Eosimiiformes. Current knowledge of eosimiiform
relationships and their distribution through space and time suggests
that members of this clade dispersed from Asia to Africa sometime during
the middle Eocene, shortly before their first appearance in the African
fossil record. Crown anthropoids and their nearest fossil relatives do
not appear to be specially related to Afrotarsius, suggesting one or
more additional episodes of dispersal from Asia to Africa.
Hystricognathous rodents, anthracotheres, and possibly other Asian
mammal groups seem to have colonized Africa at roughly the same time or
shortly after anthropoids gained their first toehold there. Also compare
India colliding with Asia.
The oldest hominids in Africa were all
near the Bab el Mandeb land bridge to Asia - except for the oldest
(Toumai) which died in what is now mid-Sahara but back then a rich
valley connected to Europe over a then dry Mediterranean.
Toumai was actually a later copy of similar European fossils.
And why is it that Peter Klevius has had the best adapted and published
analyses about human evolution since 1992 (see below), and that his
views always have been contrary to the field although they have later
always been confirmed? Although Peter Klevius* would love to lick it up
as due only to his intelligence, the fact is that this intelligence
would have meant nothing was it not for Peter Klevius* lucky position of
not being bound by bias to the same extent as others in the field.
Although Peter Klevius* would love to lick it up as due only to his
intelligence, the fact is that this intelligence would have meant
nothing was it not for Peter Klevius* lucky position of not being bound
by bias to the same extent as others in the field.
* Peter Klevius writes 'Peter Klevius'
precisely so to remind all citation fantasts about the fact that they
can cite Peter Klevius and therefore contribute to enlighten some dark
corners of the field who would otherwise have no idea about the
existence of better analyses. And always remember, Peter Klevius is a
defender of your Human Rights and against those who try to protect
islamofascism from scrutiny and criticism. So don't let a fascist
"islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights divert you.
However, the very fact that the Piltdown hoax was created by a
specialist in the field and that it corresponded to wishful thinking
among "scholars", should be taken very seriously as a warning. Out of
Africa is a similar hoax although it's even more "patched" by stretching
concepts over their limits, using quantity and lack of quantity as
proof, using modern DNA as proof of evolution in Africa hundreds of
thousands and millions of years ago, political correctness, muslim oil
money etc. - plus a bit of what could be described as essentially racist
pity for a backward Africa that was devastated by 1,400 years of
islamic slave raiding and trading.
The area of exposed land in Sundaland has fluctuated considerably during the past recent 2 million years.
Greater portions of Sundaland were most recently exposed during the last
glacial period from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago. When sea
level was decreased by 30–40 meters or more, land bridges connected the
islands of Borneo, Java, and Sumatra to the Malay Peninsula and
mainland Asia. Because sea level has been 30 meters or more lower
throughout much of the last 800,000 years, the current state of Borneo,
Java, and Sumatra as islands has been a relatively rare occurrence
throughout the Pleistocene. In contrast, sea level was higher during the
late Pliocene, and the exposed area of Sundaland was smaller than what
is observed at present. During the Last Glacial Maximum sea level fell
by approximately 120 meters, and the entire Sunda Shelf was exposed.
The skulls found in Europe
(Iberia/Sima de los Huesos) are more than 100,000 years older than the
Moroccan fossils - which moreover are on the "wrong side of Africa".
In the face of "out of Africa" sectarians: The so called "oldest
anatomically modern human" (Irhoud, Morocco) was actually quite
primitive.
In contrast to their partially modern facial morphology, the Irhoud crania
retain a primitive overall shape of the brain-case and endocast, that
is, unlike those of recent modern humans.
There exists no genetic evidence whatsoever that supports "out pf
Africa" - simply because we lack old enough DNA from sub-Saharan Africa.
Oldest African DNA came from Eurasia.
It's all circumstantial and centered around its initial out of Africa presumption, i.e. not scientific at all.
Moreover, Africans with the oldest DNA, the Khoisan (e.g. San people),
are light-skinned and cold adapted, i.e. mongoloid, and the oldest
sub-Saharan skull is unrelated and younger than Eurasian globular
skulls. Also compare the remarkable Liujiang skull (see below).
However, cold adaptation makes much more sense in Eurasia.
