The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#1
For some time now I've been reading a lot about evolution. I went from biblical studies to theories about the origins of consciousness (based on evolutionary psychology) to brain sciences (out of which came Raine, Samenow, Fallon, neurofeedback etc) to evolutionary biology, to genetics, to archaeology. That is to say, After reading a lot of brain science and evolutionary psychology, it seemed to me that I needed to know as much as possible about the evidence on which these ideas were based. Since quite a few things were not explained, others were not making sense and the explanations seemed forced, I switched over to "Forbidden Archaeology". Then I was going back and forth.

One of the things that really bothered me about the mainstream approach was that it totally ignored many things that we KNOW are out there and built its case on everything that appeared to fit the assumptions: fossil record, years and years of digging up rocks and bones and dating stuff, but completely shunning anything that didn't "fit". I read books about Neanderthals, books about Cro-Magnon, books about the discoveries in South and East Africa, the genetic studies, Svante Paabo's sequencing of the Neanderthal genome and the discovery of the Denisovans, the "Hobbits" of Flores, etc etc.

Heck, why stop there? I went all the way back to the origins of the Earth, evolution and studies of fossils, and so forth. There were several books focused on specific discoveries by paleoarchaeologists and so forth; it was just a veritable smorgasbord of reading. And in the books I selected was one bearing the title of this thread by a fellow named Bruce R. Fenton.

Fenton was, apparently, having the same problems with the human origins timeline I was and he undertook to research it and try to sort it out. I can't say that he's got the whole banana, but I think he's got most of it, and what he doesn't have, he admits to not having. More than that, what was bizarre was how his results kept reminding me of things the Cs had said about Atlantis and other fabled early civilizations.

Rather than me trying to synopsize and not doing his book justice (it's a slim volume written in plain language), I'll just paste in here the description from amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Exodus-Africa-Theory-Evolution-ebook/dp/B06Y4DL61F/ref=la_B06Y4FNDX5_1_1

The Geographic Origin of Modern Humans: Half a Century after the collapse of the Out of Asia Theory and The Widespread Adoption of Out of Africa Theory, a new debate is underway over the relative importance of Africa and Asia in our evolutionary story. Each clique of scientists has a part of the story correct, but new evidence shows they are all fundamentally wrong.

On the one side, we have academics highlighting the astonishing fossil record of China with multiple sites now producing modern human fossils aged between 80 - 120 thousand years, or older. Several extremely ancient fossil finds in China, including Dali, Maba and Jinniushan, place archaic Homo sapiens in this region up to 260,000 years ago.

On the other side, we have scientists pointing to Africa's impressive fossil record with its evidence of potential ancestors going back around 6 million years. The evidence of extreme genetic diversity among Africans and the discovery of 300,000-year-old archaic Homo sapiens fossils in Morocco tends to further support the idea that humans came out from Africa.

We can understand why both sides are so sure of their positions, and why the debate continues. While leading academics focussed on their own agendas, they overlooked significant evidence.

Between the two poles of Out of Africa and Out of Asia Theory, exists a 'Middle Way'. The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution, reveals that within the known fossil record, the current genetic studies and recent paleoclimate models there is compelling evidence for a superior theory of human origins, representing a paradigm displacement.

The Into Africa Theory does not dispute the evidence placing the earliest hominins in Africa. However, it does not agree with the consensus view that Homo sapiens emerged there first and later migrated to Eurasia.

The Into Africa Theory recognises the extraordinary evidence for critical stages in our development occurring in East and Southeast Asia. It is abundantly clear that as a new concerted effort to gather and evaluate fossil evidence begins in earnest we see astonishing new discoveries.

The Into Africa Theory disputes the claims of Out of Africa and Out of Asia (or Europe) adherents over the starting point for the migration which populated Eurasia approximately 60,000 years ago and identifies the actual location.

Amazing facts that you will encounter:

-Homo heidelbergensis was not ancestral to modern humans

-Denisovan fossils in Siberia carried DNA from Australian Aboriginals

-An Indonesian supervolcano brought about the end for multiple hominin species

-Climate catastrophe locked humans in Africa from 73,000 to 59,000 years ago

-There is no African fossil DNA over 10,000 years in age

-While supposedly isolated, Aboriginal Australians interbred with Denisovans 44,000 years ago

You will gain access to a long-forgotten conversation involving the famous evolutionary scientists Allan Wilson and Rebecca Cann, in which they admitted that their data suggested Aboriginal Australians were ancestral to all modern humans.

