The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution

I've finished "The Dopaminergic Mind" - another that is HIGHLY recommended because it is not too long, is explained simply, has fascinating data that you are unlikely to find assembled together as it is here, or even to find it easily. Now, if this guy had only read Wolpoff and Gribbin, I bet he would have refined his theory somewhat. Nevertheless, his discussion of what dopamine does in the brain and how it is associated with both culture building and culture destruction is great!

I've started "Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past" (2018) by David Reich who worked with Svante Paabo on archaic genomes. He's one of the "Out of Africa" guys who is having his theories handed to him on a platter. He's rather irritating to read because he's got SUCH an ego, but he does deliver some good data. He also has some pretty decent genetics charts that make a few things even clearer about how genes mix up and how much of any ancestor you might be expected to have.

I'm still waiting for Vincent Sarich's "Race: The Reality Of Human Differences" and hope to dig into that next.

What IS clear is that there is some prestidigitation going on about human origins. The Cs' info is looking better and better and the mainstream interpretation is looking sillier and sillier (except Wolpoff and Gribbin). Funny thing is, this guy, Reich, almost comes out and says that chimps and gorillas might be descended from some hominem pretty much as Gribbin proposes.
 
I've made it to page 100 in Reich's book and I have to say it is a MUST read too! He has redeemed himself by the quality and extent of the data he is giving even if he is trying desperately to cling to the OOA theory. I think he must have to do that because of the thought police, but boy, what he WRITES sure opposes it. In fact, much of what he writes coincides quite closely with what Wolpoff and Gribbin wrote, only Reich presents "maps" that contradict what he writes!!! But, the careful read can catch those things.

Also, at one point, he talks about a "ghost population" that sounds a LOT like "Kantekkians". Yup, MUST read!!!
 
I'm still reading "Making Sense of Genes", but I wanted to re-emphasize how important is this reading. The author dissects all the genetic tests available through 23 and me and other labs for disease predispositions. He also disabuses anyone of the genetic myths that mainstream science thought resolved through several examples: phenylketonuria, familial hypercholesterolemia, beta thalassemia, etc. There is definitely much more than meets the eye.

You'll also understand why it is so difficult to define something that we took for granted as the concept of "genes" itself.

Fascinating reading!
 
I finished "Who We Are and How We Got Here" by Reich, and it really turned out to be a terrific book even if he got off to a slow start. I wrote a review on Amazon:

This book is definitely 5 star for a lot of reasons. First, it is clearly written for even non-specialists; it is loaded with the latest information (at least to the time of writing); some of the revelations of genome research settle long-standing mysteries of human culture and language; and it makes clear that human evolution and history is way more complicated than had been thought.

It is the last item - the complicated nature of evolution - that leads me to make my only criticism of what is an excellent book: the author never mentions the work of Sarich and Wolpoff, nor the outstanding book by Wolpoff and Caspari "Race and Human Evolution", even though the end result of Reich's book is pretty much what Wolpoff and Caspari wrote back in 1997. Not only that, Reich even describes the relationship between different early human types as a "trellis", (p.81) which exact diagram Wolpoff has in his book! So, while I am here, I'm also making a plug for Wolpoff because he said a LOT that David Reich is saying in this book, with a lot less genetic evidence to hand, and said it over 20 years ago; Wolpoff's book is a tour de force!

Back to the present: I especially like the sensitive way Reich has handled the "race" issue in the penultimate chapter of the book. We need to understand that groups of people tend to band together for various reasons and when they do, they tend to "evolve together" and Natural Selection is always going to have a say there; we have to acknowledge this and use it to our advantage, for the good of everyone.

Finally, one of the most interesting insights of the book is that it seems that the roots of modern civilization, pretty much everywhere, is thanks to the Yamnaya culture of what is now Russia! What a hoot that is!
Click to expand...

Another reviewer wrote the following:

For this former anthropology student, the discussion of the populating of Europe and the Americas was particularly fascinating. That process was far more complex than could be taught a generation ago. Genomics is providing levels of detail that simply weren't available to earlier researchers. The author sketches the roles played by various populations of modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans, and their sometimes surprising contributions to the current populations of those regions. The maps and charts are particularly helpful in illustrating the discussion, which can get a little dense.

In later chapters, the author "goes there" and warns that future study may reveal differences in human populations that go beyond physical appearance. He is properly nervous about the impact of that information and how it might be misused, but determined to embrace the progress in science.
Click to expand...