Afro-centrism is all over the place. So for example, is it said that
monkeys swam or rafted some 1,800 km to South America rather than taking
the natural way between South and North America. We don't know when or
how this could have happened exactly, but we do know for sure that it
would have been much easier. And the lineage to monkeys was certainly
already there.
And no one knows anything about the evolution of African apes - yet they
are constantly used as "evidence". So out of Africa random cherry
picking ought to be contrasted with Klevius smaller quantity but much
more crucial findings (Jinniushan, Liujiang, Homo floresiensis,
Denisovan etc.) perfectly located in an overarching theory.
Good scientific theories ought to be able to predict future finds.
Klevius "mongoloid" line of theory since 1992 seems to have fulfilled
this criterion quite well, and probably even more so in the future. As
Klevius stated some ten years ago
What puzzles Klevius right now is how to place Pygmies and Negritos
relative to Khoisan, Shompen and South American natives. However,
Klevius will be back when he gets just a little more info from the
secretive rooms of anthropology.
However, what puzzles Peter Klevius even more is the silence from the
field. Have they found more stuff in line with Klevius analysis and
don't know how to present it?!
Btw, here's
Demand for Resources (
Resursbegär 1992,
ISBN 9173288411), recommended reading for Greta Thunberg and all her
supporters. It's originally written in Swedish and published in Sweden.
If you can't find it anywhere else, then ask the Royal Library in
Stockholm.
Why trust Peter Klevius?
No financial ties. No academic ties. No religious ties. Super
intelligent. Best analysis on "consciousness", sex segregation, human
evolution, and Human Rights - not to mention that Peter Klevius was the
first to correctly analyze the
origin of Vikings
as a bilingual "Finland-Swedish" phenomenon triggered by the
establishment of the Abbasid slave caliphate and its hunger for white
sex slave girls - so to keep their lineages lighter than the non-Arab
"infidel" Africans. The only one on the planet that can show an
uninterrupted line of the, in retrospective, best possible published
analyses after new discoveries - and much less "surprises" than the
"mainstream academic field" seems to be filled with. Never heard about
Peter Klevius? No wonder because he's rarely cited. And that should
worry you. University research and news media are biased in line with
their political and/or religious sponsors. So when Wikipedia demands
"citations", and adds that they should be from "news media" or
"scholars", then you're practically excluded from really good unbiased
information. Moreover, serious scientific analysis outside these
channels then often gets deliberately pushed to a domain filled with
alien hunters and creationist nut heads - making it even harder for you
to find relevant info.
Klevius could continue elaborate on his theory for you but he's lazy
and not paid, so why not ask in comments. The way this posting is shaped
has all to do with targeting deep bias in the field while
simultaneously spread some relevant facts to people with less
understanding of the problems - and therefore an easy target for PC fake
academic "science" - not to mention alien conspiracy "alchemists" etc.
This pic has since 2012 always come up
top on a 'klevius' search on Google. Back then Peter Klevius still
cowardly hesitated to skip the African savanna from the formula.
Klevius wrote:
Acknowledgment: Dear reader,
as you're already more than accustomed with Klevius laziness, you're
probably not surprised to hear that this posting was meant to be more
thorough and elaborated but failed again. So have patience, any month
now Klevius patch it via proofreading and updates. So chew on this in
the meantime and blame Klevius - others do. And as usual, Klevius
doesn't take any responsibility - except for the intellectual content
behind the rubbish, of course.
The genetic myth about "out of Africa" is entirely based on mongoloid
San DNA (non ancient) whose physical appearance in fossil records in
sub-Saharan Africa is very recent and differs from the oldest "modern"
skull ever found in sub-Saharan Africa (36,000bp Hofmeyer). This means
that the old part of San DNA came from somewhere else. Together with
mongoloid features (cold adaptation) this clearly points to the north.
The ~260,000bp incipient "mongoloid" Jinniushan from northern China - a
corner stone in Peter Klevius' published theory on human evolution since
1992.
Klevius question in his 1992 book (ISBN 9173288411) was twofold:
1 How come that there was a "mongoloid" big brained skull in northern
China two ice age cycles before present, yet nothing really happened
before ~50,000bp?