Learn why the appearance of the haplogroups foundational to Eurasians, L3 and CT, had to come from a population incursion rather than an in-situ mutation.

Explore the cutting-edge scientific findings of 2016 and 2017 alongside a broad range of anomalies long suppressed or ignored in academic circles.

The Forgotten Exodus' author Bruce R. Fenton began his journey towards a new understanding of human origins after an expedition to a mysterious megalithic complex in the Ecuadorian Amazon. The Information Systems professional and lifelong scholar of ancient cultures, found himself tracing the threads of the human story across six continents and through 6,000,000 years of history.

You will come away with a unique view of humanity and a sense of excitement for revelations still set to arrive. This book reminds all of us that we have a collective ability to overcome enormous obstacles.
Now you know that his theory is about Australia consider what the Cs say below about the "island empire of Atlantis" and the several human types that occupied it. That is exactly what Fenton found in Australia and he produces the evidence.


7Oct94 said:
Q: (L) What is the source of the Native American Indians?

A: Asia.

Q: (L) Across the Bering Strait?

A: No. Rescued. Transferred.

Q: (L) By whom?

A: Grays.

Q: (L) What were they rescued out of?

A: Cataclysm.

Q: (L) When did that cataclysm occur?

A: 7200 years ago approx.

Q: (L) What was the nature of that cataclysm?

A: Comets.

Q: (L) Where do the Basques come from?

A: Atlantis.

Q: (L) Is their language the Atlantean language?

A: Derivative.

Q: (L) Which came first, the Sumerians or the Egyptians.

A: Sumerians.

Q: (L) Where did the Egyptians come from?

A: Atlantis.

Q: (L) Which came first, the Sumerians or Atlanteans?

A: Atlanteans.

Q: (L) Were the Sumerians a high civilization at the same time the Atlanteans were?

A: After.

Q: (L) Did the Atlanteans go to Sumeria and afterwards go to Egypt?

A: Traveled.

Q: (L) The Atlanteans traveled to Sumeria?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Did they set up outposts in Sumeria?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Then did the main Atlanteans move to Egypt when Atlantis was destroyed?

A: Yes. And elsewhere.

Q: (L) Where else did the Atlanteans go?

A: Americas. Inca. Aztec. Maya. Hopi Tribe. Pima tribe.

Q: (L) When the Jews were dispersed, did some of them come to America?

A: A few.

19Nov94 said:
Q: (TL) Who made the monuments on Mars?

A: Atlanteans.

Q: (T) So, the Atlanteans had inter-planetary ability?

A: Yes. With ease. Atlantean technology makes yours look like the Neanderthal era.

Q: (T) Who created the structures on the moon that Richard Hoagland has discovered?

A: Atlanteans.

Q: (T) What did they use these structures for?

A: Energy transfer points for crystalline power/symbolism as in monuments or statuary.

Q: (T) What statuary are you referring to?

A: Example is face.

Q: (T) What power did these crystals gather?

A: Sun.

Q: (T) Was it necessary for them to have power gathering stations on Mars and the Moon. Did this increase their power?

A: Not necessary but it is not necessary for you to have a million dollars either. Get the correlation? Atlanteans were power hungry the way your society is money hungry.

Q: (T) Was the accumulation of this power what brought about their downfall?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Did they lose control of this power?

A: It overpowered them the same way your computers will overpower you.

Q: (V) Is it similar to them gaining a life and intelligence of their own?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) You mean these crystalline structures came to life, so to speak?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And then what did they do?

A: Destroyed Atlantis.

Q: (L) But I thought that Atlantis was destroyed because of the close passage of another body of the solar system?

A: Was damaged but recovered.

Q: (L) So Atlantis was damaged by a close passage of Mars or whatever and then recovered from that damage, is that correct?

A: Part of landmass, but not all, was destroyed.

Q: (L) So, how many seperate destructions did Atlantis experience?

A: Three.

Q: (L) One was caused by the close passage of Mars?

A: Yes. And comets.

Q: (L) Was Mars and the comets loosely interactive?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And the second was caused by what?

A: Venus.

Q: (L) And the third and final destruction was caused by what?

A: Crystals.

10Dec94 said:
Q: (L) Were Atlantis and Lemuria the most ancient of Earth's civilizations?

A: No.

Q: (L) What advanced civilizations were before Atlantis and Lemuria?

A: Many.

Q: (L) Was there an ancient advanced civilization located in the area we now call Antarctica?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) What was the name of this civilization?

A: Gor.

Q: (L) What kind of individuals lived in Gor?

A: 18 feet tall.