And still another:

Dr. Reich and a growing number of geneticists who are specializing in early (deep) human history are working out the details of early human history in a way that I would have thought impossible even a decade ago. Using human genomes from both modern and from ancient bones they are able to provide details information about human populations and migrations.

For example, they can not only tell us that European hunters and gathers were invaded by farmers from Antolia around 9000 ybp, but can also tell us that these early hunters/gathers and farmers were themselves wiped out by later pastorial migrants from the caucaus who spoke endo-european. This isn't speculation, as we are used to in history texts, but based on facts generated by new techniques that let us analyze the genomes of modern and ancient bones. Many fascinating historical questions that I would have thought could never be answered and now answered.

This is a must read book for anyone interested in early human history.
Click to expand...

So, from just those brief comments, you can see that it really is a stunner of a book. But I still think that Wolpoff and Caspari deserve way more credit because they wrote essentially the same things, and used the Trellis model way back when!

The part I put in bold in the 2nd review quoted above is significant: yeah, Reich approaches the race question. And it just so happened that I had Vincent Sarich's "Race: The Reality of Human Differences" next in line. It, too, is a stunner even if Sarich was too soon persuaded by the "Eve Theory" that Wolpoff demolishes so effectively. Wolpoff and Caspari give a very good history of anthropology that is important, and then Sarich and Miele (co-author) also give a history of anthropology but with a different angle: focusing in on the issue of race. It turns out that one guy is pretty much responsible for the racial mess the US is in today: Franz Boas. Then Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu, born Israel Ehrenberg. The discussion of the Post-modernization/deconstruction of society effected by these two men is well worth reading.

And then, Sarich finishes off the book with something rather astonishing: a discussion of Ethnic (Race) specific weapons.

I felt sorry that Sarich died before he could learn that his instinctive reaction to the "Recent Out of Africa" theory was correct. He gave in to it and tried to work with it because of his regard for his teacher Alan Wilson, but he makes it clear that something about it really bugged him.

There is just so much in these books: Wolpoff, Reich, Sarich, that is important to know that I urge those of you who can to get and read them. And the book "Making Sense of Genes" is a good bit of background!
 
 
When a person gets a glimpse of reality, it really makes a person question everything that has been brainwashed into that person for the past 65 years, everything :nuts::nuts::shock:
 
WIN 52 said:
When a person gets a glimpse of reality, it really makes a person question everything that has been brainwashed into that person for the past 65 years, everything :nuts::nuts::shock:
Click to expand...

That's the truth!

Today I read Franz Weidenreich's book "Apes, Giants and Man" published in 1946 by the University of Chicago. And yes, he talks about real giants... and archaeological/paleoanthropological finds that you just never hear talked about anywhere else. Those giant Denisovan teeth were actually not that unusual in the East and apparently, Java man was pretty hefty. One of the finds was so big that he estimated his size as twice that as a male gorilla. Male gorillas weigh 135 to 195 kg (300 to 430 lb) and are 1.5 to 1.8 m (4 ft 11 in to 5 ft 11 in) tall. So, double that and you have a critter that is over 10 feet tall and weighs 800 pounds.

The books has pictures and drawings and maps and such in abundance for such a slim volume, and is super loaded with info. What's more, Weidenreich's views, which were discarded and marginalized by the "Recent Out of Africa" gang, and ignored by the Franz Boas and Ashley Montagu bunch who took over anthropology, have now been given more validity and importance by David Reich!!! Wolpoff was a supporter of Weidenreich and regretted that he did not produce any PhDs to compete with the other bunch. All that is covered in the history in the Wolpoff/Caspari book.

In case anybody wonders why I'm going through all this stuff, it is to find out "what really happened" back then and how accurate the Cs might be. Right now, with allowances made for symbolism and such, the Cs are looking pretty good.

Weidenreich comes across as a thoroughly decent and honest person, and very, very astute. He pretty much demolishes any of the old nonsense about "racial purity" and makes it pretty clear that everybody is some kind of hybrid even if there are transmission of characteristics across time and some concentrations in various groups. He points out that even this is not stable: there have always been "races" and they are always in flux because of mixture.

Probably the best understanding of how races come to be and persist over periods of time is David Reich's discussion of the caste system in India and how groups manage to persist over time even genetically. He uses himself, as a Jew, as an example: it's not done by barriers of distance or literal laws, but by children following the expectations of their parents in selecting marriage partners and professions and so on. So that seems to be what has created and sustained races as we know them, though it can certainly change. And "races" is a loaded term. Both Weidenreich and Sarich use the example of dog breeds for comparison and I think it is pretty apt. Yeah, dog breeds are created by selective breeding done consciously by humans, but social pressures and environmental influences can do the same thing with humans. It seems that humans regularly "hybridize" themselves in this way for various reasons. And the results of these self-experiments can be serious for humans as for dogs. There are certain drugs you can't give to certain breeds of dogs because they have genetic reactions and the same seems to be for some humans, so studying races for these reasons can be important. And definitely, you can see that different breeds of dogs have different characters, and the same can be generally true for humans.

