This post/page will be as an annexe, and a transition to the "PRACTICAL APPLICATION ON DEMOGRAPHICS" post, it will be presented in 4 parts:
Part 1 will be based on the page "Amongst Us".
Part 2 will be: "The Plague of Archaic genes inheritance in modern populations"
Part 3 will be: "Projection on Ancients and modern Demographics"
Part 4 will be: "THE GREAT DILUTION"
"Erectus Walks Amongst Us"
This is brutal
 |
| Click the Pic to understand the partially evolved state of the African race. |
It is based on the cited book: "Erectus Walks Amongst Us". while I went through it overview style, I didn't read the whole book, that was a long time ago (around 2012), it has catching and convincing arguments from a scientific basis, reflected on the reality of cultural Anthropology and the situation of the African race in the modern world.
This is an update of the page
What is brutal is that I posted a link to the PDF version of the 588 pages book to present the partially evolved state of the African race without any abstract or a short presentation of the hypothesis, I guess I didn't give this page much attention or I was busy doing something else.
Below are some abstracts from the cited book, which focalizes on the Idea that Homo Sapien and Homo s. Sapiens evolved in EuroAsia, while Africans stagnated in Africa.
In this Section, we examine the Out-of-Africa (“OoA”) answer to the question, “When and where did man become modern?” About 2 mya Homo erectus inhabited Africa, Europe, and Asia. In one of those locations he evolved into an archaic form of our species, Homo sapiens (Hs), then into modern man, Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss) and the people living today.
We will call the promoters of OoA, the dominant theory of our time, “afrocentrists.” They believe that it was the African erectus that evolved into Hs and that Hs evolved into Hss in Africa, then those modern African Hss migrated out of Africa “replacing” all the more primitive people who were then living in Europe (Neanderthals) and Asia (Homo erectus). Once those modern Africans moved into Eurasia, they lost all the African traits described in Section II and evolved all the Eurasian racial traits we see in today’s Asians and Europeans. That theory is consistent with egalitarianism because OoA holds that not very long ago all modern humans were Africans, so recently, in fact, that everyone is still virtually genetically the same, and therefore equal, particularly in behavior, intelligence, and the capacity for learning, but excepting “very superficial features like skin color and hair form.”.
Genetic differences between populations are of no biological importance, however, only if they are neutral, i.e., they have no effect on the reproductive success of those populations. But, as Section II shows, genetic differences between races, including skin color and hair form, were the result of natural or sexual selection, which means that they did affect reproductive success.
The principal competing theory, the Multiregional theory, is out of favor and is clung to by only a few die-hard scientists. And last, there is the theory presented in this book, which holds that Hs and Hss evolved in Eurasia (Out of Eurasia, “OoE”), not Africa. That theory will be presented in Section IV.
It is crucial to note the approximative aspect in Anthropology, and the question that remains is: where hominins became modern man: is it in Africa or in EuroAsia?
I am not oblivious to the fact that the theory of human origins proposed in this book contradicts a vast literature supporting the Out-of-Africa (“OoA”) theory. However, there are good reasons for believing that OoA is not correct and that modern man did not evolve in Africa. I hope the reader will impartially judge the case presented while I anxiously remain in the dock, awaiting the verdict.
Even Though I adhere to the theory that Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapiens and Homo s. Sapien after leaving Africa, which justifies the primitive state of the African populations because simply they didn't evolve, what follows in this post is based on the "Out of Africa" theory. Timing is important, Archeologists findings and Anthropologists speculations are relatives, what matters is that modern human evolved after exiting Africa, otherwise, we will find modern traits in the African populations which is not the case, justifying dark skin and hair texture by adaptation to climatic conditions is inconsistent with reality to justify all the primitive traits that the African populations present.
All humans evolved “up, up, and away” from an ape ancestor, but Africans did not evolve as far away, for the simple reason that they remained in the same type of environment that that ape ancestor lived in (i.e., they were close to equilibrium, Chapter 4, Rule 10) and were not subjected to the harsh selection of a northern climate. Furthermore, only a small part of the evolution of Africans was due to the selection of traits coded for by mutations that arose in Africans; instead, Africans mostly received mutations that had occurred in Eurasians when those Eurasians migrated into Africa and interbred with them. 1 Had no Eurasian hominins ever entered Africa, there would be no members of the Homo genus in Africa today.
I don't need Scientific details because I'm not an Anthropologist, what interests me is proving that there is an "evolutionary deficit", meaning that Africans didn't evolve to be modern humans, or as I describe the African race: "advanced homo erectus/Archaic homo sapien", as mentioned above, timing is important and you can't stop time to make a sharp-clear distinction between the evolutionary phases, evolution is continuous, complex and long term changes.
Evolution is not an exact science, what follows is an approximative presentation of the overall phases that life on earth passed through from Dinosaurs to hominids, hominins, and ultimately modern humans.
The latest section will present scientific proof of the substantial contribution of ghost archaic ancestry in shaping the gene pool of present-day West African populations.
Reminder that archeology and Anthropology fields are based on hypotheses and assumptions that are using science to prove them accurate, and they are in constant controversy because there are perpetual new findings causing changes to presumed true theories.