2 How come that the oldest modern Africans are "mongoloids" - but much younger in Africa than the China fossils?
Since then it has emerged that Jinniushan was actually female, hence making her even more remarkable.
While continental Africa is and always has been an evolutionary dead end
(no secure and longterm evolutionary hiding places), South East Asian
archipelago has always constituted an evolutionary hotbed with its
volatile island/mainland fluctuations.
Peter Klevius evolution tutorial - and the misleading term "anatomically
modern humans" - and the silence about Denisovan's brain connection to
truly modern humans.
Unlike most PC genetists/anthropologists today, Klevius shares with
Svante Pääbo (is someone holding Svante back?) the view that what
happened before the events represented by the findings in the Denisova
cave, the pace of development among Homos were extremely slow. No matter
how much Neanderthalphils and Afrocentrists try to induce "human like"
meaning in more general Homo behavior. Neanderthals mixing and scrawling
with ochre or using tree resins to affix stone points to wooden shafts
doesn't prove anything re. their intelligence compared to the bracelet
etc. in the Denisova cave, and how this new sophistication among modern
humans then rapidly spread over Eurasia (compare the Lion Man 41,000bp
in Europe and the Sulawesi rock painting 35,500bp). And burying the dead
just tells about missing a loved one. And regular scratches on
different materials have been around since at least half a Million
years.
Klevius reminder to the reader: In
Demand for Resources (1992
ISBN 9173288411) Klevius not only set the foundation of the so far best
theory on consciousness and how the brain works, but also connected the
big brained 280,000 bp Jinniushan in northern China with the mongoloid
features of the oldest Africans - and asked: Why didn't Jinniushan
people go to the Moon., after all, they had several iceages time to do
so with a brain size exceeding modern humans. In 2004, after the
discovery of Homo floresiensis Klevius immediately told the world that
here was the "missing brain link". Whe six years later Denisovan was
found, Klevius theory was proven correct in everything except details.
John Hawks and many others seem to have combined their own ethnocentrism
with Afrocentrism by 1) in a racist way "comforting" "Africans" that
they are the "cradle" while simultaneously trying to lift up the
"European" Neanderthal to be included in the "human family". Ironically,
reality seems to prefer the very opposite.
The most important anthropological discovery ever, Homo floresiensis,
doesn't fit in their view and is therefore either called "sick" or a
"hobbit".
Chris Stringer in an interview 2018: "The heartland of Denisovan might
have been in South East Asia." Peter Klevius (who was the first to say
it publicly on the web 14 years before Stringer) agrees. However,
there's much more to it. Denisovan 2 (two lineages discovered) was the
one that had got a better packed brain through island dwarfing in SE
Asia.
Primate evolution started and continued in SE Asia
Klevius
is of the strong opinion that the individual to the right on the pic below possesses a
higher IQ, i.e. intelligence than the one to the left. And when it comes to intellect, the difference is even higher.
Chris
Stringer, who is a lovely lecturer who seriously tries to be scientific
and PC at the same time, and therefore particularly dangerous for
contaminating students with bias, is no stranger to fancy "theories". At
one point he told the world (via fake news BBC, of course) that
Neanderthals were less social than humans because they needed so much of
their big brain for vision so that they lacked social skills. Peter
Klevius answered (2013)
this nonsense with the above pic (Tarsiers have smaller brains than
their eyes - and they live in social groups as well as single) and
reminded Stringer about the fact that there is no specific "visual brain
area" which has been proven by studying individuals who were born blind
and still had a functioning "visual brain area" now used for other
tasks. Chris Stringer is also notorious for his lame excuses for having
for so long clung to the most extreme out of Africa "theories". When
will he again alter his Africa view - and preferably get it out of
Africa?!
True scientist Peter Klevius has come out of Africa - when will Chris Stringer and other PC scientists come out of Africa?
Klevius respects Stringer, there are much worse out of Africa fanatics
out there than him, but they aren't even worth mentioning. Chris ought
to feel honored.
The Out of Africa mantra is a neo-colonialist insult against people
living in Africa. A double one, considering the divisive effect it also
has on "immigrants" to Africa.
Should they just be racially abused? PC people, in their blindness, are
supporting divisive and racist movements in Africa. Many of these
"immigrants" may even be seen as "Africans" because they look "negroid",
and many non-"negroids" who have long roots in Africa may be seen as
non-Africans.