Q: (L) Were they humanoid and did they look like us?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Were they male and female like us?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And did they have space travel capabilities?

A: No interest.

Q: (L) Are there any remains of their civilization left?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Did they only inhabit Antarctica?

A: No.

Q: (L) Did they inhabit the whole world?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Are there any remains in Florida?

A: No.

Q: (L) Where might the remains be found

A: South America.

Q: (L) Where in South America?

A: Amazon. Ancient legend of Amazons.

Q: (L) Do our scientists know any of this?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Are there remains of Atlantis and Lemuria?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Do our scientists know of any of those?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Are they withholding information on purpose?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Have they any intention of telling about it?

A: No.

Q: (L) Do they have relics of these stored?

A: Yes. [...]

Q: (T) Cause we're that good? (L) Terry! Now, Otto Muck came to the conclusion that the final breaking up of Atlantis occurred on June 5, 8498 B.C. Is this pretty close?

A: Close.

Q: (L) What happened to the Mayans?

A: Taken by Lizard beings to cosmos in 4 D. "Lizzieland."

Q: (L) What did they do with them there?

A: Many possibilities.

Q: (L) Do any of those possibilities include having them for dinner? Sorry about that, I couldn't help myself. (J) "Mayan Helper." And I helped!

A: Maybe.

Q: (L) How big was the main island of Atlantis?

A: 1,354,000 square miles.

9May98 said:
Q: Yes. That we will be provided for. Yes, but it is hard because we have to be apart... Okay. I would like to know what the geographic coordinates, according to our current grid system, that would frame Atlantis. I don't need the exact shape, just a general box shape... the perimeter...

A: Like asking: "What are the geographic coordinates of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?"

Q: Okay, let me get more specific: the Atlantean land that was supposed to have existed in the Atlantic Ocean... what was the farthest north of any part of Atlantis that was in the ocean, that no longer exists?

A: It is "time for you" to know that Atlantis was not a nation, land, Island, or continent, but rather, a civilization!

Q: All I wanted was to have an idea of a land mass in the Atlantic ocean that people talk about - where did it sit?

A: Where do you think?

Q: Well, I sort of think that the Azores and the Canary Islands are sort of...

A: Yes, but many other places too. Remember, the sea level was several hundred feet lower then...

Q: Why was the sea level several hundred feet lower? Because there was ice somewhere or because there was not as much water on the earth at that time?

A: Ice.

Q: Was the ice piled up at the poles? The ice sheet of the ice age?

A: Yes.

Q: So, Atlantis existed during the ice age?

A: Largely, yes. And the world's climate was scarcely any colder away from the ice sheets than it is today.

Q: Well, how could that be? What caused these glaciers?

A: Global warming.

Q: How does global warming cause glaciers?

A: Increases precipitation dramatically. Then moves the belt of great precipitation much farther north. This causes rapid buildup of ice sheets, followed by increasingly rapid and intense glacial rebound.

31May97 said:
Q: In the information I now have on the Canaries, I found that a strange icon appeared on the island long before the conquest, long before any missionaries or Europeans arrived. The natives were the big, blond types. They said that they knew this icon was divine because following its appearance, there were processions of angels, or divine beings, up and down the beach where it appeared, lights, smells, chanting and singing and so forth. How did the statue of the Virgin of Candelaria arrive on the beach at Tenerife?

A: Teleportation.

Q: Who teleported it there?

A: The "Celts."

Q: Celts in the sense of the Druids?

A: Or in the sense of Atlanteans.

Q: Now, you said before that Atlanteans were not Celts, is that correct?

A: No.

Q: The Atlanteans were Celts?

A: "Celts, Druids," etc... are merely latter day designations.

Q: Let's back up here. You said that the Celts came from Kantek. They were transported by the Lizzies... brought here, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: When the Lizzies did this, how many Celts were physically brought here?

A: Hundreds of millions.

Q: How long, in our terms, did it take to bring these Celts to this planet? Or, is this ongoing?

A: Well, in the sense that you measure it, let us say about a week.

Q: Did they transport them in ships, that is some sort of structure. That is, did they load them up, move them into 4th density, reemerge here in 3rd density, or something like that?

A: Close.

Q: And they unloaded them in the area of the Caucasus, is that correct?

A: And regions surrounding.

Q: And, that was what, 79 to 80 thousand years ago?

A: Over 80,000.

Q: As I understand it, Atlantis was already quite a developed civilization at that time, is that correct?

A: Yes, but regions change with waves of immigration, or conquest... witness your own lands.

