The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
When it comes to archaic hominin DNA you make a great observation about the way the modern human genome has selected against DNA from archaic humans such as Neanderthals. We really do not know how much of the human genome was Neanderthal material 50,000 years ago, to say we are 2-3% Neanderthals gives the misleading impression that no much mixing occurred - we really do not know that at all as so much material may have been selected against over that time.

Humans seem to go back at least 3 million years in a form readily recognisable to us, before that we might struggle to see them as anything other than another primate relative. But then, we really do not know if we have found any fossils from our ancestors beyond 3 million years ago, scientists are growing more sceptical about this and many doubt Australopithecus is a direct ancestral genus to Homo. We may simply not have found any fossils from humans much beyond the era of Homo erectus and Homo habilis - perhaps they looked pretty much like these species. I made a very different argument in my book, suggesting Australopithecus were perhaps early Homo, I would remove that in a future edition.

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

About 525 million years ago, that land mass broke apart, with North America on one side and South America, Africa and the small island pieces on the other. The two plates drifted apart, forming the Iapetus Ocean.

Twenty-five million years later – at the time of the first fish and land plants – the strip of land that used to be the small islands broke off South America and Africa and began moving across Iapetus towards North America. This movement closed the Iapetus Ocean while at the same time opening the Rheic Ocean.

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.

It does seem that our ancestors lived by the mantra of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." We can assume either what they had was sufficient for their needs and wants, they had other technology that has not survived in the archaeological record or they lacked mental dexterity to move beyond the tools they had conjured up. This raises the question of why they then did change tool technology, either the situation conspired to bring about new needs or their brains changed in some significant way and they were able to think in new directions. Could this be deliberate upgrades by external forces (such as a meddling ET visitor)? I rather suspect you are correct though, that stone tech was "just a small aspect of their reality" we just can't know what else they were doing/using.

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.

Analysis of ancient DNA data shows that western European hunter-gatherers around eight thousand years ago had blue eyes but dark skin and dark hair, a combination that is rare today. The first farmers of Europe mostly had light skin but dark hair and brown eyes - thus light skin in Europe largely owes its origins to migrating farmers. The earliest known example of the classic European blond hair mutation is in an Ancient North Eurasian from the Lake Baikal region of eastern Siberia from seventeen thousand years ago. The hundreds of millions of copies of this mutation in central and western Europe today likely derive from a massive migration into the region of people bearing Ancient North Eurasian ancestry..." Reich, p. 96.

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!!!

It is interesting you mention Cremo's book, I have had it flagged t me many times over the years, and again since publishing the book. I finally downloaded a pdf version a couple of weeks ago and skimmed it to get a feel for the sources he uses. What I noticed right away was that despite being published in 1993, almost every source he used came from research done between 1800 - 1950, a period on which there was wild speculation by fantasists passing for scientists, mostly ideologically driven racists and religious nuts, all sharing from the same lack of meaningful training and absence of scientific dating methods. That Cremo chose to base his 1993 boo on these out of date and spurious reports suggests he was agenda driven. He could have referred to work carried out between 1980 and 1993 and I would excuse him, we have to conclude he wanted to use wacky reports that made wild baseless claims and these mostly exist if you look back 100 years or so. As you know, I did everything possible to use entirely cutting-edge studies, I did not try to build a case from long-abandoned models and speculations. I consider Cremo's book worthless on this basis and entirely written to support his stated Hindu beliefs. This is sad because that book is so revered and very often promoted to be the best in the field of non-academic human origins research!

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!
 

BruceF

The Force is Strong With This One
Neoteny has become one of my favourite topics, if anybody is interested to hear me basically ranting on about it there is a recent interview here Episodes

I don't discuss neoteny in my book, but I do go into it in some depth in my wife's new book (which is an argument for ET engineering of Homo sapiens 780,000 years ago).
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
My copy of Wolpoff arrived and I'm very pleased to continue my reading with this book. It has a refreshing outlook that highlights critical thinking and where we are coming from (i.e. Collingwood's The Idea of History) over advanced technological tools. If you can't think with a hammer, you won't produce good research even if you have the greatest tech tool available.

What is more, it has a discussion on racism and its historical context that has always been so intriguing to me. It is a refreshing reading after learning all about genes.