There are no Africans, Asians, Europeans or Americans. We are all
bastards. The reason why Klevius (since 1992) always has emphasized
"mongoloids" is precisely to 1) underscore
that the least favoured "race" may be the main key to understanding
modern humans, and to 2) undermine the racial bias against North and
East Eurasians.
The fear of talking about intelligence but not about e.g. beauty etc.,
is an obstacle to science and scientists like Svante Pääbo and Peter
Klevius, who both have no problem seeing the selfevident, namely that
there must have been a huge jump in at least some humans intelligence
based on what we now know from the Siberian Denisova cave.
Yes, there are more people with lower IQ in sub-Saharan Africa and
Australia. So what?! There are also geniuses - and most people there are
just average as everywhere else. Why would it be a problem that
intelligence isn't exactly equally distributed? Underlying such an
approach is pure racism against e.g. retarded (by birth or accident
etc.) or less intelligent people.
Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia were dead ends when it came to human
evolution. As was South America which only differed in that it didn't
collect "evolutionary garbage" - there's little difference between e.g.
Shompen in SE Asia and indigenous South Americans, but a huge genetic
diversity in Africans and Australians.
Primate evolution has since its start come out from SE Asia. And the
reason for this is the evolutionary volatile SE Asian archipelago.
However, modern humans got their "mongoloid" features in the cold north
(see Klevius theory below).
In all ends (except Australia) of the world natives look mongoloid.
The world during and after the dinosaurs
The modern human Homo sapiens sapiens (HSS) brain setup, according to
Peter Klevius (2012), evolved in three main steps: 1. head shrinking
without losing processing power, 2. filling up bigger skulls, 3.
entering HSS.
100 Ma: The southern continent has just cracked up.
60 Ma six million years after the "big bang" in Yucatan killed most
insects and therefore altered evolution for many species. After this
period we see the emergence of Teilhardina.
Omomyid haplorhine Teilhardina is known on all three continents in
association with the carbon isotope excursion marking the
Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 55.5 Ma. Relative position within the
carbon isotope excursion indicates that Asian Teilhardina asiatica is
oldest, European Teilhardina belgica is younger, and North American
Teilhardina brandti and Teilhardina americana are, successively,
youngest. Analysis of morphological characteristics of all four species
supports an S-E Asian origin and a westward Asia-to-Europe-to-North
America dispersal. High-resolution isotope stratigraphy indicates that
this dispersal happened in an interval of ≈25,000 yr. Rapid geographic
dispersal and morphological character evolution in Teilhardina are
consistent with rates observed in other contexts.
50 Ma
40 Ma:
10 Ma: Bipedal apes in Eurasia.
Sea-level changes can act as “species pumps” (compare what Klevius, back
in 2003, wrote about how climate changes "pumped" genes through central
Asian "arteries").
Sea-level changes during the Paleocene–Eocene and Plio–Pleistocene
played a major role in generating biodiversity in SE Asia and
contributed to recent divergence of many species. The timing of one
early divergence between Indo-Burmese and Sundaic species coincides with
late Paleocene and early Eocene high global sea levels, which induced
the formation of inland seaways in the Thai-Malay Peninsula. Subsequent
lowered sea levels may have provided a land bridge for its dispersal
colonization across the Isthmus of Kra.
Do consider that the Manot skull is very small (1,100cc) compared to
the much older Liujiangs skull (1567cc) from Southeast China
>68,000bp. Do also understand that early reports about "sapiens teeth
and jaws" in Israel don't prove anything about the crania.
Here Manot is compared to a female from Europe 36,000bp.
These skulls were found in
Northwestern Africa (300,000bp) and Southwestern Europe (430,000bp)
respectively. However, the "African" skull is called modern human
whereas the "European" skull is called Neandertal, despite the fact that
neither has anything to do with truly modern humans.
Klevius theory on human evolution has tightly followed new findings
without being locked to a doxic out-of-Africa mantra. That's why this
image has come first for some six years on a Google search.
Peter Klevius 2012 updated human evolution map (2018 Africa was skipped altogether).
