Hello, very interesting, in this kind of research on our origins there is also the French paleoanthropologist Anne Dambricourt, her book "The cursed legend of the twentieth century, The Darwinian error" is very enlightening on the links between materialism and the individualism, and these discoveries are as simple as they are surprising: it measured the angles of the bones of the skulls and found a rule of harmonic evolution that follows a trajectory that owes nothing to the forces of chaos, mathematical measurements on bones that completely contradict the Darwinian theory, the authorities of the scientific thought reacted very hard with her, I did not find an English translation of her book, I translated some pieces to share:
"Preface by René Lenoir:
A discovery that makes sense
Anne Dambricourt is a paleontologist. She has studied the skull of primates for sixty million years, then that of men for the last three million. His discovery can be schematized as follows:
-The skull organization is set up between the seventh and eighth embryonic weeks. Embryogenesis is therefore necessary to understand the mechanisms of anatomical evolution. As a result, evolution of the skull in primates is not a question of locomotion induced by changes in the environment. Embryogenesis is the "place" of expression of the process of hominization;
-Homisation is a process, that is to say a chain of cause and effect, it is deterministic. The genetic memory that encodes embryonic development is copied. The evolution observed over sixty million years is ordered, it is ours.
.....
"The book presents an important discovery about our origins. It is not paleontological, it is scientific, it is the induction of a natural law by the analysis of the formation of the skull and its transformations in the fossils. This law reveals a first level of reality quite objective that breaks the neo-Darwinian conception of the origins of humanity. Our origins are those of embryonic development and are not the result of genetic copy errors. We are a process in progress. »...
"Cranio-facial contraction
The discovery of cranio-facial contraction was published in 1988 in the proceedings of the Academy of Sciences and follows a doctoral thesis from the National Museum of Natural History presented in winter 1987 to the prehistory laboratory. It is based on a study on the evolution of lower jaw shape in modern and fossil primates, during phylogeny, that is, during development, and then over long geological time periods. . It is based on the observation of hundreds of current mandibles and fossils of primates, placed in the cranial context already well studied and measured. The statistics and descriptions are available in the thesis in deposits at the library of this laboratory. This discovery is scientific simply because it is the result of the study of concrete facts, fossils, according to the classical method of objective description, that is, measurement. ...
If we compare the skulls of the oldest primates (prosimians) with that of the current man, we note the differences as the face-or muzzle in front of the brain and the neck in the prolongation of the snout. In section, the base of the skull is almost flat in the adult. It is by comparing the bone space between the neck and the face, that is to say by comparing the base of the skull in section on the one hand and in lower view on the other hand, that we understand this which has changed between fossil primates and the present man. But we did not know how to explain the origin of these changes. For this, we must know the bones of the base of the skull, their position and their shape, including a bone little studied, placed in the center of the skull and under the brain, named sphenoid. He receives the pituitary gland anchored in a sort of alcove. ...
The sphenoid is essential to understand the evolution of the skull of primates since 60 million years. We are just starting to take it into consideration. No thesis in human paleontology has ever studied the morphological evolution of this bone. It is for this reason that the cranio-facial evolution of is still not understood and that profound upheavals comparable to a cultural revolutions will gradually cross the disciplinary fields which are interested in the origins of our biological existence. This study is part of the mandible to go back to the base of the skull with which it is articulated. ...
The embryos of the fossil species have all developed from a flat skull, all of which have undergone the rotation of the embryonic brain, but at a different amplitude. And it is this rotation that has evolved at each fork, not in a disordered way, but in a stable way. The amplitude resumes the ancestral trajectory, but it extends each time a little more. The cartilaginous tissues are then formed in a given deflexion context which corresponds to a craniofacial contraction amplitude. From the first prosimians to Homo sapiens, we thus discover a cranio-facial evolution of embryonic origin, ordered in space and not random, the angles open (or close) between two groups, always in the same direction angular. These are spatial reorganizations of the skeleton that take up the trajectories, ie rotations or spirals, and thus the base of the skull of Homo sapiens is a contracted and enlarged structure under the brain, with a raised throat bottom . This is the third correlative discovery of the other two. The great angular differences have been known since the beginning of comparative anatomy; they have nothing new in themselves. What is revolutionary is the discovery of the embryonic origin of the changes and the considerable implications for the evolutionary properties of the genome, ours, in particular, which contains the memories of construction, thus the memory of reconstruction of the skull. ...
To summarize, the discovery has three strong points: the angular correlations between the base and the face (1), their establishment during the embryonic period (2) and the contance of the process of flexion contraction since the first fossil primates up to to current men (3). ...
Theory, mathematics and strange attractors
It is therefore no longer enough to collect measurements. It is necessary to formalize, that is, to transcribe ontogenetic and phylogenetic cranio-facial evolution in mathematical terms. As early as 1988, having taken cognizance of recent discoveries in dento maxillofacial orthopedics, it was important to place the discovery in a suitable theoretical context, which deals with physics, since the studied material is a mineralized solid, which is nothing more than the imprint of a biophysics, of which one seeks precisely to transcribe the principles, or the laws, or even the equations. ...
The concept of strange attractor is valid to describe the cranio facial evolution, since the system is deterministic, but it is then necessary to distinguish two types of phase spaces. The one discovered for the evolution of the skull is not chaotic, because, beyond the phases of bifurcation which are the periods of reorganizations, the causal effect remains unchanged. There is no dissipation of evolutionary memory. The attractor is strange, but not chaotic, it has been named harmonic in relation to the preservation of memory. The strange chaotic attractor then becomes a particular states of a strange harmonic attractor. This difference corresponds to the fossils that appear in geological strata around two million years ago in Africa, with skulls named Homo and other Paranthopus. The embryonic reorganization "Paranthrop" is not generalized at the base of the skull, there is no reiteration of the process and the evolutionary memory is abortive. The phylum goes out. In this case the attractor is chaotic compared to the one that describes the reorganization grand ape and Homo. The notion of dissipation, physical, finds here a mathematical formalism; the chaotic state of a strange attractor is consecutive to the evolution of a parameter of the equations, which can be described as "loss of information".
The physical state following a dissipation of information would be mathematically translated by the evolution of a strange harmonic attractor into a strange chaotic attractor. The concept of harmonic attractor is published in an article referred (reread by professionals) and it defines a new family of mathematical objects formalizable from the quantified report of cranio facial contraction. Whose evolutionary process can be mathematically transcribed from equations calculated from angle measurements. The space of the harmonic phases does not translate more than what the angles show. It is not an attractor that has been discovered, in the physical sense of the term, but it is a new formalization of biological evolution that refers to unknown physical parameters where time as memory is founder. The only difference is that the human gaze on angles that always close in the same direction can take the form of a mathematical graphical representation that is not that of a chaotic dynamic system.
Everything is scientific and conceptually scientific. Yet this discovery will experience an extraordinary campaign of denigration, defamation and misinformation."
And I found this in English :
The Last Threshold – Anne Dambricourt Malassé – Inference
Some pieces :
My own research suggested that changes in mandibular shape, during ontogeny and phylogeny, reflect the straightening of the skull base and mark the inception of upright posture. These changes had nothing to do with diet and chewing, or locomotion. The mandibular joints articulate with the erect part of the skull base and depend on both the neural straightening and the transversal development of the cerebral hemispheres. The mandible and the degree of verticality of the skull base are both
sapiens during embryogenesis. Mosaic evolution did not apply to the cranio-caudal body plan of primates. Neural trajectories change during embryo formation; neural straightening results as successive thresholds are crossed. This straightening, and thus the vertical positioning of the cerebellum, takes place in the amniotic fluid at scales of a few millimeters, along with a complete reorganization of the spatial morphogenesis of the supporting tissues that will form the skeleton.