"Making Sense of Genes" was great, but the author's discussion of all the mechanisms involved in "genetic determinism" seems to fall short. He emphasizes environmental factors, but it feels like he falls short for failing to discuss morphogenetic fields, information theory and related subjects. Anyway, aside from that, I now feel like I know about genetics. Finally!
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Neoteny has become one of my favourite topics, if anybody is interested to hear me basically ranting on about it there is a recent interview here Episodes

I don't discuss neoteny in my book, but I do go into it in some depth in my wife's new book (which is an argument for ET engineering of Homo sapiens 780,000 years ago).

I would think that the neoteny change came as the split from chimps and gorillas which would be much further back.

Not sure if you know, but in my book "Secret History" and the series "The Wave" (available in book form and online), I utilize the Cassiopaean material to sort things out. The big "secret" about "aliens" is that they are hyperdimensional critters. You'd really have to go through all of it to get the full import of this. They've described in some detail the abduction process and so on, and I included all that in my book "High Strangeness" along with the science. But, since then, I've tended to look more in the direction of reality based explanations even if I suspect and suggest hyperdimensional influences behind (or don't suggest, as the case may be, depending on the audience). There is a reason for that, too, the main one being that the Cs have given a load of clues and predictions that have really stood the test of time and research, and their whole schtick is to encourage us to pay close attention to reality because it is there we will find the clues.

For example, I might think that hyperdimensional beings influenced human development, but based on a lot of research and experience put together with how the Cs have described hyperdimensional realities, I would end up suggesting that the influence probably occurred in the context of information being sent through the realm curtain, formed as a virus, and then showered on ape types who would then get infected, and their DNA would be manipulated thereby.

But, like I said, to really get the whole import - which is terrifying, actually - you'd have to read "High Strangeness".

Getting back to manipulations around 780KYA, what makes you select that time?
 

John G

The Living Force
If 780K years ago was the split of modern humans from the common ancestor with Neanderthals/Denisovans, then it might relate to what the Cs called a mixing of Nordic genes with the Neanderthal gene pool already on earth. This could be more neoteny even if it wasn't the original neoteny related split.
 
Last edited:

BlackCartouche

Jedi Master
It is interesting that STS beings in our world tend to be obsessed with inbreeding bloodlines
On one level it could be down to preserving certain behavioural/personality traits through imprinting base genetic blue-prints to ensure favoured mindset of 'ruling' class. However, I have a thought on demonic 4D STS possession to do with making far more accessible and effective possession through certain 3D bloodlines involving preordained DNA linkage via possibly a sub-space connection of some sort to do with DNA's intriguing relationship with electrons. The basis of Voodoo/Blackmagic/Witchcraft whereby a strand of DNA (blood, hair, semen) of the required 'victim' is needed for taking hold over a targeted individual - or of their 'fate' - seems to hint at this.
If an inter-dimensional connection can indeed be locked-on and secured through specific genetic coding 'shared' between a 4D entity and designated 3D bloodline 'hosts' - then 4D STS would want to continue to keep open the secured inter-dimensional link of specific genetic coding via preserving the appointed DNA bloodline progeny - strongly as possible.

I also believe telepathy may tie in to possession somehow.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
If 780K years ago was the split of modern humans from the common ancestor with Neanderthals/Denisovans, then it might relate to what the Cs called a mixing of Nordic genes with the Neanderthal gene pool already on earth. This could be more neoteny even if it wasn't the original neoteny related split.

Possible. Coon is having some interesting observations about Neanderthals vs Cro Magnon and OTHER types around in Europe, North and East Africa and Middle East and West Asia. I'll have to parse it all. Something was definitely up at that time and I just need data. Y'all know how I hate to jump to conclusions.

In a way, I'm looking for the arrival of Kentekkians if it can be discerned in the record. Already we know that Toba blew around the same time Cs said that Kantek exploded - 70KYA. I'm even wondering if the latter event is the real one and the rest is symbolic info? Of course, there could be a connection between the Toba eruption and other events in the wider solar system at that time. A number of paleoanthropologists note that Toba apparently didn't have much effect on Africa, so if it caused a bottleneck, it wasn't there.

Then, there is the problem of species: could a group of human beings evolve on another planet and be able to interbreed with Earth types? If so, that suggests serious genetic maneuvering solar-system-wide.

So I'm keeping my eyes open for 70KYA events.