Q: You also said once that there was a nuclear war in India and that this was what was being discussed in the Vedas when it talks about the 'blue-skinned' people who weren't really blue because they were Celts, and they were flying in aircraft, and they were engaged in this war, etc. Who were the Celts at war with?

A: The Paranthas.

Q: Now, wait a minute! Who are the Paranthas?! Do we have a new player here?

A: Not new.

Q: Do we know them by another name?

A: Choose.

Q: The Atlanteans? Were the Celts of India at war with the Atlanteans in the Atlantic?

A: Atlantis was merely a home base of an advanced civilisation of 3 races of humans occupying different sections of a huge Island empire, which, in itself, underwent 3 incarnations over a 100,000 year period as you would measure it.

Q: The 3 races were the Celts... and who were the second and third?

A: Or Kantekkians.

Q: Are the Kantekkians different from the Celts?

A: Only in the sense of long term racial and genetic blending.

Q: So, Atlantis had the Kantekkians and who else?

A: Race you would call "Native Americans," and a third, no longer existing race, somewhat resembling Australian or Guinean aborigines, only lighter in complexion.

Q: Was this third group destroyed by the other two?

A: One of the 3 cataclysms.

Q: Paranthas. Who were the Paranthas?

A: Nation of race mentioned above.

Q: So, the Paranthas were the antecedents of the Abos of Australia?

A: Yes, and compare to now existing peoples of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia, and New Guinea for similarities, bearing in mind genetic mixing and dilution.

Q: Were the Vedas written by the Paranthas or written by the Celts?

A: Descendants of Parantha, as per "Divine guidance."

Q: That explains a LOT. I was just thinking about it the other day. If these people in India are related to the Celts, as philologists would have us believe due to language roots, there is no way I can understand this because they are simply NOTHING like them in any way. … Okay, I think that you said that this nuclear war happened something like 50,000 years ago. We have taken care of a couple of points; we have 3 races on Atlantis, Celts all over the place... did the Celts conquer the Atlanteans?

A: No.

Q: Did they just move in and hang out?

A: They took over the Northern section.

Q: At the same time, there were Celts in the Caucasus, along the Baltic, in Ireland, England and Europe...

A: Ireland, England, etc. was later.

Q: But there were in the Norse lands, as Sweden, Norway and Denmark, they were along the Baltic, and they were in the Caucasus?

A: Some above mentioned areas were ice covered.

Q: When the philologists track the language roots, they arrive at the Kurgan region, north and west of the Caucasus. Is that where the Celts went when Atlantis was destroyed?

A: Close.

Q: Were the Celts the tall blonds known as the 'Sons of Anak,' who ruled over the Sumerians as described by Sitchen?

A: "Celts" are what remains of the original prototype.

Q: Okay. Kantekkians. When did...

A: Gravity differences account for the height difference

Q: When did the Kantekkians, or Celts or whatever arrive on the Canary Islands?

A: 12,000 years ago.

Q: Did they arrive there from Atlantis directly?

A: Close.

Q: Where from?

A: Confused by trauma.

Q: What does that mean?

A: Guess.

Q: Did they come from underground?

A: Some.

Q: Were they part of the underground race?

A: No Laura. What "trauma" do you think we are referring to??

Q: The comet cluster? The Flood of Noah?

A: Close enough.

Q: When did the Celts or Kantekkians first take up residence in the British Isles?

A: Same. 12,000 years ago.

Q: Were the Picts also Celts?

A: No, Atlantean. Remember, "Celt" is latter day moniker.

Q: Were the Picts Kantekkians?

A: Originally.

Q: Was Abraham a Kantekkian? Was the story of Abraham the story of the Kantekkians being brought to Earth?

A: No.

Q: Was Abraham a Kantekkian or a derivation?

A: Latter. But, so are you.

Q: Were the Jews that were genetically engineered and then planted in the Middle East... what year was this?

A: 130,000 years ago.

Q: Good grief! Have they managed to retain any racial purity for that long?

A: No.

Q: Cayce talks about the division in Atlantis between the "Sons of One" and the "Sons of Belial." Was this a racial division or a philosophical/ religious division?

A: It was the latter two, and before that, the former one.

Q: When it was a racial division, which group was it?

A: The Sons of Belial were the Kantekkians.

Q: Well! That is not good!

A: Subjective... you are not bodies, you are souls.
 

aaron

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
#2
I find this furiously interesting. I will get this book. I just spent 4days a week for 4 months living and working as a remote area nurse in a large remote Australia Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory. Thank-you.
 