….
NEURAL STRAIGHTENING FROM
Australopithecus to
Homo is linked to the development of the nervous system. This explains the straightening of not only the base of the skull but also the whole vertebral column. The neural tube is formed by fibers lengthening along its path above the notochord. Complex movements at stage nineteen of embryonic development, corresponding to the axis of rotation, can be seen above the point at which the dorsal cord terminates. Hominization begins precisely at the cephalic limit of the dorsal cord.
Remarkable.
The sole vertebrate embryo in which the dorsal cord extremity is almost verticalized is that of
Homo sapiens. This is a process that began around thirty-nine million years ago in an Asian species of prosimian that underwent a contraction in the base of its skull and a declination of its brain stem. This produced the first degree of neural straightening and cranio-facial contraction in the simians. Twenty-three million years ago, at least one African species of small gibbon-like simians underwent further contraction and declination. This produced the second degree of neural straightening. The embryonic dorsal cord was almost vertical among many species of great apes, remaining so until adulthood. This was presumably the case, at least, with respect to
Australopithecus (4.5–1.977 mya).
43Thereafter the process accelerated, at an unprecedented rate. The lowered cerebellum and straightened brain stem is that of
Homo sapiens, which Linnaeus named in 1758 and which emerged in East Africa 160,000 years ago. The evolutionary trajectory follows the straightening of the dorsal cord, but during the first stages of verticalization there was no dramatic accompanying increase in brain volume. Cranial volume is thus no longer the benchmark, or rubicon. The benchmark is, in fact, the straightening of the skull base.
The first stage is that of the hominin, which includes at least two embryogeneses,
Australopithecus and
Homo. The term is not Linnaean, but it avoids the contemporary confusion which includes gorillas and chimpanzees in the same family as
Homo sapiens, yet excludes the orangutan. These groupings do not reflect observed morphogenetic structures and also serve to mask the presence of thresholds, namely, the discontinuities which have divided paleontologists. The trajectory of evolution from the first primates to
Homo sapiens is defined by the increasing complexity of the nervous system. But this process was not gradual and not limited to the cerebral hemispheres. Neural embryogenesis increased in complexity, while the supporting tissues that would become the skeleton were transformed. Hence the thresholds and angular discontinuities. This is the process at the origin of neural straightening, in particular that of the cerebellum.
Embryonic axial straightening is a dynamic epiphenomenon resulting from a change in the gene regulation controlling the cephalocaudal axis. This evolution is not related to a change in habitat. Changes are produced in the amniotic fluid over a distance of several millimeters, reiterating a process that appeared in the genome with the emergence of the great apes.
Australopithecus represents a threshold of neuronal complexity. The rotation of the neural tube was prolonged for longer than for any great ape, and thus the central nervous system became completely vertical. Permanent bipedalism appeared as a result. No paleontologist would suggest it was necessary for a species to become erect in order to begin walking exclusively on the ground. Gibbons and siamangs today are arboreal and walk easily on two legs.
An evolution similar to the emergence of australopithecines is seen with
Telanthropus. This new conformation remains that of the
Pithecanthropus,
Sinanthropus, and
Atlanthropus, but none of them attained the embryonic folding that belongs to
Homo sapiens. Their basicranial axial skeleton is less verticalized, and this remains true of the Neanderthals (Eurasia, extinct around 28,000 years ago) and of
Homo floresiensis (Indonesia, extinct around 80,000 years ago). Nothing in their neural and skeletal morphogenesis corresponds to the organizational structure of
Homosapiens.
It is necessary to name this ontogenesis. Do we call it
Homo and exclude the embryogenesis of present humanity? Or do we give it a name like
Paleoanthropus? I chose
Homo because it is how, since 1964, all fossils that were once classified as
Paleoanthropus are classified, regardless of cranial capacity and diet-related variations in tooth enamel.
44
I have retained
sapiens for the last threshold."