I should also add here that I realize now why Carleton Coon was attacked and his book marginalized: he sure does talk straight and dish out the data and it's way too revealing. He's got a couple sacred cows, but not much; and he was writing before all the DNA evidence; that hindered his judgments in a minor way, but only highlights how damn right he was about so many things!!!
 

John G

The Living Force
Possible. Coon is having some interesting observations about Neanderthals vs Cro Magnon and OTHER types around in Europe, North and East Africa and Middle East and West Asia. I'll have to parse it all. Something was definitely up at that time and I just need data. Y'all know how I hate to jump to conclusions.

In a way, I'm looking for the arrival of Kentekkians if it can be discerned in the record. Already we know that Toba blew around the same time Cs said that Kantek exploded - 70KYA. I'm even wondering if the latter event is the real one and the rest is symbolic info?...

With the fossil record so sparse and the initial changes so subtle, getting accurate splitting dates doesn't sound easy. One SOTT article mentions (in bold print) traits in between H. erectus and H. sapiens showing up in a range from 900K to 125K years ago. Another SOTT article mentions (in bold red print) that more advanced tools show up all over a continent 300,000 years ago (that's quite interesting in a Cs related way too!)

For the Kantekkians (maybe), that first SOTT article mentions (again in bold print) that very very modern looking fossils show up in China at least 80,000 years ago. The Cs put "planted" in quotes when talking adding in new genes so I could see that being viral seeds maybe. They even mention us in the future seeding ourselves. They though also mention the Kantek seeding being the only one that wasn't optimized for the environment due to it being an emergency.

I have a hard time thinking about how a viral seeding could be an emergency though maybe Kantek exploded unplanned and sent us unplanned viruses and it was only an emergency in the sense of being unplanned? Then there's the low gravity thing related to Kantekkians being tall but then gravity changes on earth supposedly relate to taller animals too so maybe the Kantek viral genes hit earth at a low gravity time/place?

How China is rewriting the book on human origins -- Sott.net
Human origins are much more diverse than previously thought -- Sott.net
 

John G

The Living Force
I also wonder if there could be any kind of hyperdimensional reality to the idea of our soul ancestors psychically destroying Kantek as some kind of home planet?

October, 22 1994

Direct channeling with Frank under hypnosis. Present: Laura, Terry, Jan

Q: (L) The planet that was destroyed between Jupiter and Mars that we now know as the asteroid belt, you said was destroyed by psychic energy. Could you clarify that?

A: The occupants of that planet, many of whom are your soul ancestors, simply decided to develop a service to self atmosphere that was so super charged in the negative that it actually caused their home planet to be destroyed because the energy levels became so intense crashing back upon themselves that they actually destroyed the atomic structure of the planet, causing it to physically explode.

Q: (L) Was this done technologically or was it strictly done by mind power?

A: They are one and the same.

Q: (L) Did they do something like drop bombs?

A: No, no. This was done by psychic energy. There has been in a transient fashion of reality the danger of the same thing happening on your planet. Although we are quite confident it won't because we see all reality, past present and future. But, you must understand also that even in our particular perspective point, all reality is nonetheless fluid. There are still many choices of realities and possible futures and possible pasts and possible presents. But we feel fairly confident that that particular fate will not befall your planet, although it did the one then known as Kantek.
 

Jones

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Well, that got me to thinking. I've heard similar things, too. And since we do occasionally breed our "purebred" dogs, I've had to do a little research on who goes with who. Usually, the kennel clubs keep track of that and if you are unsure, you can ask.

But, back to the mother-son thing; aside from evincing a strong "yuck" in the Western psyche, there may actually be a medical/genetic reason for it and somebody may have noticed a consequence way back when. What I have read is that dna from the child a woman is carrying finds its way into her system and persists there. It's probably not so bad if one is carrying a female child, but what about a male child? Some of that male child's dna is floating around in her body somewhere. If there are sex-linked mutations that are harmful, the mother carrying a child by that same son might have problems. Of course, I'm just speculating, but you never know.

Wow! I didn't know that. It's apparently called "fetal-maternal microchimerism".
Children’s cells live on in mothers

If GMO products can alter your DNA then that's probably even more likely for living cells from an organism living inside the body. I wonder if of two childs of a mother, from different fathers, the second child could carry DNA from its older sibling?