Hesper

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
#3
Thank you and wow - this sounds like a tour de force. Aside from the Amazon description the Introduction really whets the appetite:

Revision of our understood human origins starts at the very beginning of Chapter One, exploring the divergence of the human line from that of chimpanzees, around 7 million years before the present, calling into question even the basic anatomical form of the infamous missing link. During the evaluation of data in the first chapter, we revise our family tree, cutting off a sizeable number of branches in the process. The first members of our genus, Homo, are shown to have lived millions of years before the consensus narrative had previously led the public to believe. The chapter ends with two new hominin names and a very different start to the human story.

As we move onwards through the evolutionary journey, Chapter Two gives us an encounter with new Homo forms that start to closely resemble modern humans, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo antecessor. We ask some brave new questions of these hominins. Could any of them be our real ancestors? Are the current hominin classifications all legitimate species? These questions are well worth asking, and the answers may well shock some readers. Before this chapter is over, we find ourselves facing a much earlier emergence date for archaic Homo sapiens and a severe shortage of viable ancestors.

The investigation takes a turn for the bizarre as we enter the Asian region in Chapter Three. We discover a new human relative, the Denisovan, while our old friend the Neanderthal reveals a mysterious family secret about our shared homeland. The real story here is a series of mind-blowing archaeological discoveries made in China over the last few years: Homo sapiens fossils older than any in the Levant and almost as old as those of African Homo sapiens idaltu. Could the Chinese academics be justified in their claim that modern humans evolved first in China?

We leave China now on the trail of the Denisovans, but to find them we have to take two important journeys in Chapter Four. Our first excursion is to the far past, to the time of Homo erectus while the other journey is a fast-flowing stretch of deep ocean. To track down the Denisovans, we are forced to rethink the first emergence of two key human traits: communication and advanced engineering. Was Homo erectus more like us than we ever dared to imagine? A single engraved shell calls everything we thought we knew suddenly into question.

Chapter Five begins as we penetrate the impenetrable barrier, taking us into the domain of the Denisovans, only to discover they are far from alone. How many hominins inhabited prehistoric Australasia? It seems that no academic can answer this question with any certainty, beyond admitting that it was a higher number than anybody believed. Strange things are afoot down under; on the continent typically thought of as almost the last landmass visited by any hominin species we find plenty of evidence contrary to this position.

In Chapter Six, we find ourselves pushing the last pin into the map; the first emergence of modern human beings right here in the Australasian continent. Can it be that we have found the real site-zero for the human story? The scientists confirming our findings are of the very highest pedigree, and the archaeological sites uncovered only strengthen their claims. It is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There is nothing quite as taxing for me as attempting to understand molecular biology, but if we are to accept ancient Australasian Aboriginals as the founder population for all humans on Earth, we need to see the genetic data. The geographic spread of Y-chromosomes and mtDNA lineages are the matter at hand in Chapter Seven. Is the resulting evidence of global catastrophe and an incredible exodus the extraordinary final proof we required?

All journeys must come to an end. In our case, that end comes as we move back into Africa, twice in fact. From where our investigation began, so it comes to a close. Chapter Eight reveals the long-lost story of a Forgotten Exodus and the human migration into Africa. Loose ends are tied up as we reconsider Homo sapiens idaltu and the mysterious origins of the sub-Saharan KhoiSan peoples in Chapter Nine. This is only the end of the first stage of our journey into a lost human history, the Forgotten Exodus has more to reveal.
 

seek10

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#4
Thinking linearly based on the hints C's gave, Lemuria is interesting.
1994-11-02
Q: (L) What happened to Lemuria?

A: Submerged close to time you refer to as Fall of Eden, approximately.
That is 309,000 years back when the earth was in 3D/4D space.
1995-09-24
Q: (L) What was the genetic combination used to obtain the Oriental races?
A: Orientals come from a region known in your legends as "Lemuria," and are a previous hybridization from 7 genetic code structures from within Orion Union, designed to best fit the earth climate and cosmic ray environment then existent on earth.
I guess "previous" means hydridization during the cycle before the current cycle(when human souls are injected into chimpanzees)
1994-10-18
Q: (L) Where did the Orientals come from?

A: Same as all others. Result of experimentation.

Q: (L) Did they originate on this planet? Are they native to this planet?

A: Both. Orientals reserved for souls most advanced; Aryans most aggressive; Negroes most naturally attuned to earth vibrational frequency. So are "native Americans".
This opens little can of worms.

- Did the Lumerians descendants lived at the same time as "human souls in Chimpanzee's" time?

- Over the course of time (probably 100K years - guessing here), the souls changed the Chimpanzee anatomy to the human anatomy, thinking Lumerian descendants are not from "Human souls in Chimpanzee" line.

- One other possibility: did Neanderthal's are the "Human soul in the Chimpanzee" line. My thought is if the human soul pushed into Chimpanzee body, it will take longer evolution time for those bodies to evolve. In that case, Kantek folks maybe not from the "Human soul in Chimpanzee" line?

- Does the Human souls injected into Chimpanzee's only happen on earth or did it happen in kantek too? - Given that reality change happens in the 3D reality of the solar system and STO lost to the STS, probably it could have happened on both planets.

There is a lot of possibilities and hard to figure out. May be these are based on wrong assumption.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#5
While waiting for the book to arrive for more details, Bruce Fenton offers a short summary of his model here: _https://grahamhancock.com/fentonb1/

I find that Homo sapiens first emerged in Australasia from a population of Homo erectus, whom had long been residents there. My date for this event is very early in the timeline, perhaps 900 – 800 thousand years ago, a date range supported by the Sima de los Huesos genome research, the Indiana Univeristy fossil study, and analysis of material from the Denisova cave site in Siberia.

In my model, I offer compelling evidence for three key migrations of Homo sapiens heading out of Australasia. The first migrations began around 200,000 years ago, during a period of intense climatic problems and low population numbers, with a small group making their way to East Africa. The remains of some of these first Africans have been discovered close to one key entry point in the east of the continent (400km), known as the Bab-el-Mandeb straights.

I then identify a second migration event 74,000 years ago, following the eruption of the Lake Toba super volcano. Small groups of survivors to the north of Lake Toba, finding themselves unable to move south to safety, were then forced to head west to escape the devastating nuclear winter and toxic clouds that followed the disaster. The lucky few that could move fast enough eventually made their way into Africa and found safety in the south of the continent. I suggest that some of these few moved along the coasts of Asia, and others sailed the open ocean to Madagascar and hit the coast of South Africa – I associate these refugees with cave sites including Borders Cave, Klasies River Caves and the Blombos Cave.

The third migration event identified in my research is arguably of greatest interest because it involved the direct ancestors of all non-African people alive today. As the global environment recovered from the Lake Toba eruption 60,000 years ago, a trickle of modern humans (calculated to be just under 200 individuals) moved out of Australasia into Southeast Asia, slowly colonising the Eurasian continent. These adventurous men and women were the forebears of every non-African and non-Australian person living on Earth today. This Australasian colonisation of the world is very well supported by the study of both mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal haplogroups, and given further credence by the location and dating of several fossils.


Map of current mitochondrial haplogroup distribution with hypothesised directions of ancient gene flow. Note that my work reverses the direction of this flow for hgL3 in East Africa and for both hgM and hgN in Australasia. It is also my finding that the oldest lineage identified, hgL, arrived in Africa along the same route as the blue arrow ending in Madagascar. The genetic link between Australia and the Americas is immediately apparent.
 

Meager1

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
#6
This map agrees very well with most native American legends.
NDN`s say the trek was always northward until they had to escape a war and
so went to Tula, or Turtle Island. Ancient Thule?
There is only one place from where the continent of North America resembles a " turtle island" and that is looking at Alaska from Siberia.


The legend in part;
1. Long ago came the powerful serpent (Maskanako), when men had become evil.
2. The strong serpent was the foe of the beings, and they became embroiled, hating each other.
3. Then they fought and despoiled each other, and were not peaceful.
4. And the small men (Mattapewi) fought with the keeper of the dead (Nihanlowii) .
5. Then the strong serpent resolved all men and beings to destroy immediately.
6. The black serpent, monster, brought the snake-water rushing,
7. The wide waters rushing, wide to the hills, everywhere spreading,everywhere destroying.
8. At the island of the turtle (Tula) was Manabozho, of men and beings the grandfather
9. Being born creeping, at turtle land he is ready to move and dwell
1 0. Men and beings all go forth on the flood of waters, moving afloat,every way seeking the back of the turtle (Tulapin).
11. The monsters of the sea were many, and destroyed some of them.
12. Then the daughter of a spirit helped them in a boat, and all joined, saying, Come help !
13. Manabozho, of all beings, of men and turtles, the grandfather !
14. All together, on the turtle then, the men then, were all together.
15. Much frightened, Manabozho prayed to the turtle that he would make all well again.
16. Then the waters ran off, it was dry on mountain and plain, and the great evil went elsewhere by the path of the cave.
 

rrraven

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
#7
I loved the book , I read it a couple of weeks ago and it has me convinced
:cool: :cool: :cool:
as far as I know the australian aboriginal peoples also agree that they came from here not Africa
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#8
Meager1 said:
This map agrees very well with most native American legends.
NDN`s say the trek was always northward until they had to escape a war and
so went to Tula, or Turtle Island. Ancient Thule?
There is only one place from where the continent of North America resembles a " turtle island" and that is looking at Alaska from Siberia.


The legend in part;
1. Long ago came the powerful serpent (Maskanako), when men had become evil.
2. The strong serpent was the foe of the beings, and they became embroiled, hating each other.
3. Then they fought and despoiled each other, and were not peaceful.
4. And the small men (Mattapewi) fought with the keeper of the dead (Nihanlowii) .
5. Then the strong serpent resolved all men and beings to destroy immediately.
6. The black serpent, monster, brought the snake-water rushing,
7. The wide waters rushing, wide to the hills, everywhere spreading,everywhere destroying.
8. At the island of the turtle (Tula) was Manabozho, of men and beings the grandfather
9. Being born creeping, at turtle land he is ready to move and dwell
1 0. Men and beings all go forth on the flood of waters, moving afloat,every way seeking the back of the turtle (Tulapin).
11. The monsters of the sea were many, and destroyed some of them.
12. Then the daughter of a spirit helped them in a boat, and all joined, saying, Come help !
13. Manabozho, of all beings, of men and turtles, the grandfather !
14. All together, on the turtle then, the men then, were all together.
15. Much frightened, Manabozho prayed to the turtle that he would make all well again.
16. Then the waters ran off, it was dry on mountain and plain, and the great evil went elsewhere by the path of the cave.
That sounds more like a memory of the 12KYA event written about in "The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes."
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#9
One thing about the OOAT that always bugged me was an underlying element of racism that was there despite the fact that liberals would claim that it was "equalizing." It wasn't/isn't. The theory is that some very, very small group evolved more or less in isolation, then went up into the Levant, mixed with some Neanderthals there (this last was added lately) and then went off East and later, some of those in the East went back West. The unspoken part was "those that left were smarter and created Western Civiilzation; those that didn't have the smarts to leave Africa stayed backward." And, of course, the great genetic variability in Africa was interpreted as different "missing links" or whatever evolving in different ways, more or less in isolation, but all heading toward more or less modern human status.

The big difference between folks that didn't migrate out of Africa and those that did, according to OOAT is the Neanderthal mixing. So, of course, the Neanderthals have had to be rehabilitated from cave men to singers. And on they go. There's something really wrong with this picture. I don't know the answers but this little book is very interesting and, as far as I can see, removes those implicit divisions: everybody came from somewhere else and after they landed, they sort of morphed a bit to suit their environment and that is still ongoing.

I read recently that cats are obligate carnivores; that means they really only thrive eating meat. Dogs, on the other hand, have evolved the ability to consume grains and such because of their long and particular association with humans. There are two breeds of dogs that are still obligate carnivores and must eat meat pretty much exclusively: huskies and one other that I forgot. But all other pet type breeds can eat a good portion of grains and veggies and still do okay. This little fact, along with what we notice about the wide variation in dog breeds, should tell us something about humans and their ability to adapt/evolve. Basically, some 70 KYA humans nearly went extinct and everyone living today is descended from a very small group. The main differences are that, after populations increased again, people went to different areas and began that adaptation/evolving process more or less in isolation. But most definitely, what did NOT happen is that Africans did not just sit around in Africa evolving from hominems left behind. They arrived there the same way peeps arrived in China, the Americas, etc.
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#10
The book is in the mail :D At the top of my head, an Australasian origination of humanity fits more snuggly with the aquatic ape hypothesis of how we acquired certain traits like reduced body hair. That hypothesis seemed like a stretch to me given an African origin.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#11
Laura said:
The big difference between folks that didn't migrate out of Africa and those that did, according to OOAT is the Neanderthal mixing. So, of course, the Neanderthals have had to be rehabilitated from cave men to singers. And on they go.
There is indeed a clear effort to romanticize Neanderthals. The latest in date is this piece in Nature: _https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02357-8

According to them:
Humans are thought to have arrived in Europe from Africa around 40,000–45,000 years ago. The three caves in different parts of Spain yielded artworks that are at least 65,000 years old, according to uranium-thorium dating of calcium carbonate that had formed on top of the art.
I doesn't occur to them that they just didn't find (yet?) Sapiens in Spain that could be dated to that time. Collingwood talks about this fallacy. So they jump into the conclusion that whomever produced those cave drawing, it must be Neanderthals.

