"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, paleoanthropologists 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 Paleoanthropology and Anthropology 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 conclusions.
Paleoanthropological background
The point of this story is that evolution isn't necessarily a linear process: the same adaptations can appear in widely separated epochs, depending on environmental conditions. Yes, we know that dinosaurs evolved from archosaurs, but play the tape of history over again and a whole different race of creatures might have evolved from a progenitor-like Cynognathus. Dinosaurs might never have existed, and the first humans might have evolved way back in the Mesozoic Era rather than 60 million years later!
Finally, speaking of mammals, it's more than a little ironic that the dinosaurs owed their tens of millions of years of dominance to the Permian Extinction--because the dinosaurs themselves were wiped out by the K/T Extinction event 65 million years ago, which opened the door for the small, shrew-like mammals that survived to evolve (eventually) into the plus-sized megafauna mammals of the Cenozoic Era, and then into modern humans.
Here's where the story gets a bit confusing. During the Miocene epoch, from 23 to 5 million years ago, a bewildering assortment of apes and hominids inhabited the jungles of Africa and Eurasia (apes are distinguished from monkeys mostly by their lack of tails and stronger arms and shoulders, and hominids are distinguished from apes mostly by their upright postures and bigger brains). The most important non-hominid African ape was Pliopithecus, which may have been ancestral to modern gibbons; an even earlier primate, Propliopithecus, seems to have been ancestral to Pliopithecus. As their non-hominid status implies, Pliopithecus and related apes (such as Proconsul) weren't directly ancestral to humans; for example, none of these primates walked on two feet. Evolution: unfair long process, not an exact science.
The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago. The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary pathway...It’s a proposition, evolution is not an exact science, and the evolutionary linage of Human ancestry is very controversial. 
Bipedalism enabled the hominid to carry food back to his or her family. Chimpanzees share this behavior. They share food amongst a complex social structure.
Chimpanzees are also known to make and use an array of crude tools. Such tools include stone and wooden hammers. They make use of these tools for cracking nuts and twigs.
It is guessed that human evolution is greatly due to the social circumstances of early hominids. Studies are made on the behavior of other primates and contemporary hunter and gatherer cultures. These studies have attempted to provide insight into the social structure of early hominids.
Out of Africa: The determining step.
Between 400,000 years ago and the second interglacial period in the Middle Pleistocene, around 250,000 years ago, the trend in skull expansion and the elaboration of stone tool technologies developed, providing evidence for a transition from H. erectus to H. sapiens. The direct evidence suggests there was a migration of H. erectus out of Africa, then a further speciation of H. sapiens from H. erectus. This migration and origin theory is usually referred to as the recent single-origin or Out of Africa theory.
Homo erectus would bear a striking resemblance to modern humans, but had a brain about 74 percent of the size of modern man. Its forehead is less sloping and the teeth are smaller.
Admixture has been a dominant force in shaping patterns of genetic variation in human populations. Comparisons of genome sequences from archaic hominins to those from present-day humans have documented multiple interbreeding events, including gene flow from Neanderthals into the ancestors of all non-Africans, from Denisovans into Oceanians and eastern non-Africans, as well as from early modern humans into the Neanderthals. However, the sparse fossil record and the difficulty in obtaining ancient DNA have made it challenging to dissect the contribution of archaic hominins to genetic diversity within Africa. While several studies have revealed contributions from deep lineages to the ancestry of present-day Africans, the nature of these contributions remains poorly understood.While introgression from Neanderthals and Denisovans has been documented in modern humans outside Africa, the contribution of archaic hominins to the genetic variation of present-day Africans remains poorly understood. We provide complimentary lines of evidence for archaic introgression into four West African populations. Our analyses of site frequency spectra indicate that these populations derive 2 to 19% of their genetic ancestry from an archaic population that diverged before the split of Neanderthals and modern humans. Using a method that can identify segments of archaic ancestry without the need for reference archaic genomes, we built genome-wide maps of archaic ancestry in the Yoruba and the Mende populations. Analyses of these maps reveal segments of archaic ancestry at high frequency in these populations that represent potential targets of adaptive introgression. Our results reveal the substantial contribution of archaic ancestry in shaping the gene pool of present-day West African populations.
Reflection on Today's populations:
The assumption in the title of this page that: "Erectus Walks Amongst Us" won't be true if we neglect the projection of ancient genes and Archaic ancestry on today's populations.
Critics of scientific racism which simply implies that Africans are less evolved than Europeans present the argument that: "there is more biodiversity in Africa than in the world's populations" ...of course there is more biodiversity in Africa because the bipedal motion and the transition from hominids to hominins happened in the continent, there are many evolutionary lineages and branches many of them gone extinct or stagnated in Africa, one of them will lead to the optimal form of life known as modern humans, and this unique branch will evolve into different hominins depending on when they left Africa and how farther they had adventured away from the motherland, there is less biodiversity in the world because that's what cultural Marxism orchestrators planned a long time ago, a melting pot, that's why the world population lacks biodiversity: 'it is diversified' meaning (mixed), definitely, there was more biodiversity between Native Americans, African, and Europeans or Asians before the discovery of the new world. There is not one gene, trait, or characteristic that distinguishes all members of one race from all members of another. We can map any number of traits and none would match our idea of race. This is because modern humans haven't been around long enough to evolve into different subspecies and we've always moved, mated, and mixed our genes. Beneath the skin, we are one of the most genetically similar of all species, because there is no long term genetic isolation as it happened in Africa.
Dark-skinned people evolved in isolation from other groups, under different sets of selective pressures, physical variations that are different in combination from any other group. To give you an idea of how varied it is, when you look at the degree of genetic diversity in humans around the world, what you find is a disproportionate concentration in Africa, found in the various tribes and ethnic groupings there. Groups of people left Africa and colonized the rest of the world, but of four main branches in the human lineage (based on mitochondrial DNA), only one branch moved out of Africa to populate the rest of the continents.
"Erectus Walks Amongst Us" or "Archaic Genes are within our DNA"
This page is based on the cited book: "Erectus Walks Amongst Us". This does not mean that there are actually prehistoric hominins wearing clothes walking around people, the overall idea is that there are prehistoric genes and Archaic introgression that has been transmitted to modern populations.
People may argue that the same introgression happened from Neanderthals and Denisovans' genes, Neanderthals are a lot more advanced, Denisovan introgression explains the situation and features of some Asian people, and overall are more advanced than the branches and hominins that stagnated in Africa.
When Anthropologists say that human evolution started in Africa, they mean the passage to the bipedal motion and the development of primitive skills, it happened on a lot longer span than the relatively recent Upper Paleolithic Period, branches and probably lineages went extinct, some kinds stayed isolated in the continent in a partially quasi-hominin state, this is why there is such biodiversity in Africa.
When modern human explored the continent, the Arabic and transatlantic slaves trade happened, they will unleash those primitive genes and 'Archaic humans' into the modern world, that's what means "Erectus Walks Amongst Us", crossbreeding will happen and the Archaic genes are spread into the modern humans' gene pool, that's why miscegenation is dangerous and an abomination, those people were in Africa since the bipedal motion kicked in, it is at a narrowed estimation 4 million years ago, modern humans emerged from Africa around 200k years ago and Homo s. Sapiens exterminated Neanderthals approximatively 40,000 years ago, this is to put in perspective how crucial it is to understand the ancient history of African populations' Archaic genes, there are no major criteria to say that there was actually any kind of noticeable evolution in Africa, probably the groups who were predisposed to evolve left the continent, and the resting groups are 'archaic humans' not predisposed to evolve, or it is just like that how nature or the laws of the universe work.
Note de Conclusion
It is crucial to understand the danger of what's going on recently in the world, from diversity, populations replacements and dilution, it is far more deep and destructive than the hip-hop culture, drugs, and interracial cross-breeding as the visible side of the issue, it goes all the way to modern humans dying-out and replaced by a population having at its core Archaic genes or as I called it in this site/blog: "Resurrection of Extinct Hominins", the resurrection refers to Neanderthals genes, since Africans never were close to extinction but they hijack modern humans feature to resurface in new modern appearances. Those modern appearances are the Archaic beast kept isolated in Africa since 4 million years ago until unleashed in the modern humans' gene pool and now it has 'evolved' by using cross-breeding as a shortcut for evolution instead of the divine path of natural evolution, that's why it is an abomination and a beast in modern humans features.Four million years because you are still a beast, an animal-life being until you develop a conscience and you make the divine connection, which won't happen until the evolutionary process reaches the modern human stage. It doesn't matter if it is 4 million years ago when the bipedal motion happened or when primitive-advanced skills are developed, conscience and the divine spirit is what distinguishes the human from the animal form of life, and the divine connection won't happen with partially evolved people, simply because they can't carry on God's word and push humanity forward to inherit Earth.
This is interesting to know the genetics at the core of the American Demographic composition, it explains why they tend to have a corrupted soul more than anybody else on the planet.
It also dictates the emergency of drastic measures that must be taken to purify people's souls, and why dissolving the Union and putting Negros and other colored hosting serpents seed in a reservation or as an independent nation is a holy necessary mission. Otherwise, it is total doom awaiting people.
No comments:
Post a Comment