Co-incidently, this popped up in my newsfeed just now.
Questioner: Just now, in speaking of the family, you enumerated the father, mother, uncle, but not the wife and the children; are they of the same blood? The children are the same blood, but the wife?

Gurdjieff: It is the same blood if you have children because the blood is then mixed with that of the wife. But if you marry and you do not have children, it is not your blood, and you can send your wife to the devil. If you have children, she is of your family. With children the relations must be completely different; the whole world knows that. The bloods are mixed when there are children. In that which concerns children, it seems better to decrystallize certain factors, certain weaknesses, about a child. If you work you must work on your weakness; your weakness consists in thousands of things. For example, your child draws always on your love-proper, automatically, you do not love it. This must not exist. If you work, all your work must have the same value for you. These little things prove to me that you work not on yourself, you make differences between your children. One of your children, for example, touches unconsciously one of your weaknesses. Because of this you can arrive at detesting it; this child, little by little, begins to offend you; in continuing, if this repeats itself, it can crystallize in you some factors of hatred; and if these factors continue to crystallize, it can happen that a father kills his son. His worst enemy can be his son. You must do your work. Your children must have the same value for you. All are your blood. Through them you can have a contact with your wife.

There exists, pertinent to this, in Asia an original thing. Over there one calls the wife Fatma. But when she has a child, her husband calls her Padgi, that is to say, "sister," and the wife calls her husband Kardavate, that is to say, "brother." They are named brother and sister, they are not longer husband and wife. It is absurd and at the same time it teaches. And this comes to us from very remote times.
~ George Gurdjieff "Paris/Wartime Meetings"
 

Aeneas

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
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.
Fenton's book is a real eyeopener, though it is indeed written for people with knowledge on the subject. Diagrams, photos of fossiles and geographical areas and a summary timeline would greatly have conveyed the message of the book. Perhaps a follow up book will include that. Stringers book sounds interesting and almost a most in order to fill in the gaps.

One such image to aid the visually minded could have been the one below, which shows Sahul that Fenton mentions and which shows what the landmass likely looked like in those days when the sealevels were much lower. Somewhere it mentioned 150meters lower. The Wallace line and the land of Sunda, both mentioned by Fenton is also shown in this map.
1024px-Map_of_Sunda_and_Sahul.png




The C's mentioned:
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.

So the landmass that was destroyed, was that 'simply' because sealevels rose due to the impact and/or possible water transfer from another planet? Those inhabiting the Northern areas and who didn't drown, might have seen a good reason to move away and discover other lands.
 

Martina

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
I second @mrtn: "Wow!"... I didn't know that either!
That may also have something to do with why sons sleeping with his father's concubines was considered incest too - as any potential progeny produced through said concubine is the also potential mixing of DNA of the father/son seed. I always put it down to zealous patriarchy, but looks like there may well indeed have been genuine biological reasons behind it - much the same way as @Mr.Cyan's concluded observation.
There is a theory of Telegony that a child could have DNA from mothers ex-parters but not sure if it counts for humans. Telegony (pregnancy) - Wikipedia
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
FWIW, a recent letter published in Nature points to early hominin around 709000 years ago in the Philippines: Earliest known hominin activity in the Philippines by 709 thousand years ago
Basically they dated rhinoceros bones with cut marks.
To constrain the age of the bone bed and the stone artefacts it contained, we applied three different dating methods to various materials. Single crystal 40Ar/39Ar dating was applied to plagioclase crystals from the sandy units directly below and above the archaeological unit F and yielded two statistically undistinguishable weighted mean dates of 1,050 ± 28 ka and 1,007 ± 29 ka, respectively (1σ confidence interval). These 40Ar/39Ar dates yielded an age for the formation of the volcanic plagioclase crystals. Quartz grains from the same two sandy units were also dated using the electron spin resonance (ESR) method, and resulted in a maximum depositional date of 727 ± 30 ka for unit A, and a minimum depositional date of 701 ± 70 ka for unit G (1σ confidence interval).

To directly constrain the age of the rhinoceros skeleton and the cut marks, we applied ESR/uranium-series dating to the enamel of the rhinoceros’s right maxillary third premolar from the unit F bone bed. The tooth yielded an age of 709 ± 68 thousand years (1σ confidence interval), which is in agreement with the ESR results on the quartz.

41586_2018_72_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Different types of marks at the surface of the bones.
 
Top Bottom