Weidenreich points out that blood types are distributed through all races, though there is some concentration here or there, and this is evidence of long term mixing. He also points out that all the "constitutional" types (the four temperaments) can be found in all racial groups, another bit of evidence for mixing from earliest times.

I think Weidenreich took especial delight in demolishing some of the racial "measures" that were promoted by the Nazis. He noted that a set of measures were taken on army recruits in Germany/Switzerland and NO "typical Nordic" was found among any of them!!! He also points out that Neanderthals had bigger brains than modern humans, so size isn't any measure of intelligence or humanness.

All in all, a very enjoyable read for so short a book.
 
Beau said:
Fascinating! I went to buy a copy and found that it's freely available to be read or downloaded at archive.org: Apes Giants And Man : Weidenreich, Franz : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Looks like a really good scan of the book.
Click to expand...

Excellent! The part about the giants is just furiously interesting and one thinks of the many giants dug up in the US in the 19th century that were recorded by the Smithsonian but now are denied.

See: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0956786510/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage
Giants on Record: America's Hidden History, Secrets in the Mounds and the Smithsonian Files

Over a 200-year period thousands of newspaper reports, town and county histories, letters, photos, diaries, and scientific journals have documented the existence of an ancient race of giants in North America. Extremely tall skeletons ranging from 7 feet up to a staggering 18 feet tall have been reportedly uncovered in prehistoric mounds, burial chambers, caves, geometric earthworks, and ancient battlefields. Strange anatomic anomalies such as double rows of teeth, horned skulls, massive jaws that fit over a modern face, and elongated skulls have also been reported. Many of these discoveries were sent to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C., seemingly never to be heard about again. The Smithsonian's own records describe at least 17 giant skeletons in annual reports. This book examines a possible cover-up initiated by Smithsonian scientists starting in the late 1800s. The origins of “the tall ones” has been shrouded in mystery for centuries, but this book reveals where they came from, why they got so large, and the reason for their downfall, using the latest scientific research, genetic data, native myths, news reports, and ethnological research. This has become one of the most gripping stories of the last few centuries and for the first time the truth of the giants of North America has been revealed. This book also reveals: - How early explorers to America witnessed these giants first-hand, including Sir Francis Drake, John Smith and even some of the early presidents. - Legends and myths that talk of cannibalistic, red-haired giants. - Strange inscriptions, metal armor, mummified remains, and sophisticated technologies buried with the skeletons. - How secret societies such as the Rosicrucians, Freemasons and Theosophists all claim the existence of giant humans in the past as historical fact in their literature. - How the giants may be connected to the Denisovans from Siberia, the Nephilim of Bible tradition, and other ancient cultures.
Click to expand...
 
Laura said:
Excellent! The part about the giants is just furiously interesting and one thinks of the many giants dug up in the US in the 19th century that were recorded by the Smithsonian but now are denied.
Click to expand...

Those stories, and that book, is the first thing I thought of when I read your post. I don't remember the authors of Giants on Record citing Weidenreich's work, so perhaps they aren't aware and it would interest them as well. I'll bring it to their attention. But it certainly seems like these giants are more than just myths. I think I remember the Cs saying that the radical difference in size for these giants was due to the difference in gravity on Earth back then. I wonder what else a drastic change in gravity affects?
 
Laura said:
And "races" is a loaded term. Both Weidenreich and Sarich use the example of dog breeds for comparison and I think it is pretty apt. Yeah, dog breeds are created by selective breeding done consciously by humans, but social pressures and environmental influences can do the same thing with humans
Click to expand...
I've always thought "races" kept genetically 'pure' (as can be) is a form of socially-constructed incest - albeit watered-down.
 
BlackCartouche said:
I've always thought "races" kept genetically 'pure' (as can be) is a form of socially-constructed incest - albeit watered-down.
Click to expand...

Well, that's one way of putting it. The problem is that the idea of races or "breeds", if you will, may start as a social construct, but it ends as a genetic reality. In some cases, that genetic reality can be tragic as seen with Ashkenazi and the Amish. These aren't the only ones, just the ones that stand out most vividly.