Whereas sub-Saharan Africa is an evolutionary dead end, Mediterranean
and SE Asia constituted archepelagos with intermediate mainland
connections - i.e. perfect evolutionary labs. Mediterranean may have
played an important role in early hominid evolution (5.7 Ma footprints
on Crete, 7.2 Ma Australopithecus at Rhine etc.), and SE Asia in the
Floresiensis and Denisovan development. According to Peter Klevius
(2004, 2008, 2010, 2012), a better packed brain evolved in island SE
Asia isolation from where it later entered mainland Asia during lower
sea level, and genetically spread to other Homos, e.g. the big skulled
ones in Altai/Siberia.
The fact that FOXP2-E distal is similar in humans and Denisovans, but
differs in Neandertals is just one of a multitude of anomalies that
neatly supports Peter Klevius theory, which is pretty much the very
opposite to the mainstream out-of-Africa thought trap gospel.
Svant Pääbo shares Peter Klevius view that something particular must
have happened with the human brain at that time. However, whereas Pääbo
seems to think this happened similarily to al modern humans, Klevius
thinks it was strongest in the region around the Denisova cave and then
became diluted while modern humans spread towards more populated areas.
As a consequence of this view the Denisovan's genius gene(s) had its
strongest and longest concentration in the sparsely populated Siberia.
Out of Africa PC babblers' main argument, i.e. diversity, is actually the best evidence against them.
Why would the most adventurous hominids always stop evolving or just get extinct when they have come out of Africa?
Sub-Saharan Africa has been a cul-de-sac museum for archaic hominid genes - therefore diversity.
Just like modern humans could mix with Neandertals, equally they could
mix with other archaic Homos that had been trapped in the sub-Saharan
genetic appendice.
The very basis for what is called "the human lineage" is the result of
tracing back in evolutionary time features that we ourselves possess -
or lack. And the most general of these features is our "timid" physical
appearance (no good teeth, no good runners, not especially strong etc.)
combined with an ability to reach and live in all sub-Saharan African
environments. A big but poorly equipped rat.
So how could such a creature possibly evolve undisturbed in an assumed
isolated group? Moreover, if somehow possible, how then could such an
evolved Homo get out from its alleged African evolutionary isolation
without loosing its speciation through hybridization/gene flow with its
surrounding relatives?
Only if the population was very big, or more importantly for this
example, if it possessed some genetic advantage (e.g. intelligence),
would it successfully survive hybridization. However, this should have
happened before such intelligence appeared and this genetic clash would
leave traces of increased genetic diversity due to mixing with archaic
relatives surrounding the isolate population. But the problem is that no
such isolation is to be found in the sub-Saharan cul-de-sac, whereas in
SE Asia there were plenty of them - with gates that closed and opened
perfectly for evolutionary purpose.
Genetic diversity increases when gene flow with other populations occur.
Geographic isolation leads to allopatric speciation through reproductive isolation.
Fruit fly larvae in isolation starts speciation because populations are prevented from gene flow via interbreeding.
Populations don't have to be geographically isolated from one another
for speciation to occur. Speciation occurs when there is little or no
inter-breeding (gene flow) between the two groups. Therefore we can say
speciation is the result of reproductive isolation.
Klevius wrote:
The Red Deer Cave people add more evidence for Klevius’ ape/homo hybridization theory
The irrefutable art track in Northern Eurasia (see map below) has no
contemporary equivalent in other parts of the world. Based on what we
know now it had no fore bearers whatsoever in any period of time.
Moreover, it seems that there was even a decline before "civilizations"
started tens of thousands of years later! Yet Klevius seems to be the
only one addressing this most interesting (besides genetics) fact!
According to Klevius (and no one else so far) the new and more efficient
brain evolved in a jungle environment (SE Asia?) and spread up until
meeting with big headed Neanderthals hence creating the modern human who
later spread and dissolved with archaic homos. In this process Homo
erectus was most probably involved as well.
Updated info about the origin of Klevius' theory
Keep in mind that mainland SE Asia possibly harbored physically truly
modern humans already before the time range (12,000/18,000 ybp - 98,000
ybp) of the Homo floresiensis remains in the Flores cave.
Liujiang, SE China (est. 100,000-140,000ybp)
If this Liujiang skull had been found in Africa or Mideast Wikipedia and
other media would be overfilled. But this is all you get now (summer
2015 update) from Wikipedia about this extremely important skull:
The Liujiang skull probably came from sediment dating to 111 000 to 139
000 which would mean it's older than the oldest Homo floresiensis
remains on Flores. Nothing even remotely close to this modern skull has
ever been found in Africa, Mideast or Europe this early. In other words,
we have the extremely archaic looking Red Deer Cave people 100,000
years
after this extremely modern looking Liujiang population at
approximately the same region. Even the least probable estimate of
70,000 bp would make Liujiang more modern looking than anything else.
Also compare Lake Mungo remains in Australia with an mtDNA that differs
completely from ours (incl. Australian Aborigines). Sadly the remains
have been kept out of further research because of stupid*
"Aboriginal"(?!) greed (for the purpose of making certain people more
"special" than others for no good reason at all (also compare the
ridiculous Kennewick man controversy). Does it need to be said that the
Mungo remains are as far from Australian Aborigines in appearance as you
can imagine. However, according to Alan Thorne, 'Mungo could not have
come from Africa as, just like Aboriginal Australians don't look like
anybody from Africa, Mungo Man's skeleton doesn't look like anybody from
Africa either. LM3 skeleton was of a gracile individual, estimated
stature of 196 cm, which all sharply contrast with the morphology of
modern indigenous Australians. Compared to the older Liujiang skull
Mungo man had a much smaller brain.
* There's no way anyone can state who
was "first" in Australia - and even if there was, then there's still no
way of making any meaningful connection to now living people.
In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about
human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable
Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:
In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton
of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable
because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo
erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo
sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain
volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may
therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more
sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).
Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.
Updated map
Most "mysteries" in genetics disappear
by abandoning OOA and changing direction of HSS evolution. Only South
East Asia offered a combination of tropical island/mainland fluctuations
needed to put pressure on size reduction paired with evolutionary
isolation in an environment where only those survived who managed to
shrink their heads while keeping the same intelligence as their mainland
kins with some double the sized brain. Homo floresiensis is evidence
that such has happened there.
Denisovan is an extinct species of human in the genus Homo. In March
2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a
juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the remote
Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave which has also
been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans. Two teeth and a toe
bone belonging to different members of the same population have since
been reported.
Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the Denisovan finger bone
showed it to be genetically distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and
modern humans. Subsequent study of the nuclear genome from this
specimen suggests that this group shares a common origin with
Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that
they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some present-day
modern humans, with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and
Aboriginal Australians deriving from Denisovans. DNA discovered in Spain
suggests that Denisovans at some point resided in Western Europe, where
Neanderthals were thought to be the only inhabitants. A comparison with
the genome of a Neanderthal from the same cave revealed significant
local interbreeding, with local Neanderthal DNA representing 17% of the
Denisovan genome, while evidence was also detected of interbreeding with
an as yet unidentified ancient human lineage. Similar analysis of a toe
bone discovered in 2011 is underway, while analysis of DNA from two
teeth found in layers different from the finger bone revealed an
unexpected degree of mtDNA divergence among Denisovans. In 2013,
mitochondrial DNA from a 400,000-year-old hominin femur bone from Spain,
which had been seen as either Neanderthal or Homo heidelbergensis, was
found to be closer to Denisovan mtDNA than to Neanderthal mtDNA.
Little is known of the precise anatomical features of the Denisovans,
since the only physical remains discovered thus far are the finger bone,
two teeth from which genetic material has been gathered and a toe bone.
The single finger bone is unusually broad and robust, well outside the
variation seen in modern people. Surprisingly, it belonged to a female,
indicating that the Denisovans were extremely robust, perhaps similar in
build to the Neanderthals. The tooth that has been characterized shares
no derived morphological features with Neanderthal or modern humans. An
initial morphological characterization of the toe bone led to the
suggestion that it may have belonged to a Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid
individual, although a critic suggested that the morphology was
inconclusive. This toe bone's DNA was analyzed by Pääbo. After looking
at the full genome, Pääbo and others confirmed that humans produced
hybrids with Denisovans.
Some older finds may or may not belong to the Denisovan line. These
includes the skulls from Dali and Maba, and a number of more fragmentary
remains from Asia. Asia is not well mapped with regard to human
evolution, and the above finds may represent a group of "Asian
Neanderthals".