For any skeptics they already have an answer:
Pike suggests that such reluctance to believe that Neanderthals were creating cave art may have less to do with methodological disputes than plain old species-ism. “People are very prejudiced against Neanderthals,” he says.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#13
I just finished another book on the topic (more or less) that I think should be read along with the "Into Africa" book here. It's by a terribly mainstream paleoanthropologist, Chris Stringer. Title is "The Origin of Our Species".

Stringer covers all the same material that Fenton does, and a whole lot more. Plus, he gives a lot more detail. Well, obviously; Fenton's book is rather slim and Stringer's book is twice the length and smaller font! But what I mean is that he gives you more about each case of fossil finds and the theories developed about each.

Stringer is one of the main architects of the "Out of Africa" theory that has been accepted by today and he points out that it was definitely not accepted when he started out over 40 years ago. He then goes on to explain why - all the many fossil finds in Africa and how well they were thought to fit.

At several places in the book he lets you know that he is re-thinking things and right at the end, he comes out and says it:

The process of writing this book has led me to a greater recognition of the forces of demography, drift and cultural selection in recent human evolution than I had considered before. And while I have been writing it, new genetic data have emerged to show that we Homo sapiens are not purely derived from a recent African origin.
His explanations of genetic drift and such were a lot better and easier to understand. I highly recommend this one to any of you interested in the topic!! And especially if you read Fenton's book: this fills in all the gaps of information.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#14
Laura said:
Stringer covers all the same material that Fenton does, and a whole lot more. Plus, he gives a lot more detail. Well, obviously; Fenton's book is rather slim and Stringer's book is twice the length and smaller font! But what I mean is that he gives you more about each case of fossil finds and the theories developed about each.
Thanks, this is a most needed addition. Fenton's book is short and the text is easy to read but it's a slow reading nevertheless because he treats the different fossils as if they were common knowledge. Also, it is usually useful to have the mainstream thesis in order to compare it to a more controversial antithesis.

Less central issue, the climatic effects of the supervolcano Toba irruption have been lately dialed down. Basically, sediments in western Africa show no massive disruption after the irruption, and in India they found human-made tools below and above the layer corresponding to the layer. And yet, there was a genetic bottleneck at that time (~70ka).
However, around that same time, humans may have lived through more terrifying, and less localized events: https://www.sott.net/article/380637-Scholzs-star-disturbed-prehistory-solar-system-comets
A star system entered the Oort cloud and dislodged comets. This work should be all over the news but it's not so much.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#15
mkrnhr said:
Laura said:
Stringer covers all the same material that Fenton does, and a whole lot more. Plus, he gives a lot more detail. Well, obviously; Fenton's book is rather slim and Stringer's book is twice the length and smaller font! But what I mean is that he gives you more about each case of fossil finds and the theories developed about each.
Thanks, this is a most needed addition. Fenton's book is short and the text is easy to read but it's a slow reading nevertheless because he treats the different fossils as if they were common knowledge. Also, it is usually useful to have the mainstream thesis in order to compare it to a more controversial antithesis.
Yup. Need as much data as possible to be able to form an opinion even if provisional. And Stringer actually worked on many of the fossil discoveries he describes and had insider info.

mkrnhr said:
Less central issue, the climatic effects of the supervolcano Toba irruption have been lately dialed down. Basically, sediments in western Africa show no massive disruption after the irruption, and in India they found human-made tools below and above the layer corresponding to the layer. And yet, there was a genetic bottleneck at that time (~70ka).
However, around that same time, humans may have lived through more terrifying, and less localized events: https://www.sott.net/article/380637-Scholzs-star-disturbed-prehistory-solar-system-comets
A star system entered the Oort cloud and dislodged comets. This work should be all over the news but it's not so much.
Well, that Toba business is peculiar. It obviously wasn't the whole banana at the time. Stringer mentions that the Y DNA "Adam" dates to about 70 kya and the bottleneck dates to then also. The Cs have said that the planet between Mars and Jupiter exploded at that time and peeps came to earth from there. I got specific about it and they said, yes, actual transportation, but I leave it open that it could have been something more subtle such as transfer of DNA via viruses or something. Thing is, something big and important happened then and either not very many people survived, or genetic drift was really strong in some way.

What seems to be certain is that Africa is sort of excluded from the "re-founding population" that experienced the bottleneck because there weren't many effects in Africa. Unless, of course, there was a lot of comet ablation of the landscape and consequent mass death.

I guess the fact that Toba went off so spectacularly is just a symptom of bigger things that were going on.
 
Top Bottom