All good points.
One thing that occurs to me is that the DNA based claims rely very much on the separation from apes and the "dna clock" that produces a timing for that event. But, when one considers demographics, genetic drift, for all we know, that split represents just ONE group that contributed to the gene pool. In other words, just as the Eve hypothesis has proven to be wrong because of the later finding of archaic "ghost populations" in dna, so might that split also prove to be wrong. See mainstream view here: https://phys.org/news/2016-02-humans-apes.html
One thing that exercises my mind is this: the so-called human lineage AS IT IS NOW KNOWN is closest to chimps and gorillas which are found only in Africa. BUT, just above this in the tree is a common ancestor of humans, chimps and gorillas that was also ancestral to Orangutans, Gibbons and Siamangs, all of whom are found in East Asia. Go another step up and there is the common ancestor of Old World monkeys (OWM), and New World Monkeys (NWM).
Now, one might assume that the OWMs and NWMs separated at the time of the continental splits UNLESS we are to assume some other means of travel. Ciochon and Olsen suggest that they traversed the very small Atlantic by Island hopping not long after this divide was initiated. This article tells us: https://phys.org/news/2006-05-continents-geology-picture.html
So, effectively, it is saying that the continents split that long ago... way longer in the past than is possible for our NWM and OWM split. The first incipient primates supposedly did not appear until after the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago and needed time to develop to primate stage before the split.
That leads to a rather pressing question: how did NWMs get there?
Coming back to our African and East Asian split, the brachiating apes that include man, and do NOT include NWMs, it is proposed by one group that some apes left Africa and went to East Asia (trying to preserve the African origin of everything) and others, that the apes of Africa traveled there from East Asia. Gribbin and Co. suggest this view (and it is attractive). It does seem that, since the Gibbons, Orangs, Siamungs, etc, are higher on the tree, where they are found is most likely the origin of the ones found in Africa.
But that leads to the problem of the previously mentioned NWM and OWM split: it almost seems as though the simians came to East Asia via an Eastern route - from South America to East Asia - rather than going from Africa to South America. Either that, or the NWMs went to South America from East Asia the same way African apes went there from East Asia.
Well, even though I deal with such issues as strong possibilities (ET meddling), I try to find real world explanations for things first. It seems to me that just tracking the movements of species and groups is sufficient to suggest that there was a lot more going on than is dreamed of in our philosophies!
A couple of things that may be significant: the Neoteny change. This could have happened to a single individual via mutation, probably a male. He could then pass this mutation on via numerous females, and presto, you have the first little band of incipient humans. After initial efforts to "get along" with their more apeish parents and grandparents and cousins and such, they figured out that they were too different so they took themselves off and speciation was on the way.
Second, it has been noted that the first blonde/white skinned type was found near Lake Baikal.
Now, Carleton Coon talks quite a bit about Neoteny and his work is worth reading for that, alone, I think. I noted a comment in the book that arrived yesterday where he suggests that blue eyes and blondification are FURTHER neoteny-related mutations. He also talks about the rounding of the skull as a neoteny related process and that the roundification of skulls in most groups around the world into modern times is part of this process. His discussion of the types and processes of evolution that can be observed in emigrants from one place to another is well worth the price of the book!!!
Anyway, Neoteny is the best explanation for the change in human behavior that I've seen. (Also check out "The Dopaminergic Mind"). Whether or not these mutations were induced, we can't say, but we can suspect it is possible, even probable. Geeze, it IS a process of "domestication", after all!!!
I wouldn't toss out Cremo so quickly if I were you. That is NOT the impression I took away from a fairly careful reading of the abridged edition, and now I have the unabriged and have made it through about half of it. There's some serious stuff there and just because it is older doesn't make it less useful. Remember, all the giant skeletons found and examined by Smithsonian peeps that are now denied? And Cremo produces some good modern evidence, too as well as testimony from more modern workers who "buried" findings because they knew it would ruin their careers.
Additionally, with the material produced in Reich's book, even if he attempts to spin it, is very useful to me because I can go and read the papers if I need to, and I can read between the lines. As I pointed out, his maps do NOT match his words and his conclusions don't match the data. At least he presents the data honestly and clearly.
Finally, now being able to see from Reich that Wolpoff was quite right, it is easier to read Coon and see that he, too, was on the right track on many things. I just make notes in the margins when more recent data contradicts or clarifies... and he's very right a lot of the time!
Sometimes treasures are found in a LOT of mud!