Jinniushan and Floresiensis - the keys to Denisovan and the truly modern humans
Jinniushan had a bigger brain than anything in contemporary Africa (it was a female Homo)
In
Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter
about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the
remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:
In northern China near North Korean
border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000
years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume
(1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time
and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The
anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and
appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that
big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior
(Klevius 1992:28).
Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.
Since 1991 when Klevius wrote his book much new information has been
produced. However, it seems that the Jinniushan archaic Homo sapiens
still constitutes the most spectacular anomaly (together with Homo
floresiensis) in anthropology. So why did Klevius pick Jinniushan
instead of one of the more fashionable human remains? After all, Klevius
was a big fan of Rchard Leakey (he even interviewed him in a lengthy
program for the Finnish YLE broadcasting company) and there was a lot of
exciting bones appearing from the Rift Valley.
In the 1980s Klevius paid special attention to Australian aborigines and
African "bushmen" and noted that the latter were mongoloid in
appearance (even more so considering that todays Khoe-San/Khoisan are
heavily mixed with Bantu speakers). But mongoloid features are due to
cold adaptation in the north and therefore the "bushmen" had to be
related to Eurasia. Klevius soon realized that the Khoisan speakers had
moved to the southern Africa quite recently as a consequence of the so
called Bantu expansion. More studies indicated that the "bushmen" had
previously populated most of east Africa up to the Red Sea and beyond.
So the next step for Klevius was to search for early big skulled human
remains in the mongoloid northern part of Eurasia. And that search
really paid off.
This happened more than 20 years before the discovery of the Denisova bracelet and the human relative Denisovan in Altai.
Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992) in which these thoughts about
mongoloid traits were published also predates Floresiensis with more
than a decade.
Both fossils show clear cold adaptation (mongoloid) traits. However,
Jinniushan (right) is older and has a bigger cranial capacity although
it's female.
Peter Brown (world famous for discovering/defending Floresiensis in 2004
and who had big trouble getting his PhD accepted because of a biased
supervisor/institution): What makes Dali, as well as Jinniushan (Lu,
1989; Wu, 1988a), particularly important is that both of their facial
skeletons are reasonably complete. This is an unusual situation in China
as the only other middle Pleistocene hominids to have faces in China
are the Yunxian Homo erectus (Li and Etler, 1992), which are both very
distorted. Originating in the pioneering research of Weidenreich (1939a,
1939b, 1943) at Zhoukoudian, there has been strong support by Chinese
Palaeoanthropologists for evolutionary continuity between Chinese H.
erectus and modern humans in China. It has been argued that this is most
clearly expressed in the architecture of the facial skeleton (Wolpoff
et al., 1984). East Asian traits have been argued to include lack of
anterior facial projection, angulation in the zygomatic process of the
maxilla and anterior orientation of the frontal process, pronounced
frontal orientation of the malar faces, and facial flatness. While some
of these traits may occur at high frequency in modern East Asians (cf
Lahr, 1996) they are not present in late Pleistocene East Asians, for
instance Upper Cave 101 and Liujiang (Brown, 1999), or more apparent in
Dali and Jinniushan than archaic H. sapiens from Africa or Europe.
Recently there has been a tendency to link a group of Chinese hominin
fossils, including Dali, Maba, Xujiayao, and Jinniushan, previously
considered by some researchers to be "archaic Homo sapiens", with the
Denisovians (Reich et al. 2010; Martinón-Torres et al. 2011)
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html).
However, apart from a few teeth, the Denisovians are only known from
palaeo DNA. There is also a great deal of anatomical variation in the
Chinese "archaic Homo sapiens" group. It will be interesting to see how
this plays out over the next decade, or so.
Klevius: It turns the conventional anthropological map on its head!
For a background to Klevius' theory see previous postings and
Out of Africa as Ape/Homo hybrids and back as global Mongooids
First and third from the left are Red Deer Cave people 14,300-11,500
years ago. Second and fourth the so called Venus from Brassempouy in
France 25-26,000 years ago. The last pic is a reconstruction of a 1.9
Million year old Homo rudolfiensis skull. They all had flat broad
cheeks, no chin and rounded forehead.