But, in more general terms, it seems that when groups form, they can exclude all but a small amount of genetic inflow and genetic drift quickly takes over and they all become somewhat homogeneous. Over time, this can pretty much eliminate genetic variety except for mutations which may be bad or good.

But even in such groups, there are still "types" and so forth. Reading Reich's book on this topic, where he talks about the varna and jati systems of "class" or caste or grouping. Some of these groups have been keeping their genes for thousands of years!!! It is justified by religion, and that is also the case with Ashkenazi and Amish, so one might think it could also be the case with older group formations. What geneticists see in such cases is something that looks like a bottleneck, though it may not have been externally imposed by population diminution, but by ideological constraints. A group might enforce endogamy and exclude mixing with other groups for religious/ideological reasons.

So, after awhile, they become "pure" so to say. But pure in the same sense that a dog breed is pure: it has been repeatedly selected for certain traits, and thus, after so many generations, the unwanted traits have been pretty much genetically excluded and you have a "purebred" dog, horse, cat, whatever.

Now, what IS interesting about this is that animal breeders select not only for behavioral traits, but also for appearance and the two seem to go together somewhat. So if a human group isolates itself this way, character traits may indeed become dominant along with some physical characteristics and presto: races.

Theoretically, if such a process persisted for long enough, the isolated group could speciate and become unable to interbreed with any of the old populations from which it was derived.

This has not happened to human races which is one of the strongest indicators that none of them are "pure" nor have they existed for so great a time in any kind of isolation. There has been continuous gene flow across all of these religious and ideological boundaries from the beginning.
 
Hello Laura,

I was searching the web to see if anyone ever discusses my book in any serious sense and came across your forum thread. Firstly, thank you for this analysis and recommendation of my work, secondly my appreciation for your own research over the years into the global situation and the evilarchy that is determined to turn it into a living hell. I would be honoured to share any useful insights I might have and answer any questions from your forum members that arise from the book or related subjects.

Prof Chris Stringer is a highly intelligent and eloquent scientist, but make no mistake he is also a major gatekeeper for the Recent Out of Africa consensus elite, I have more respect for Milford H. Wolpoff, Alan Thorne and Xinzhi Wu of the multiregional camp and of course the authors of The Monkey Puzzle. However, none of these people recognises the existing evidence that ends recent out of Africa - I would highlight here the extensive work of Robert G. Bednarik, I only really looked at him after the book was complete but he takes chunks out of the mainstream views.

Just to be clear, I am an occultist that takes a great interest in human origins and other big subjects, I am not pretending to be a PhD palaeoanthropologist and it is clear to readers that I do not have the classical education which would have helped bulk out the book with additional explanations and a greater range of academic terminology. I very much appreciate the support shown by members of this forum and am happy to pay that back by being of some use here.

P.s. We have many subjects of interest in common.

Kindest thanks

Bruce R. Fenton
 
Hello Bruce! Nice to meet you! Your book sure gave me a turn and jump started a whole research/thinking process!

Starting yesterday, I'm reading "Other Origins: The search for the Giant Ape in Human Prehistory" by Ciochon, Olsen and James. I'll look directly for some material by the authors you have suggested.

I agree that Stringer is pretty much a gatekeeper - he has to be to keep his job I guess - but I keep going back to that one small admission he made at the end:

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.
Click to expand...

He didn't go far enough though he did highlight the issues of demography, drift and cultural selection which were emphasized by Wolpoff and Caspari and Weidenreich. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out what those three influences can do once one has a grasp of how genes work.

Reich does provide that handy chart on p 12 of his book showing how some ancestral DNA can be eliminated completely from a person's genome, that is, the percentage of the ancestors back to given generations have contributed to a person's make-up; it starts getting iffy at 7 generations and declines exponentially from there. So how they ever came up with that Eve nonsense I'll never understand. (But hindsight is 20/20.)

It seems clear to me that a lot of ancient stuff was going on all over the planet a long ways back - much longer than mainstream allows - but that it also must have taken forms that we might not expect. Humans - such as they were - must have looked very different.

Some years ago I read Mellars' lengthy tome on stone-age tool industries; you have to be nuts to read a book like that, but I did. What boggled my mind was the claim that Neanderthals made such and such kinds of tools for something like 100K years with almost no change in the technology. But, of course, that tech was pretty impressive if you've ever tried to knap stones! It struck me that it's sort of like the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Do we really know what ELSE they (and other early peoples) were doing since very little survives time and planetary processes? Maybe what they were doing with stones was just a small aspect of their reality and stayed the same for all that time because it worked for what it was supposed to do?

There seem to be a lot of clues in Cremo's book and I'll get back to reviewing it again soon; I want to get all the stuff that mainstream and off-to-the side mainstream are saying right now. At some point, if I live that long, I'll start assembling the data, point, counterpoint, and see if I can make sense of it. Right now, it's just in my head and in the notes I write here on the forum.

I had to laugh recently when some mainstream climate scientists came up with the idea of ancient civilizations causing "global warming" way in the past just to bolster their own case of human caused global warming. I mean, what else were they going to do with the evidence that the Earth - and the solar system - go through cyclical changes of all sorts, including cosmic catastrophes. Can't admit that so have to cook up ancient civilizations causing global warming! What a hoot!

You mention Alan Thorne and Xinzhi Wu, any direct references to books or papers? I found several books by Bednarik and ordered one that was less expensive (several of them are right pricey!) So, let's see where we all end up. I'm just looking forward to forum members sharing in the research process by reading these books so that they can be evaluated and discussed.
 
Last edited:
Laura said:
Well, that's one way of putting it. The problem is that the idea of races or "breeds", if you will, may start as a social construct, but it ends as a genetic reality. In some cases, that genetic reality can be tragic as seen with Ashkenazi and the Amish. These aren't the only ones, just the ones that stand out most vividly.

But, in more general terms, it seems that when groups form, they can exclude all but a small amount of genetic inflow and genetic drift quickly takes over and they all become somewhat homogeneous. Over time, this can pretty much eliminate genetic variety except for mutations which may be bad or good.

But even in such groups, there are still "types" and so forth. Reading Reich's book on this topic, where he talks about the varna and jati systems of "class" or caste or grouping. Some of these groups have been keeping their genes for thousands of years!!! It is justified by religion, and that is also the case with Ashkenazi and Amish, so one might think it could also be the case with older group formations. What geneticists see in such cases is something that looks like a bottleneck, though it may not have been externally imposed by population diminution, but by ideological constraints. A group might enforce endogamy and exclude mixing with other groups for religious/ideological reasons.

So, after awhile, they become "pure" so to say. But pure in the same sense that a dog breed is pure: it has been repeatedly selected for certain traits, and thus, after so many generations, the unwanted traits have been pretty much genetically excluded and you have a "purebred" dog, horse, cat, whatever.

Now, what IS interesting about this is that animal breeders select not only for behavioral traits, but also for appearance and the two seem to go together somewhat. So if a human group isolates itself this way, character traits may indeed become dominant along with some physical characteristics and presto: races.

Theoretically, if such a process persisted for long enough, the isolated group could speciate and become unable to interbreed with any of the old populations from which it was derived.

This has not happened to human races which is one of the strongest indicators that none of them are "pure" nor have they existed for so great a time in any kind of isolation. There has been continuous gene flow across all of these religious and ideological boundaries from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Laura! I must say I'm always amazed by your insightful thoughts and in-depth yet easily digestible analysis on... well, everything!

I once hitched a ride with a guy, picking up a pony in Exmoor, involved in horse-breeding. He was telling me in the equine-pedegree world its ok for fathers to mate with daughters, but NOT mothers with sons because the offspring go doolally. No full-blood siblings either, but, apparently, half-siblings can if they don't stem from same mother(?)...
The gist i got was direct womb-link regards in-breeding is a defo no no. It got me thinking about the Old Testament and Lot and his daughters continuing the progeny, and Abraham and his half-sister Sarah among others. Although post-Law bans all incest, it would seem mother-son incest is considered the worst of all such examples, though such a sinful relationship never explicitly exampled pre-Law (though I'm sure there were).
I think there's something about womb-creativity as fundamentally the most prominent of the STO-expression 'giving' aspect of creation-force through the individuated human mini-cosmos within 3D physicality... Therefore, to actively 'seed' the very cosmos (womb) from whence the very same seed sprang forth - would be the ultimate inversion-perversion life-force 'creativity' abomination because of its twisting back in on itself - kind of an expression of STS constriction... I see it like the representation of the snake eating its own tail - and even 4D STS want to avoid that practice when laying down foundations for their 'chosen' whilst establishing their 'order' on planet 3D because its too corrupting tantamount to chaos.

I will need to read Reich's book at some point, but as it stands, I define the ultimate 'purity' of any race to be genetically held to one's own parents and full-blood siblings... with identical twins the purest race of all (to each other). To mate with blood relatives is to be the snake eating its own tail - therefore NOT branching out into the wider gene-code pool ie away from one's own specific ethno-racial genome-pool, is a mild form of STS constriction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom