Science needs true scientists and an anti-bias plug-in against institutionalized bias. And don't ask researchers/professors about things they can't (but usually will) answer.
Reading Peter Klevius is your best anti-bias/anti-PC plug-in.
In a modern world we need to free science from its dark Medieval chambers. However, in doing so we also need to recognize true science and scientists.
Peter Klevius on existence, first in an article titled Demand for Resources(1981) and later unchanged in a tiny book (same size as Wittgenstein's only book) also titled Demand for Resources (1992:23, ISBN 9173288411):
If the basic element of existence is motion, the causality of events constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution can be said to be the consequence of variables in causality over time where the complexity of older structures is enhanced. This development is in apparent conflict with thermodynamics which theoretically leads to so called maximum entropy, i.e. the total equilibrium of energy where time/motion eventually stops. Fatalistically, one could say that evolutionary products, biological and non-biological, are in fact only temporary components of causality on its path towards uniformity. "The pure being and nothing are identical" wrote Hegel while, for example, Buddha on his deathbed 2500 years ago stated: "Perishable are all compound things." According to Buddha, therefore, humans, like things, are soulless (Klevius 1992:23).
Most researchers and scientists have their economy and career tied to institutions and PC - which contribute to them being less reliable than Peter Klevius whose analyses aren't restricted by any of them. Add to this Peter Klevius enourmous brain power and gigantic amount of data* (i.e. aka 'intellect') combined with lacking none of the forementioned biases. What remains is to distinguish Peter Klevius from crackpots and those who get their living from selling conspiracy theories and mysteries. And that's extremely easy precisely because, apart from him lacking financial ties, Peter Klevius' only data consists of what hard working researchers produce on the floor of the science factory. Only problem being that these data are hard to get in time and often hidden behind pay walls - which Peter Klevius interprets as of less or no scientific value.
* 'Collected data' include data "dots" (coordinates) that can be divided into those more or less well suited to be connected to the overall mapping of hypotheses or theories. This means that some data keep hovering over but not landing on the map while others get permission to land and thereby contributing to a meaningful picture on the theory map.
A good scientist needs to be informed, non-biased and high-IQed. A researcher is rarely a scientist and may even possess below average IQ as long as s/he is studious enough and PC. Moreover, no researcher is an "expert" in "her/his field" - at best only in some particulars of that "field". A PhD thesis doesn't produce education in science - only repeats a master thesis in a bigger format directed at an other limited particularity. And it's much easier for simple-minded people to write a PhD thesis, simply because limitation and adherence to offered citation cartels is the path of least institutional resistance. I.e. the dumber your researcher is, the less likely is s/he to cause trouble. Moreover, there's no longer any tool available to test the capability of being a scientist. When the monasteries became universities there was still such a tool although it was mostly limited to the upper classes. So the quality of the students in those universities by far exceeded those of today.
A true scientist like Peter Klevius has a proven high IQ history*, starting in 1980 with strong approval (re. a deeply philosophical and anthropological problem) by G H von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor) which resulted in Peter Klevius first (and so far only paid/published philosophical work 1981, despite the fact that no editor really understood it. And when G H von Wright again approvingly read the book manuscript 1991 he warned that the aphoristic style might be too much for some readers. Peter Klevius therefore addresssed this in a preface without changing anything else, because it's more destructive to lure the reader astray by adding possible "escape routes" in the form of ornamented text that doesn't contribute to more clarity but rather invites personal coloring of the reading.
* Klevius dad was one of Sweden's best chess players over five decades, and Klevius half-sister (who had an ordinay dad) won IBM's IQ test scoring 167. Although Peter Klevius doesn't believe much in IQ tests (see what he wrote about them in Demand for Resources) he has admittedly tried some for fun which usually ended up well beyond 200.
Peter Klevius world leading analyses incl. evolution, "consciousness", sex segregation/heterosexual attraction, most powerful criticism of psychoanalysis, most powerful criticism of the 'social state', and most powerful distinction of core Human Rights - and how religion is more or less defined as ideologies which try to escape Human Rights logic.
And this high pitch boasting by Peter Klevius is much less about him and much more about a gaping hole in institutionalized science. Take for example the silly "out-of-Africa" charlatanism. Yes, 'charlatanism', because such a big mistake would never have been upheld by pure science, but rather through social aspects, i.e. what we use to call PC.
In a world where the Africa myth lived only outside "the main and accepted science" it would be warned by Google etc. as fake science, misinformation, fake news etc..
And to those who dismiss Peter Klevius as a scientist because he's critical of islam. What has "islamophobia" to do with science? Peter Klevius isn't "anti-islamic" - only pro-Human Rights. Should Peter Klevius be blamed for the fact that the world's biggest muslim organization, Saudi based and steered OIC, blatantly violates Human Right in their sharia declaration?!
There's also a naive "wikipedia" charlatanist belief that referring to a researcher or professor equals expertice in science.
Btw, Peter Klevius wonders which country would accept millions of the globally most oppressed people, i.e. natives like "Pygmy" etc. as refugees - if these people were given a chance to migrate from their misery? And to give them affirmative admission to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cambridge, Oxford, Max Planck etc.? Peter Klevius could in no time teach such people to become at least researchers - if not scientists.
In the below and all over Klevius blogs you can still trace his own "out-of-Africa" bias - and how cowardly he hesitated to write down the obvious.
A good scientific theory ought to be able to predict. Peter Klevius theory on human evolution predicts that the "out-of-Africa" charlatanic babblers will feel extremely embarrassed soon. In fact, it may well be that they already feel the need to build excuses. However, even when details may change the foundation of Peter Klevius theory leaves no dribble room whatsoever for Africa.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Peter Klevius simple evolution tutorial for simple minds - e.g. ignorant anthropology professors etc.
Peter Klevius evolution formula, first published as an article 1981 and as a book 1992 (ISBN9173288411) and on the web 2004, 2008, 20010, 2012. Do note that those who didn''t hybridize resulted in the fossile diversity that has puzzled som amny an anthropologist. Also consider that Peter Klevius general evolution formula (first published 1981) covers everything including the fractured oceans(s) that led to diversity after the cambrian explosion and extinction.
Peter Klevius annoying habit of repeating Peter Klevius, and his self citations, isn't a neural defect but has to be evaluated against the very thick wall* between him and Harvard, Stanford etc., which makes his existence almost invisible. Not to mention the enormous moat* concisting of "spiritualists", creationalists, religionists, alienists, conspirationalists etc.
* 'Wall' and 'moat' come from old Swedish words still in use today, i.e. 'vall' and 'mot'. Don't trust fake etymology - trust Peter Klevius who would be extremely embarrassed if he were proven wrong.
Peter Klevius evolution formula (published 1981, 1992): Isolation-fluctuation* and hybridization. There's no difference between the evolution of Universe and the Sun and its surrounding, or the evolution of "life". We lack a coherent definition of "life" and will never get one. However, comfort yourself with Peter Klevius 'existence-centrism' and UN's negative Universal Human Rights.* No dude, there's no "extinction" other than the one you use practically in Wittgenstein's language game. If the dinosaurs haven't disappeared then why would the hominies.
Peter Klevius' appeal for the understanding of the disability concisting of how a super high IQ combined with a flawless hormone/dopamine/serotonine balance* makes him the "extremely normal" whom no one really likes - except for those who know him 100% longterm and have survived their annoyance of own shortcomings mirrored in his disability. So Peter Klevius "bragging" about himself is easily outweighed by his disability - if this fact may comfort you. After all, intelligencephobia is so PC that the only intelligence that is possible, i.e. the individual one, is denied while the oxymoron "group intelligence" is hailed. Peter Klevius + 9 half idiots would have an average IQ as a group - so what?!
* If you get annoyed while reading this, then ask yourself if you would be equally annoyed when reading about the qualities of a sports star, an actor/actress, a singer etc. See my point?
However, unlike you, Peter Klevius also suffers from the ethical dilemma of sitting silent and have peace while clearly understanding he has something to offer. And pretending to be "humble" would only diffuse him into the realm of easily dismissed (from whatever direction at whatever time and subject) opinionaters.
Peter Klevius on cosmology, first in an article (1981) and later unchanged in Demand for Resources (1992:23, ISBN 9173288411):'The basis of existence is motion/change, and causality constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution may be seen as the consequence of causality's variables in time where complexity in existing structures are regenerated. This stands in opposition to thermodynamics which theoretically leads to maximal entropy (i.e. equilibrium) where time/change ultimately would end. Someone might then say that the products of evolution are just temporary components in causality's road towards uniformity.'
(Klevius 1992:23). An example of evolution and devolution is a star cycle ending in a super nova - incl. everything in it.
A lump in a nebula is the "island" on which a star is born.
1. Peter Klevius concept 'existence-centrism' (1992) is the only way to understand and handle the traps for logic that language creates. Existence-centrism is the immutable truth that we can't sidestep. All your (or humankind's) collected experience at every single moment limits what you can say. And as a consequence, metaphysical statements are either impossible or just "meta-metaphysical".
2. The formation of structure not only rests on previous structure but is the very evidence for it.
The evolution of life may be described as based on strong fluctuations (isolation) and weak fluctuations (hybridization).
Speciation needs isolation. After migration hybridization
stops further speciation and explains fossil diversity
as well as existing phenotypes.
Human evolution in retrospective is a repeated chain of
speciation and hybridization.