From the left: Red Deer Cave, Sami, Cro-Magnon
Was the sculptural portrait of Venus of Brassempouy made because she
looked so different from Cro Magnon? Was she kept as a pet or something
by her Cro Magnon captors?
There were certainly completely different looking modern humans living
in Eurasia side by side some 26,000 years ago. And the only way to make
sense of these enormous differences is Klevius hybridization theory,
i.e. that the modern brain came from small ape-like creatures (compare
the "scientists" who didn't believe that the small Homo floresiensis
brain could be capable of tool-making, fire-making etc..
Debbie Martyr (an Orang Pendek* researcher): "the mouth is small and
neat, the eyes are set wide apart and the nose is distinctly humanoid"
* Orange Pendek is the most common
name given to a small but broad shouldered cryptid ceature that
reportedly inhabits remote, mountainous forests on Sumatra.
Venus of Brassempouy, one of the world's oldest real portrait
(this one slightly retouched by Klevius)
The
Red Deer Cave people, discovered in southern China and who lived some
14,300-11,500 years ago had long, broad and tall frontal lobes behind
the forehead, which are associated with personality and behavior.
However, they also express prominent brow ridges, thick skull bones,
flat upper face with a broad nose, jutting jaws and lack a humanlike
chin. Their brains were smaller than modern humans and they had large
molar teeth (just like Denisovan), and short parietal lobes at the top
of the head (associated with sensory data). According to Curnoe, "These
are primitive features seen in our ancestors hundreds of thousands of
years ago".
Unique features of the Red Deer Cave people include a strongly curved
forehead bone, broad nose and broad eye sockets, flat and wide cheeks
and wide and deep lower jaw joint to the skull base.
Klevius comment: Compare this description to Venus of Brassempouy
on the pic, one of the world’s oldest portrait/sculpture of a human
made some 25-26,000 years ago in what is now France.
This Cro Magnon could have been the captor of Venus of Brassempouy.
Compare e.g. his protruding chin with the retracting one on Venus of
Brassempouy. And keep in mind that the human chin has been an elusive
and quite recent feature in human evolution. The delicate features we
used to attribute to anatomically modern human while simultaneously
attributing high intelligence may, in fact, not be connected at all.
Slender and delicate skeletal features are not always connected with
high cultural achievement. Quite the opposite when looking at skeletal
remains outside the Aurignacian area..
In Dolní Věstonice, Eastern Europe a portrait of an almost modern Cro
Magnon is now scientifically dated to at least 29,000 BP. The
performance of its creator is on an extremely high cultural level when
considering it predates Mideastern civilizations with some23,000 years,
and that it evolved in a cultural tradition that has never been found in
Africa or Mideast.
Klevius comment: Consider the circumstances. Small population
and, at some stage, no previous "teachers". This northern part of the
Aurignacian struck almost out of the blue unles you also consider the
Denisova bracelet.
This extremely complicated to manufacture stone bracelet was made by the
ape-like "non-human(?) Denisovan hybrid in Siberia >40,000 years ago
by utilizing a drilling technology, comparable to modern machines,
according to the researchers who found it.
Professor Ji Xueping ( Yunnan Institute of Cultural Relics and
Archeology): “Because of the geographical diversity caused by the
Qinghai-Tibet plateau, south-west China is well known as a biodiversity
hotspot and for its great cultural diversity”.
Klevius comment: Compare what was said already 2004 (before the presentation of Homo floresiensis) on the web(and 1992 in book form): Genes
were "pumped" back and forth through mostly the same (Central-Asian)
geographical "veins" by frequent climate changes, hence prohibiting
speciation but encouraging local "raciation".
According to Klevius' theory we got our modern brain intelligence from
hybridization with apes (Pan?). These creatures were small and apelike
although bipedal. When they moved north they encountered cold adapted
Homos with large skulls. This combination created the most intelligent
people ever on the planet. However, when this extremely small population
began expanding it dissolved with the big headed but stupid Homos hence
empowering their intelligence while diluting its own. The mix became
today's humans.
Homo floresiensis on Java (i.e. north of the Wallace line as opposed to
thise found on Flores) may be, and the Denisovans in Siberia are
variants on this hybrid path.