Different types of life depend on different types of isolation and fluctuation.
Early hominines (before more advanced use of tools) were not specialized to really anything except bi-pedalism, but could do a little and eat a little of almost everything. This made them moving around in a way that excludes isolation other than on islands.
Therefore "part time islands" constitute the best evolutionary labs.
And SE Asia is the perfect cradle which has had a longterm and varied hiatory of island/mainland fluctuations incl. between islands.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Thursday, March 15, 2012
The Red Deer Cave people add more evidence for Klevius’ ape/homo hybridization theory
The irrefutable art track in Northern Eurasia (see map below) has no contemporary equivalent in other parts of the world. Based on what we know now it had no fore bearers whatsoever in any period of time. Moreover, it seems that there was even a decline before "civilizations" started tens of thousands of years later! Yet Klevius seems to be the only one addressing this most interesting (besides genetics) fact! According to Klevius (and no one else so far) the new and more efficient brain evolved in a jungle environment (SE Asia?) and spread up until meeting with big headed Neanderthals hence creating the modern human who later spread and dissolved with archaic homos. In this process Homo erectus was most probably involved as well.
Updated info about the origin of Klevius' theoryKeep in mind that mainland SE Asia possibly harbored physically truly modern humans already before the time range (12,000/18,000 ybp - 98,000 ybp) of the Homo floresiensis remains in the Flores cave.
Liujiang, SE China (est. 100,000-140,000ybp)
If this Liujiang skull had been found in Africa or Mideast Wikipedia and other media would be overfilled. But this is all you get now (summer 2015 update) from Wikipedia about this extremely important skull:
The Liujiang skull probably came from sediment dating to 111 000 to 139 000 which would mean it's older than the oldest Homo floresiensis remains on Flores. Nothing even remotely close to this modern skull has ever been found in Africa, Mideast or Europe this early. In other words, we have the extremely archaic looking Red Deer Cave people 100,000 years after this extremely modern looking Liujiang population at approximately the same region. Even the least probable estimate of 70,000 bp would make Liujiang more modern looking than anything else.
Also compare Lake Mungo remains in Australia with an mtDNA that differs completely from ours (incl. Australian Aborigines). Sadly the remains have been kept out of further research (which fact came handy for those who want to dismiss it) because of stupid* "Aboriginal"(?!) greed (for the purpose of making certain people more "special" than others for no good reason at all (also compare the ridiculous Kennewick man controversy). Does it need to be said that the Mungo remains are as far from Australian Aborigines in appearance as you can imagine. However, according to Alan Thorne, 'Mungo could not have come from Africa as, just like Aboriginal Australians don't look like anybody from Africa, Mungo Man's skeleton doesn't look like anybody from Africa either. LM3 skeleton was of a gracile individual, estimated stature of 196 cm, which all sharply contrast with the morphology of modern "indigenous" Australians. Compared to the older Liujiang skull Mungo man had a much smaller brain.
* There's no way anyone can state who was "first" in Australia - and even if there was, then there's still no way of making any meaningful connection to now living people.
Peter Klevius 1992-2010: From tropical SE-Asia to cold and protein/fat rich North Eurasia to global humans. In Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) Klevius not only set the foundation of the so far best theory on consciousness and how the brain works (see e.g. the "stone" example pp 31-33, or the 1994 EMAH paper that was sent to Francis Crick ), but also connected the big brained 280,000 bp Jinniushan in northern China with the mongoloid features of the oldest Africans - and asked: Why didn't Jinniushan people go to the Moon, after all, they had several iceages time to do so with a brain size exceeding modern humans. In 2004, after the discovery of Homo floresiensis Klevius immediately told the world that here was the "missing brain link". When six years later Denisovan was found, Klevius theory was proven correct in everything except lesser details.
Most "mysteries" in genetics disappear by abandoning OOA and changing direction of HSS evolution. Only South East Asia offered a combination of tropical island/mainland fluctuations needed to put pressure on size reduction paired with evolutionary isolation in an environment where only those survived who managed to shrink their heads while keeping the same intelligence as their mainland kins with some double the sized brain. Homo floresiensis is evidence that such has happened there.
Denisovan is an extinct species of human in the genus Homo. In March 2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the remote Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave which has also been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans. Two teeth and a toe bone belonging to different members of the same population have since been reported.
Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the Denisovan finger bone showed it to be genetically distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and modern humans. Subsequent study of the nuclear genome from this specimen suggests that this group shares a common origin with Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some present-day modern humans, with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians deriving from Denisovans. DNA discovered in Spain suggests that Denisovans at some point resided in Western Europe, where Neanderthals were thought to be the only inhabitants. A comparison with the genome of a Neanderthal from the same cave revealed significant local interbreeding, with local Neanderthal DNA representing 17% of the Denisovan genome, while evidence was also detected of interbreeding with an as yet unidentified ancient human lineage. Similar analysis of a toe bone discovered in 2011 is underway, while analysis of DNA from two teeth found in layers different from the finger bone revealed an unexpected degree of mtDNA divergence among Denisovans. In 2013, mitochondrial DNA from a 400,000-year-old hominin femur bone from Spain, which had been seen as either Neanderthal or Homo heidelbergensis, was found to be closer to Denisovan mtDNA than to Neanderthal mtDNA.
Little is known of the precise anatomical features of the Denisovans, since the only physical remains discovered thus far are the finger bone, two teeth from which genetic material has been gathered and a toe bone. The single finger bone is unusually broad and robust, well outside the variation seen in modern people. Surprisingly, it belonged to a female, indicating that the Denisovans were extremely robust, perhaps similar in build to the Neanderthals. The tooth that has been characterized shares no derived morphological features with Neanderthal or modern humans. An initial morphological characterization of the toe bone led to the suggestion that it may have belonged to a Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid individual, although a critic suggested that the morphology was inconclusive. This toe bone's DNA was analyzed by Pääbo. After looking at the full genome, Pääbo and others confirmed that humans produced hybrids with Denisovans.
Some older finds may or may not belong to the Denisovan line. These includes the skulls from Dali and Maba, and a number of more fragmentary remains from Asia. Asia is not well mapped with regard to human evolution, and the above finds may represent a group of "Asian Neanderthals".
Jinniushan and Floresiensis - the keys to Denisovan and the truly modern humans
Jinniushan had a bigger brain than anything in contemporary Africa
In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:
In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).
Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.
Since 1991 when Klevius wrote his book much new information has been produced. However, it seems that the Jinniushan archaic Homo sapiens still constitutes the most spectacular anomaly (together with Homo floresiensis) in anthropology. So why did Klevius pick Jinniushan instead of one of the more fashionable human remains? After all, Klevius was a big fan of Rchard Leakey (he even interviewed him in a lengthy program for the Finnish YLE broadcasting company) and there was a lot of exciting bones appearing from the Rift Valley.
In the 1980s Klevius paid special attention to Australian aborigines and African "bushmen" and noted that the latter were mongoloid in appearance (even more so considering that todays Khoe-San/Khoisan are heavily mixed with Bantu speakers). But mongoloid features are due to cold adaptation in the north and therefore the "bushmen" had to be related to Eurasia. Klevius soon realized that the Khoisan speakers had moved to the southern Africa quite recently as a consequence of the so called Bantu expansion. More studies indicated that the "bushmen" had previously populated most of east Africa up to the Red Sea and beyond.
So the next step for Klevius was to search for early big skulled human remains in the mongoloid northern part of Eurasia. And that search really paid off.
This happened more than 20 years before the discovery of the Denisova bracelet and the human relative Denisovan in Altai.
Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992) in which these thoughts about mongoloid traits were published also predates Floresiensis with more than a decade.
Peter Brown (world famous for discovering/defending Floresiensis in 2004 and who had big trouble getting his PhD accepted because of a biased supervisor/institution): What makes Dali, as well as Jinniushan (Lu, 1989; Wu, 1988a), particularly important is that both of their facial skeletons are reasonably complete. This is an unusual situation in China as the only other middle Pleistocene hominids to have faces in China are the Yunxian Homo erectus (Li and Etler, 1992), which are both very distorted. Originating in the pioneering research of Weidenreich (1939a, 1939b, 1943) at Zhoukoudian, there has been strong support by Chinese Palaeoanthropologists for evolutionary continuity between Chinese H. erectus and modern humans in China. It has been argued that this is most clearly expressed in the architecture of the facial skeleton (Wolpoff et al., 1984). East Asian traits have been argued to include lack of anterior facial projection, angulation in the zygomatic process of the maxilla and anterior orientation of the frontal process, pronounced frontal orientation of the malar faces, and facial flatness. While some of these traits may occur at high frequency in modern East Asians (cf Lahr, 1996) they are not present in late Pleistocene East Asians, for instance Upper Cave 101 and Liujiang (Brown, 1999), or more apparent in Dali and Jinniushan than archaic H. sapiens from Africa or Europe. Recently there has been a tendency to link a group of Chinese hominin fossils, including Dali, Maba, Xujiayao, and Jinniushan, previously considered by some researchers to be "archaic Homo sapiens", with the Denisovians (Reich et al. 2010; Martinón-Torres et al. 2011) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html). However, apart from a few teeth, the Denisovians are only known from palaeo DNA. There is also a great deal of anatomical variation in the Chinese "archaic Homo sapiens" group. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next decade, or so.
Klevius: It turns the conventional anthropological map on its head!
Peter Klevius wrote: